Have already begun talking!

Do it!

Coming in very late to this, but I am very sorry about your mom's news, Dana.

If talking to someone who has gone through it would help her, please feel free to email me. I know Ginger helped me a lot.

Also/separately, I am on vacation.

YAY

Hi, you've reached the Buffista Care Portal. How can we bring you a moment of ease today? Please select from one of the options, or type your request in full in the chat box of the portal application:

• Sympathy
• Empathy
• Information
• Distraction
• Debate
• Porn
• Pop culture
• Baby animals

Thanks for stopping by--the Buffista Care Portal is always open for your and your needs. Come back and see us any time.

We were driving on Mullholland Dr and didn't feel the earthquake at all. oh well.

I just used Wordnik as a reference for something I saw in a BBC documentary. I feel very smart. They were quoting a newspaper from 1783 that was talking about forehorses, which I had never heard of, so I Googled it and Wordnik came up as the top option. (It's the horse that goes first in a team.)

I have set up wo as a search for Wordnik. It's my default definition source.

I'm about to fall over with sleep, but I fear I'll need to change Provocateuse a bit. When it was one or two themes, it was okay the organise them this way. In fact, it was quite a while before I put the links at the bottom so you could get from your entry point to the Christian Bale's barefeet pictures from the one of him with a beard.

How to organise (back or front) a site where the use case isn't "I need a good picture of that one singer's feet" or isn't just that, but includes being driven primarily by the celeb. So the fetish people can still get their feet on, but you or I could go to a Dwayne Johnson portal.

But how do I organise? I suspect there will be expanding and closing sections of the page, which I don't know how to do, and maybe have icons or something so you can tell what treats lie in place, of a float over with sample pics...SHIT, ita !

I think manipulative, to me, requires some sort of deviousness and evil master plannery. At least this control freak is straight up about their intentions and needs and wants. Manipulative would imply, to me, making you do what they want without you realizing it. Saying "jump" and expecting you to ask "how high" is pretty cut and dry.

I suppose there are control freaks who don't do much exercise control, but I'd call them more...control enthusiasts. Once the word "freak" shows up, we've biased negatively. There are ways to be manipulative, IMO, without being evil or devious. You just played a better game of people chess. But still, positing a control freak use a large number of techniques that are useful when controlling doesn't strike me as a large or damaging leap.

Since I'm not generalizing, I can say this person is controlling, to a point of unhealthy freakiness, and there's no wiles to it. It's a negative trait, for both me, others, and herself, but she's not Machiavellian about it. Worse, she's aware of it, says she wants to control things, and gets bitter and resentful when it's taken out of her hands, and is upfront as to why she's bitter and resentful. I wish she was good at people chess, because then she wouldn't have disregarded my advice to let things be for the week and wouldn't have stalked out in tears. And if the crying was supposed to be manipulative, she failed, because we were all "that sucks, but she did help create 75% of the situation as it ended up being. We like and value you, but please stop shooting yourself in the foot".