mishalak: Mishalak with short hair wearing a blue shirt and looking upwards. (Blue)
I'm having a bit of a laugh at this guy on a dating website. I was just being friendly because I saw that he checked out my profile and he happened to be in New Mexico, where I'm going to a convention next week. So I sent him a message being friendly and saying if he happened to be going we should meet up.

He came back with this:
"I'm not sure I see what basis we would have for meeting,
though Freud did say that sometimes the unconscious knows best....
So I'm not saying no....

On my profile you'll find a link to a pre-dating quiz
which I put a lot of stock in."
I gently corrected his misapprehension about my intentions. So he writes back:
I don't get involved with inexperienced people who jerk me around.
I had to laugh because otherwise I'd have to pity him. What the hell? I cannot imagine he gets hit on terribly much, he's not exactly a great beauty and his profile is nothing special. I made the mistake of thinking there would be a chance he'd be going to Bubonicon because he talks so much about his computer programing instead of looking for stronger indicators. I don't think I'd date him even if he lived in Denver much less living hundreds of miles away in Santa Fe because he's verging on too old for me at 42 and he appeared to be somewhat conservative as gays go. But I'm always open to making new friends and until I wrote to him I thought he might be an otherwise worthwhile guy.

So this goes in the department of laughing at, not with. He's going to die alone and he probably won't ever figure out why.
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Default)
In a recent screed (that I feel no need to reply to or tear apart in full) John C. Wright has a line that I think may need explanation for people with the good fortune to have not taken an old school class in Catholic theology. "Uncle Screwtape reminds me the any form of sex that is sterile and selfish wins the approval of the Lowerarchy."

Today Catholics, alongside the Amish and a few dissenting evangelicals, are among the few holdouts in a world that has come to accept contraception or never had anything against it. At the time The Screwtape Letters, a group of essays on Christian apologetics with a fictional framing device, were written by C.S. Lewis this was not at all the case. The Anglican Church had only recently allowed contraception and there was still a great deal of older thinking that sex, even between a married couple, was only acceptable if there were the possibility of procreation attached to it.

All this happened in Christianity due to Genesis 38:6-10.
Judah got a wife for Er, his first-born; her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's first born, was displeasing to the Lord and the Lord took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, "Join with your brother's wife and do your duty by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother." But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste whenever he joined with his brother's wife, so as not to provide offspring for his brother. What he did was displeasing to the Lord, and He took his life also.
The original, correct, interpretation of this passage was that Onan refused his duty and the Jewish God punished him for it. Problem was that eventually levirate marriage, the marriage of a brother to a dead man's wife with the intention of producing a male heir, fell out of practice due to unpopularity. But this left the theologians with a problem, their God can never be wrong! And they've already defined their holy book as perfect!! So there must be some other sin here that god is punishing!!!

Christians ended up interpreting this as forbidding any sexual act not intended for procreation. There have been more or less rigid interpretations, but it was always the same. For eighteen centuries the theology was clearly on the side of no masturbation, no coitus interruptus (pulling out just before ejaculation to reduce the possibility of children), no oral sex, no sexual toys, and no homosexual sex. And when someone came along and invented a primitive condom that was forbidden too. Fellatio was especially forbidden because of the primitive view of women being just a sort of hollow in which to plant a seed elevating semen to containing little tiny fetuses, making its consumption cannibalism.

Now just to be totally clear the current Catholic position is that sex does not have to result in a child. It just has to have that possibility. So the hugely imperfect rhythm method of contraception is acceptable, but a little bit of rubber is not. Apparently they have too low a rate of failure, though of course the Catholic Church is happy to argue that they're too imperfect when it comes to preventing the sexual transmission of diseases. Ah, what a piece of work is a man.

Which brings us back to John C. Wright, the screed writer, who has three children. Just three and apparently no more on the way even though he converted to Catholicism in 2008. Catholics, I remind you, still equate contraception as being a sin just like homosexuality just like in those old screwtape letters unlike all the other sects that have decided to join the 20th Century if not the 21st. So John C. Wright, just what kind of hypocrite are you?
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason with the text, "No, I think I'm happier mocking you than helping." (Mocks You)
And now I'm journaling about it because if you don't have anything nice to say, there is always "the internets" where no one cares if you're right or wrong, because everyone is just here to vent or find a boyfriend. Which is to say that is review isn't by Mishalak, it is by Snarky D. Sprite, enemy of literature. Right onto something like a review.

Redwall is the literary equivalent of a precious moments figurine. It is a little sad, but the cutely human animals mostly only die if they're very bad ones indeed. And, of course, to show how bady, bad Cluny the Scourge and the other bad guy types are they threaten a lot of them with death and even kill three of the the good guys on screen. The book is less classist (I'm sure I cannot have coined that word) than The Wind in the Willows, but it lacks something. Perhaps it lacks me reading it a golden light when I was about 12 or it is a little too self aware. I'd have to read it again (not something I want to do any time soon unless I need to put myself to sleep), but I think there might be a bit more animal quality to the characters of The Wind in the Willows. In Redwall the animals all seem to be furry christians with special abilities like being proficient climbers or very fast runners.

What did I love about this book? Well... it was fun to see the repeated bad ends that the horde of evil ones come to either at each other's hands or the fearsome snake. And the fact that after one last VERY meaningful death scene the thing is over.

This is not the worst furry fan novel I've ever read. If only it were. But there is no sex, only a bit of violence, and so it could be a suitable present in large type for someone's Grandmother. One who covers everything in doilies, not the one who was an adventurous soul who grew up just in time to avoid leaving a young and pretty corpse and mother some children. And as harshly as I've treated this work here it really is quite hard, because it isn't outright disastrously terrible or so bad it is funny. It is just sort of... inoffensively cute. I'd rather have some faeries who bite people's hands, thank you very much.

Two Words: Precious Yawn
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Default)
Of the season I mock those people over at American Family Association. The poll linked here is now running very severely against them. When I just looked it was 2 to 1 against them, ha!

Opposed 32.53% (195955 votes)
Homosexual marriage 59.19% (356486 votes)
Civil unions 8.28% (49862 votes)


Dec. 19th, 2003 06:56 am
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Default)
As of 7am MST we're ahead of the bastards!

The votes:
Opposed 46.00% (134883 votes)

Homosexual marriage 46.42% (136110 votes)

Civil unions 7.57% (22210 votes)

The poll keeps on improving:
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (blondie)
[livejournal.com profile] gaudior a person I like to read has pointed out that the "American Family Association" is hosting a poll on same-sex marriage, the results of which they intend to send to congress. They are, of course as indicated by my scare quotes, a Christian fundamentalist organization. Now being that this is an internet poll it is going to be rather biased (no duh), but I'm amused enough to vote using a email address I intend to throw away eventually. According to one of [livejournal.com profile] homasse the percentage against gay marriage is going steadily downward.
Check the current percentage. When the queers got wind of this it was at 90%. When I voted it was at 84%. It's now down to 83%.

Now that's voter action. <laugh>

Update: 3:15pm MST
Opposed 79.36% (107799 votes)
In favor homosexual marriage 17.02% (23120 votes)
In favor a "civil union" 3.62% (4920 votes)
(I think they might be having server problems as I have not always been able to pull up the page when I go to look. Cooooool.)
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Default)
If he flakes on me again I'm going to use the "Let's be friends" line. I have never done this before, but by gosh I am beginning to suspect that he is lying to me. One more broken date and D____ will not get a fourth chance at a date.

The last time he said that his grandmother died that day. Today I called him and he says he has to go to Las Vegas for his job tomorrow. These could both be perfectly true, but I have a nasty suspicious mind.

Oh in related announcement news stuff, anyone want a free meal with me on my company's dime? Tomorrow at 6pm. If no one accepts I think I might have to bag on it because I hate going to things without someone interesting to talk to.
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Default)
I swear. I mean look that the wording of some of these things.

“An opportunity is never lost. It’s just found by someone else."

"Service is the lifeblood of any organization. Everything flows from it and is nourished by it. Customer service is not a department...it's an attitude."

"Go over, go under, go around, or go through. But never give up."

"There are two ways of meeting difficulties. You alter the difficulties or you alter yourself to meet them."

Pair these up with some goth pictures and you have the office décor of W&H.

When I'm feeling snarky at work I make up new ones in my head. "Leadership: To lead is to inspire your followers to wade through oceans of blood to achieve your vision."

"Prophesy: Just because it is written doesn't mean that it has to come true in the most obvious way."
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Snark)
First Draft
A Reply to The Modern Drunkard 86 Rules of Boozing

1. Thou shall always have at least one glass of water (or other non alcoholic beverage) with something to drink, if not also something to eat. If the Russians or anyone else thinks this is wimpy, screw 'em. The goal is to have fun, not a contest to see who can have the worst hangover in the morning.

2. Drink what you like. If everyone else is having beer but you want a something fruity with an umbrella, order it! If you avoid drinking what you like because someone is going to tease you for ordering a "girly" drink you need to get some confidence and some better friends.

3. Tip, but don't tip extravagantly. Nothing says pathetic loser like throwing away money in trying to impress the bartender. Also tips are for good service, if the bartender is surly, mixes poorly, or treats you as sub human 'e doesn't deserve a tip. And in that case why the hell are we drinking here anyway?

4. If you try to pay me back money you owe me in beer you will die or wish you had. If you take my alcohol without permission you will die or feel like you did.

5. Buying someone a drink is cool, but it is uncool to expect that drink to pay for an evening of sex or a phone number.

6. Real friends do not challenge friends to chug anything. It's boorish and again this is about having fun, not a contest for quickest to be three sheets to the wind. If he wants to sip a shot, that's his own business. If you have a problem with this, get a life.

7. Never cook with wine you would not drink.

8. If a party is BYOB don't bring off brand down market junk and drink the high quality stuff someone else brought unless they offer some to you.

9. If a party is in a home, don't go into the bedrooms unless the doors are open or you have been specifically told to go into one by the resident. It is not okay to go around "just checking things out".

10. Don't complain endlessly about the bar/party/pub while hanging out there. If you don't like the situation just leave all ready.

11. It's only okay to drink alone if it is one glass with dinner.

12. A round of drinks for friends is a gift around anyone with sense. It should not be expected that everyone else in the group buy a round, this is the bloody well 21st century, not the 17th. And once more going out for drink is about having fun, not about getting falling down shit faced.

13. Someone being drunk is not an invitation to do nasty things to 'em. Be kind. In fact the poor drunk might deserve it, but still don't. May your luck always keep you from what you deserve and not giving it to someone else helps with that.
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Snark)
"Oh yes, oh yes! Effing fantastic, yes!" <pant> <pant>

Snark: "Watching Angel Mish?"

"Wow. I think I need a cigarette. 'Blondie Bear!' <laugh> I have something to live for next week."

Snark: "Oh pleazee."
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Snark)
Okay, I'm about to rant. This won't make any sense so I'm putting it behind a nice livejournal cut.

Interview With Deputy Minister of Invective, Snarky D. Cepright )

We now return you to the usual insanity. Though as always, "Questions? Comments?"
mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Snark)
To protect a fool from his own idiocy I don't use the names in this true account. No need for me to be excessively cruel.

So I'm talking to this guy on gay.com a few nights ago, and I'm a little bit interested. Send him an email like he asks and he comes back with all these demands to see pictures write this and that get a phone number, etc.. I figure it doesn't lose me anything to send him another email, as long as I don't give too much away, after all there are dangerous sorts about on the internet. And I'm a man with a twisty suspicious mind.

So what I send him is mostly true. I even include a picture. He gets upset that I didn't carry out his demands to the letter, sends his demands again. I roll my eyes a bit and tell him "Thank you for your time, but given your response I doubt we would get along very well." A fairly polite brush off. Tonight he replies with, "lol... well, I'd guess that someone who can't follow the simplest of directions, you're probably right. I don't know how I could possibly make the application easier.."

Point of fact, his directions were anything but clear. I know a thing or two about writing clear directions, I have to do it rather frequently. But I'm going to let it drop because I've no need to hit the tar baby, but by thunder I'm so tempted to give him a piece of my wit and a nickel to go buy a clue. "And what, your attempt at an insult is supposed to make me sorry I didn't hook up with your sorry ass? You sound abusive, manipulative, and excessively demanding. And not only that the fact that you give nothing more of yourself before demanding I tell you everything of me has me wondering if that picture you use is even you." Plus I would add in a few more observations on lack of character despite being older than myself. I have the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone, and I've got more sense than him.

Pitty the man who tries to take advantage of the Food Thief, the Mercurial Madman, the one and only Mishalak. <evil laugh> Now I'm really tempted to jerk his chain about a bit. I've got to talk myself out of it, not nice to be nasty to the less gifted. Plus I probably shouldn't have even given him a chance, the moment I saw the demands I should have just ignored him, but hey, it got me a nice mocking entry to write. So I'm happy.

Oh and if you go to see Pirates of the Caribbean you'll be wanting to stay through the credits. Oh and I review it as good B movie fun in the tradition of Sleepy Hollow, lots of action and a classic over the top plot. Not bad at all.

And the reason I went to it was Paul Domes was the only one to show for the movie night and he preferred it to League.


mishalak: A fantasy version of myself drawn by Sue Mason (Default)

January 2016

34567 89


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags