As many of you (at least those of my readers who are in Utah), this past weekend was the LDS Church's General Conference. Conference is generally something that doesn't have much effect on me. I avoid trying to drive or eat at restaurants down-town and that's about the extent of my involvement. Like with all things to do with religion, I say to each his own. Live and let live.
This year the speech made by President Boyd K. Packer raised a lot of hackles. I'm friends with a lot of queers and consider myself part of the LGBT community. Not because I am LGB or T (although I have been declared an honorary gay boy for pride) but because I support their cause and believe that gender and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.
The press statement released by the Human Rights Campaign in response to Packer's speech popped up on my facebook several times this morning. I read it, and a few other articles (mentioned below), and then reposted it.
My friend Jeremy posted a reply with a link to this blog post which is, as he put it, "a good response to many of these allegations." I feel like at this point I should tell you that I greatly respect Jeremy's opinions. We don't agree on many issues (mostly involving politics and religion), but that's ok. He is an intelligent person and does his best to be well informed. As do I.
Anyway, you should read both things I linked to up there. Go on. I'll wait. The rest of this post is my response to them so if you don't read them you could probably stop reading now.
Connor Boyack makes some valid points, but his blog tips a little toward hypocrisy. I don't want to get into that. Hypocrisy is almost impossible to avoid in a heated issue like this. Boyack does make some valid points.
The HRC is certainly not an unbiased source, and a lot of their rhetoric is exaggerative in order to make a point and stir people to action. It's also probably true that most people who support HRC and LGBT causes will probably not read any further into the issue. That is a damned shame. People really should be willing to explore multiple sources for information and to look at both sides before they firmly come down on one side or the other. They don't. And that is how we get ignorant and uninformed people on both sides of an issue.
After reading the link Jeremy posted, I followed the link from that blog and listened to Packer's speech. I also read through "The Family: a Proclamation to the World" which plays a significant role in what Packer said. I've also read the article in the Salt Lake Tribune, the article in the Herald Journal and another blog, written by a member of the LDS church. I feel like I'm well informed enough to make an informed statement.
HRC has two, very important points. Packer's words are dangerous and, at times, inaccurate.
Inaccurate because same-sex attraction is not unnatural and it cannot be cured. People cannot help who they are attracted to.
Dangerous because what he said does effect the way the church members consider LGBT people. It is probably most dangerous to members of the LDS church who are gay. It creates a hostile environment for them in exactly the places they most need support. Being gay is hard enough without your community telling you it is unnatural and impure.
Moreover, there are people who will take Packer's words and will twist them to justify the kind of bullying and homophobic behavior that lead to the recent suicides. Yes, I know Packer didn't condone that sort of behavior in anyway. Yes, it's possible to twist anything to justify anything else if we try hard enough. But Packer is a very influential spiritual leader and his speech was pretty clearly anti-homosexual. A person in his position must be extra careful of what seeds he plants in his community. How hard would it have been for him to plant ideas of tolerance and openness? How hard would it be to spread a message of love and acceptance of all our fellow human beings?
Showing posts with label teh news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teh news. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Criminal Trespass
This is pretty much why I often get frustrated with my dear home state of Utah. The church politics are so often completely absurd. The hypocrisy an intolerance that comes out of my state's dominant religion is incredible. It's so ridiculous that you just have to laugh about it.
I am in no way saying that all mormons are hypocritical idiots. Most of them, actually, are absolutely not. It's just "The Church" - the masses of people who run this state with a strong bias toward their personal faith. Individually I'm sure most of these people are fine. I bet most of them are actually able to think logically occasionally too. But the shenanigans that The Curch gets up to in this town are nuts!
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Nailed 'Em - Mormon Church Trespassing | ||||
| ||||
I am in no way saying that all mormons are hypocritical idiots. Most of them, actually, are absolutely not. It's just "The Church" - the masses of people who run this state with a strong bias toward their personal faith. Individually I'm sure most of these people are fine. I bet most of them are actually able to think logically occasionally too. But the shenanigans that The Curch gets up to in this town are nuts!
And then people here complain about Utah Mormons have a bad reputation for being back-woods, idiot, ultra-conservative, morons. There is a reason for that.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
R. I. P.
In case you haven't heard yet, Arthur C. Clarke has died. The guy was 90, and lived a good, long life.
I honestly don't spend a lot of time reading science fiction, but I have read a few of his books. It's a shame to loose such an author. So take a moment out of your day to reflect on this loss.
Here's a scene from 2001: Space Odyssey. If you haven't read the book, you probably should.
I honestly don't spend a lot of time reading science fiction, but I have read a few of his books. It's a shame to loose such an author. So take a moment out of your day to reflect on this loss.
Here's a scene from 2001: Space Odyssey. If you haven't read the book, you probably should.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Happy Irish Day!
Huzzah for St Patrick! But first....
I'm sure many of you have heard that the "Spam King" has plead guilty to a bunch of charges. The story itself is not that interesting, until they get to the part where he's broke. So he has to pay restitution somehow. Instead of money he has to pay with stuff. This is the best part:
Among the assets Soloway agrees might be subject to forfeiture are 24 pairs of sunglasses worth $3,724*
That made me laugh. Those of you who know me, or at least have seen my room, might know why. A normal person might think, upon reading that, "who in their right mind would have that many sunglasses?"
I thought "really? only 24?"
Actually, I only have 21. I had 27, but got rid of several pairs when I moved. After all, 27 pairs of sunglasses, that's a little excessive. You don't believe me? Hold on, let me grab my camera.
Yes, those really are all mine. If you don't believe me, look closer. You can see my reflection in a few of the lenses. I'm pretty sure they are not worth anywhere near $3,724 - With one exception, I haven't paid more than $15 for any of them. The exception is the pair I have for biking, that cost me $30.
Now back to St Patty's Day. Wear green! Get drunk! Rid your country of snakes! Find gold at the ends of rainbows! Beware leprechauns, they're tricky little devils. Cheers mate!
*from Seattle Pi, which was the first result I got when I asked google about it. I heard the story, and about the sunglasses, this morning on NPR.
I'm sure many of you have heard that the "Spam King" has plead guilty to a bunch of charges. The story itself is not that interesting, until they get to the part where he's broke. So he has to pay restitution somehow. Instead of money he has to pay with stuff. This is the best part:
Among the assets Soloway agrees might be subject to forfeiture are 24 pairs of sunglasses worth $3,724*
That made me laugh. Those of you who know me, or at least have seen my room, might know why. A normal person might think, upon reading that, "who in their right mind would have that many sunglasses?"
I thought "really? only 24?"
Actually, I only have 21. I had 27, but got rid of several pairs when I moved. After all, 27 pairs of sunglasses, that's a little excessive. You don't believe me? Hold on, let me grab my camera.
Yes, those really are all mine. If you don't believe me, look closer. You can see my reflection in a few of the lenses. I'm pretty sure they are not worth anywhere near $3,724 - With one exception, I haven't paid more than $15 for any of them. The exception is the pair I have for biking, that cost me $30.
Now back to St Patty's Day. Wear green! Get drunk! Rid your country of snakes! Find gold at the ends of rainbows! Beware leprechauns, they're tricky little devils. Cheers mate!
*from Seattle Pi, which was the first result I got when I asked google about it. I heard the story, and about the sunglasses, this morning on NPR.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Trees vs Solar Power
This morning while I was getting ready for work I heard an interesting story on NPR. Basically, in California somewhere, some guy asked his neighbor to cut down his trees because they were shading the solar panels in his back yard.
What's really wonderful is that there is a law in CA that says the neighbor with the trees has to do it.
Apparently, solar-guy put his panels in after tree-guy had planted 5 redwood trees in his yard. Most of solar-guy's panels are high enough that they aren't really affected by the trees, but there are some in his yard that are shaded now that the trees are 30 some-odd feet tall. But legally tree-guy has to cut down two of his trees.
Something about the whole situation has me scratching my head. It's not the law that Cali has, though it is kind of odd. If you are setting up your home to run on solar energy, you're obviously concerned about the environment, right? So... last time I checked trees were good for the planet. Not only good, but kind of important for the whole producing oxygen and reducing greenhouse gasses thing. Unless you're doing solar because you're a tight-wad and don't want to pay for your power anymore, forcing your neighbor to cut down his trees is just a little contradictory.
What's really wonderful is that there is a law in CA that says the neighbor with the trees has to do it.
Apparently, solar-guy put his panels in after tree-guy had planted 5 redwood trees in his yard. Most of solar-guy's panels are high enough that they aren't really affected by the trees, but there are some in his yard that are shaded now that the trees are 30 some-odd feet tall. But legally tree-guy has to cut down two of his trees.
Something about the whole situation has me scratching my head. It's not the law that Cali has, though it is kind of odd. If you are setting up your home to run on solar energy, you're obviously concerned about the environment, right? So... last time I checked trees were good for the planet. Not only good, but kind of important for the whole producing oxygen and reducing greenhouse gasses thing. Unless you're doing solar because you're a tight-wad and don't want to pay for your power anymore, forcing your neighbor to cut down his trees is just a little contradictory.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Heartbreaking Tale of Unspeakable Woe
I was sort of half listening to Talk of the Nation on my way back to work from lunch this afternoon when I heard this:
A new poll shows that book sales are flat and that one quarter of Americans don't read books at all.
This makes me so very sad, but it doesn't really surprise me. I read an exorbitant amount, I know. It's possible that I read more than all my friends, but I've never really paid much attention. Reading is not a competetive sort of sport. Several of my friends are certainly avid readers; a book geek like me can't survive without a few other book geeks in their life. I also have many friends who never read, or who have been reading the same book for years (meaning they pick it up every few months and read a chapter or two). Other friends never read fiction at all, and while I am glad they are getting their noses into books, I feel like they are really missing out by sticking to biographies, essays and text books.
There is something truly amazing about reading a good novel. There is nothing quite like picking up a book, cracking open the cover, and then losing yourself in a world completely unlike your own. I sometimes get a little too into the book I'm reading, actually. I'll take on certain characteristics of the protagonist, or pick up mannerisms from the characters. I also find myself relating things in life to "a book I read once" several times a day. I tend not to mention it to the people I'm with though because it makes me sound even geekier than I already do.
Not only are the people who don't read missing out on a truly wonderful experience, but they are contributing to the general downfall of out nation's intelligence. Reading does wonders for a persons ability to express ideas, thoughts and feelings. It opens your mind to situations you might have never thought of and experiences you otherwise would never have. I know that Americans have tragically short attention spans these days too and I wouldn't be shocked if reading helped lengthen those as well. It makes sense- it takes much longer to read a story than it does to watch the same story on TV. Especially if said story is well written and detail-rich.
In the words of Jane Austen: The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid
Now, excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall for the illiteracy of my nation.
A new poll shows that book sales are flat and that one quarter of Americans don't read books at all.
This makes me so very sad, but it doesn't really surprise me. I read an exorbitant amount, I know. It's possible that I read more than all my friends, but I've never really paid much attention. Reading is not a competetive sort of sport. Several of my friends are certainly avid readers; a book geek like me can't survive without a few other book geeks in their life. I also have many friends who never read, or who have been reading the same book for years (meaning they pick it up every few months and read a chapter or two). Other friends never read fiction at all, and while I am glad they are getting their noses into books, I feel like they are really missing out by sticking to biographies, essays and text books.
There is something truly amazing about reading a good novel. There is nothing quite like picking up a book, cracking open the cover, and then losing yourself in a world completely unlike your own. I sometimes get a little too into the book I'm reading, actually. I'll take on certain characteristics of the protagonist, or pick up mannerisms from the characters. I also find myself relating things in life to "a book I read once" several times a day. I tend not to mention it to the people I'm with though because it makes me sound even geekier than I already do.
Not only are the people who don't read missing out on a truly wonderful experience, but they are contributing to the general downfall of out nation's intelligence. Reading does wonders for a persons ability to express ideas, thoughts and feelings. It opens your mind to situations you might have never thought of and experiences you otherwise would never have. I know that Americans have tragically short attention spans these days too and I wouldn't be shocked if reading helped lengthen those as well. It makes sense- it takes much longer to read a story than it does to watch the same story on TV. Especially if said story is well written and detail-rich.
In the words of Jane Austen: The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid
Now, excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall for the illiteracy of my nation.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Silly Rabbit
On my way to work this morning I heard a story on NPR about Kellog's and thier sugary cereal. Because kids today are fat and sugar crazy (this is bad) the big K is going to stop marketing ultra-sugary products to kids under 12. Anything with over 12g of sugar (still seems like an aweful lot) is either going to be re-formulated or they're going to stop marketing them to kids.
Ok, so when they figure out that Fruit Loops and Apple Jacks just aren't the same without sugar crammed into every bite (they can't change the formula if it messes up the "great tast people expect from [their] products"*), just who are they going to market these cereals to? Even without the cartoon characters et al, how many adults want to eat sugar for breakfast. I know there are some, but most grown ups want to go for something with a little nutrition to start out their day. However they change the marketing, this kind of breakfast food is still going to appeal to kids more than anyone else.
I think the target group will be teenage/twenty-something boys. This guess is based solely on the fact that my brother eats a full box of choco-sugar-bits for breakfast everyday (ok, he doesn't eat the whole box, and I made up the cereal, but you get the point).
As for me, I'll stick with boring standards. Raisin Bran anyone? All those sugar saturated cereals just don't taste that good to me anymore.
*I'm quoting from memory. I'm not sure that's exactly what the guy said, but it was something along those lines. To hear the story, go Here
Ok, so when they figure out that Fruit Loops and Apple Jacks just aren't the same without sugar crammed into every bite (they can't change the formula if it messes up the "great tast people expect from [their] products"*), just who are they going to market these cereals to? Even without the cartoon characters et al, how many adults want to eat sugar for breakfast. I know there are some, but most grown ups want to go for something with a little nutrition to start out their day. However they change the marketing, this kind of breakfast food is still going to appeal to kids more than anyone else.
I think the target group will be teenage/twenty-something boys. This guess is based solely on the fact that my brother eats a full box of choco-sugar-bits for breakfast everyday (ok, he doesn't eat the whole box, and I made up the cereal, but you get the point).
As for me, I'll stick with boring standards. Raisin Bran anyone? All those sugar saturated cereals just don't taste that good to me anymore.
*I'm quoting from memory. I'm not sure that's exactly what the guy said, but it was something along those lines. To hear the story, go Here
Friday, May 04, 2007
What's The Matter With Kids Today?
Seriously, when does this even start to make sense?
I guess it's good that I can't relate to a total sociopath, it means I'm not one myself, right? I just don't get why doing something like that would even cross someone's mind. Especially since it was a duck that the school had sort of adopted and was monitoring.
In the article, they mention that the kid might not be charged with anything. I think letting him get away with it with a slap on the wrist and a couple shrink visits (god knows he needs those anyway) is almost reinforcing the psycho behavior. Even if he's not wired to know the difference between right and wrong, he could still understand the logic of doing something illegal and facing the consequences.
Can you just imagine what his parents are going through? Unless they're the "oh my kid could do no wrong. He's not bad, just misunderstood" kind of parents, they have got to be freaking out. How do you handle the idea that your kid is showing classic signs of being a violent sort of nut job? I would be scared to death. And I would never be able to watch Haloween again.
I guess it's good that I can't relate to a total sociopath, it means I'm not one myself, right? I just don't get why doing something like that would even cross someone's mind. Especially since it was a duck that the school had sort of adopted and was monitoring.
In the article, they mention that the kid might not be charged with anything. I think letting him get away with it with a slap on the wrist and a couple shrink visits (god knows he needs those anyway) is almost reinforcing the psycho behavior. Even if he's not wired to know the difference between right and wrong, he could still understand the logic of doing something illegal and facing the consequences.
Can you just imagine what his parents are going through? Unless they're the "oh my kid could do no wrong. He's not bad, just misunderstood" kind of parents, they have got to be freaking out. How do you handle the idea that your kid is showing classic signs of being a violent sort of nut job? I would be scared to death. And I would never be able to watch Haloween again.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
ZOMGWTFWBDJD?
Here's a no brainer. It turns out that text messaging (omg i nvr wooda thawt this culd happn) makes kids dumber! Ok, not dumber, just less litterate. There's a big surprise, eh?.
Devoted readers of my blog (ha ha ha omigod I'm funny) know how much I love text messages from my rant a good while back. This article just adds another item to the list of why I don't like 'em. The art of constucting a decent sentence is being distroyed by technology! I'm sure it applies to more than just Irish kids too. Maybe we don't notice it in our American youth because they're all electro-brain-washed and inarticulate/illiterate to beging with. It's all very tragic, I think I may cry.
(insert exasperated sigh here) It's really no use resisting such technology as text messaging. Yes, I did give it up for a month last year, but that didn't really do anything. My friends who communicate soley by text got a little annoyed with me. They still sent me texts messages and I called them in response. It was all very silly.
I'm tempted to give it up again, but it's kind of nice to be able to talk to friends when I'm at work and can't really gab on the phone. By no means is this a necessary diversion, but it's kind of nice. Anyway, I always practice safe texting (still HATE that word! I'm all for turning nouns into verbs on occasion, because it's fun, but this is yucky. Texted is worse). I send complete sentences with my texts; often they are long winded sentences with words that the autospell on my phone doesn't recognize. I absolutely refuse to use "i m speak" unless in mockery of people who speak completely in letters. I refuse to let my literacy slip through my fingers as they work the number keys of my phone! Not that it's likely to do so, it's pretty well ingrained in me.
It's also scary when people text and drive.
Speaking of driving, This.
I feel very unhappy for this world of ours. I would feel much worse, I'm sure, if I hadn't ridden my bike to work today. Especially since my gas tank is empty and I would have had to spend 40 some odd dollars to fill it up if I drove it today. Yay bike!
Devoted readers of my blog (ha ha ha omigod I'm funny) know how much I love text messages from my rant a good while back. This article just adds another item to the list of why I don't like 'em. The art of constucting a decent sentence is being distroyed by technology! I'm sure it applies to more than just Irish kids too. Maybe we don't notice it in our American youth because they're all electro-brain-washed and inarticulate/illiterate to beging with. It's all very tragic, I think I may cry.
(insert exasperated sigh here) It's really no use resisting such technology as text messaging. Yes, I did give it up for a month last year, but that didn't really do anything. My friends who communicate soley by text got a little annoyed with me. They still sent me texts messages and I called them in response. It was all very silly.
I'm tempted to give it up again, but it's kind of nice to be able to talk to friends when I'm at work and can't really gab on the phone. By no means is this a necessary diversion, but it's kind of nice. Anyway, I always practice safe texting (still HATE that word! I'm all for turning nouns into verbs on occasion, because it's fun, but this is yucky. Texted is worse). I send complete sentences with my texts; often they are long winded sentences with words that the autospell on my phone doesn't recognize. I absolutely refuse to use "i m speak" unless in mockery of people who speak completely in letters. I refuse to let my literacy slip through my fingers as they work the number keys of my phone! Not that it's likely to do so, it's pretty well ingrained in me.
It's also scary when people text and drive.
Speaking of driving, This.
I feel very unhappy for this world of ours. I would feel much worse, I'm sure, if I hadn't ridden my bike to work today. Especially since my gas tank is empty and I would have had to spend 40 some odd dollars to fill it up if I drove it today. Yay bike!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
XCIX Bottles of Wine on the Wall
Happy Ides of March Everybody!
Although I'm not entirely sure the 'ides of march' is necissarily something to be celebrated. It certainly wasn't too great for Mr. Ceasar.
I've taken to listening to NPR lately because normal radio sucks. On my way to work today somebody was on talking about the post slaying (of Julius Ceasar) party and the roman rendition of 99 bottles of beer on the wall.
Here's a link to the story. I recomend listening to it, it's much more fun if you actually hear the song.
I've taken to listening to NPR lately because normal radio sucks. On my way to work today somebody was on talking about the post slaying (of Julius Ceasar) party and the roman rendition of 99 bottles of beer on the wall.
Here's a link to the story. I recomend listening to it, it's much more fun if you actually hear the song.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Big Guns
I feel like I should post something about the shootings at Trolley Square on Monday.
I honestly don't have much to say about it. I'm glad no one I know was hurt, and I feel bad for those who do know people who were. But ... it seems like there's so much violence in the world that I'm kind of numb to it all. And I feel bad about that, because I really shouldn't be. As a human being I should be scared or shocked or compelled to do something. But I'm not. I feel like it's just another random act of senseless violence. It really sucks, but the world will keep moving. I even have a friend who works at Trolley. I was briefly worried about him, but only briefly (he's ok). I really don't care much about the whole incident. And that makes me kind of sick.
I honestly don't have much to say about it. I'm glad no one I know was hurt, and I feel bad for those who do know people who were. But ... it seems like there's so much violence in the world that I'm kind of numb to it all. And I feel bad about that, because I really shouldn't be. As a human being I should be scared or shocked or compelled to do something. But I'm not. I feel like it's just another random act of senseless violence. It really sucks, but the world will keep moving. I even have a friend who works at Trolley. I was briefly worried about him, but only briefly (he's ok). I really don't care much about the whole incident. And that makes me kind of sick.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Crazy Celebs
I'm sure everyone has heard by now about Anna Nicole Smith. It's all very tragic. Especially for Courtney Love. There's no one around now to make her look less crazy.
Here are my predictions for who will step up to the plate:
Sharon Stone - she's almost there. But she's still kind of trying to be classy... sometimes
Lindsey Lohan - just give her a year or two. As long as she doesn't make some miraculous recovery and start acting a like a normal human being. The problem is that she's young-crazy so all her hyjinks can be written off as youthful indescretions (or something).
One (or both) of the Olsen twins - Ok, so relatively they're both pretty wholesome, but wouldn't it be fun if Mary Kate flew off the handle into crazy town. Of course you have the same youth problem you get with Lindsey.
Lara Flynn Boyle - Ok, so she's already a little crazy. She's different crazy though. We need to get her a little more drug-hazed.
Here are my predictions for who will step up to the plate:
Sharon Stone - she's almost there. But she's still kind of trying to be classy... sometimes
Lindsey Lohan - just give her a year or two. As long as she doesn't make some miraculous recovery and start acting a like a normal human being. The problem is that she's young-crazy so all her hyjinks can be written off as youthful indescretions (or something).
One (or both) of the Olsen twins - Ok, so relatively they're both pretty wholesome, but wouldn't it be fun if Mary Kate flew off the handle into crazy town. Of course you have the same youth problem you get with Lindsey.
Lara Flynn Boyle - Ok, so she's already a little crazy. She's different crazy though. We need to get her a little more drug-hazed.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
DED
The Pope died. What was he, 100? It was going to happen pretty darn soon anyway, wasn't it. For some reason, this has spurned quite a bit of conversation amongst my friends, none of whom are Catholic and all of whom are sarcastic. One reffered to his death (along with the Florida lady) as a big plublicity stunt. A few contemplated a fashion trend of pope hats and robes. The theory was that he would lose significance but then I pointed out the whole spiritual devine appointment sort of thing (how do you get to be pope anyway?). Some of the more political ones cynically wondered who G.W. would appoint as the new pope. Personally, I don't care all that much. He was old, we all shuffle off this mortal coil at some point. So move on. The pope is dead, long live the pope. (Ok, that's just for kings isn't it? Oh well, it doesn't make any sense anyway. How can anyone (pope or king) live long if he's dead?)
P.S. Sorry if I offended anyone. Take solice in the thought that I am going to burn anyway so I might as well blaspheme a bit on my way.
P.S. Sorry if I offended anyone. Take solice in the thought that I am going to burn anyway so I might as well blaspheme a bit on my way.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Moonbeams
I read an article the other day about lying and the internet. Apparently they're related. The jist of the article (I didn't really pay attention actually so I'm making this part up) is that using the internet makes it so you can't tell if someone is lying. The article also gave tips on how to tell if someone is lying. I can remember 2. One was that if they give a lot of details, it's probably a lie, the other was something to do with pronouns. So if I say to you "Cassie can't come to the gala you are throwing just for her, she has to experience the euphoria that the winter moon creates when his reflected photons shine on the craggy rocks of the mountain." It's obviously a lie because I used pronouns (her, she, his) and details. I also refferred to myself in the third person which is a bad sign in any case. Another big clue that the statement is dishonest: no one (as far as I know) is throwing a gala for me. I wouldn't expect anyone to really but if you have nothing better to do, I guess I could pull myself away from the moonlit rocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
