Cor, that Not!Buyer is pathetic. A pox on her. An itchy one.

Good luck, Theo. You'll ace it.

Happy birthday, Glam!

Emmett's off at Great America today as part of a school outing. All the 8th graders go after they finish their iSearch projects. It's his first time on a roller coaster.

I told him (repeatedly) to not eat so much junk food that he puked or got the trots. You'd think I wouldn't have to say this more than once, and yet my experience with him over the years has not indicated he has any more sense about what he puts in his mouth than a hungry Rottweiler.

But that's mutual, and not disrespectful.

Sure – but before it can be mutual, one person has to start it, and the other person has to not take it personally. You don’t know for sure till you try.

A: “I really liked X, have you seen it?”
B: "I only saw enough to determine that it was terrible, sorry."

If A responds by laughing or being faux-outraged, coolness. If A is insulted or genuinely outraged, badness.

I love making up fake science facts, so this blog is right up my alley: Fake Science

This made me LOL: What makes a volcano explode?

but before it can be mutual, one person has to start it, and the other person has to not take it personally

There are ways to dislike stuff and there are ways to be disrespectful. That's the line I'm drawing. If you think SPN is crap--that's one thing. If you think SPN is idiot-fodder or that everyone who likes it is crazy, that's another thing, and will probably make for a shorter meal.

I'm glad I bought a Matrix and not a Sienna now: [link]

Corwood, that sucks. I hope your wishes on the asshat come true.

ita, I agree. But misunderstandings do occur, so there's still a risk. There are people who interpret "I think SPN is crap" as meaning "SPN fans are idiots." For the trash-talking scenario to work, both people have to draw that line and understand that it's not personal.

Egad, Corwood. Flakes belong in cereal.

The Moral Life of Babies

Not long ago, a team of researchers watched a 1-year-old boy take justice into his own hands. The boy had just seen a puppet show in which one puppet played with a ball while interacting with two other puppets. The center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the right, who would pass it back. And the center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the left . . . who would run away with it. Then the two puppets on the ends were brought down from the stage and set before the toddler. Each was placed next to a pile of treats. At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head.

Ii am so sorry, Corwood!

I clicked with the DH at first meeting, in terms of really liking his conversation and wanting to get to know him better. I believe in the click of speaking with someone and recognizing a kindred spirit--which for me is similar with friends and lovers. I don't believe in the eyes meeting and there being instant love. Those moments are about sexual attraction and 99% of the time, the attraction goes away when you actually speak to the person. Sometimes, that spark of attraction is matched by the click of recognition and you get a wonderful pairing like Liese and her SO, but to expect that the only way love can grow is to have that instant spark really limits the field.

In terms of expectations--my dad found it hilarious that I made three ironclad "dealbreakers" after my divorce and that the DH broke all of them. He smoked like a chimney, he was an avid sports fan and he was just getting out of a marriage. What can you do? He quit smoking, I learned to like baseball and the third didn't matter.