A Guest Blog by Fannie in Response to Opine Editorials

In light of some craziness in my personal life, Fannie has graciously offered to post a guest blog in response to an article by Opine Editorials "Does Jane know what she says she knows?"

I may return shortly with articles of my own, but right now I have neither the time nor the inclination. Thank you Fannie!

Her article follows:

In response to Jane Know's previous article about Renee, the On Lawn
moniker wrote a largely unsubstantiated piece about Jane Know. Most
hypocritically, he claimed that Jane wrote an article about Renee that
lacked evidence (or, rather that is was full of "hate-filled lies").

I'm somewhat embarassed to admit this, but I spent more time than I wanted to, attempting to get On Lawn to substantiate his article. Even for
the sake of his own credibility, he refused to do so. He sort of tried here, but avoided most of my questions and provided evidence that did not support his claims on others. The Opiners claim to be open to dialogue out of "mutual respect and understanding" and they admonish us (being Jane, John, John Hosty, and
I) to ask for clarification if need be. Yet, when we do ask, our
requests are ignored, reprimanded, or assigned sinister motives.


In the paragraphs that follow, I will present evidence as to how On Lawn
wrote an article without using any evidence to back it up.Disregarding
his article's accuracy or inaccuracy, an article without evidence is
nothing but a rant.

Let's take it from the top, On Lawn said:

1. "Fallacy Findings is out to attack Opine again. You will
remember their last attempt, where they tried to take our discussion of
an explicitely non-violent statement and claim it meant we were in
cahoots with a violent hate group."


"Again," he says. When was the last "attack"? (Alas, let me do On
Lawn's substantiating for him. Is he referring to this article? If so, why would he refer to it, claim that Jane was "out to attack" Opine in this article, provide his own characterization of the article, yet NOT provide a link to the article? Omission #2, (Omission #1 being not providing a link to Jane's article about Renee.)

Who does On Lawn mean by "their" and "they"? Doesn't Fallacy Findings
have but one author, that person being Jane? (This current article is
the first guest post on Jane's blog). Yes. Jane is the sole author.
Inaccuracy #1. But wait, On Lawn changes his story here when he says that by "they" he really meant Jane, "and the commenters that signed off wholesale on her fallacies." Then perhaps he should correct his mischaracterization. In his article he specifically referred to Fallacy Findings and followed with a sentence saying that "they" did something. Mischaracterization #1.

What exactly does he mean by "in cahoots with"? (On Lawn did, actually,
answer this one by saying that in cahoots means "allegiance," "common
cause," or "collaboration." Is he denying that some Opine Editorials
bloggers claimed to have a common cause with Watchmen? For some
background, it was On Lawn who originally posted the Watchmen article on
Opine Editorials and, after providing a link to the Watchmen mission
statement, said this:

"This might be a good place to discuss how much Opine has in common,
and not in common, with their statement.

Your comments are welcome. Are homosexuals the chief enemy of the
natural family? Are they thinly veiled hate-mongers? I will save my
commentary for the comment section also."

The purpose of his post, perhaps written while not knowing the Watchmen
are a hate group, was for the Opiners to discuss whether they indeed
had a common cause with the Watchmen (ie- "in cahoots with"?). A few
ultimately decided that they did. At least partly. Therefore, it was not a lie for Jane to at least imply that the Opiners and the Watchmen share a common cause. (Mischaracterization #2).



2. "Of course, the value of controversial mis-truths is not lost
on her and her unquestioning readership -- she repeatedly refused to
correct her mistakes claiming she had none in that article."

What "mistakes"? How is her "readership" unquestioning? How does On
Lawn know that all of her readership is unquestioning? How does On Lawn
know, for that matter, who constitutes all of her readership?
(Claims For Which No Evidence is Provided #1, #2, and #3).

What "controversial mis-truths" is On Lawn referring to?
(#4)


3. "In reading this I am left to wonder how people with
hate-sensors that can go off with someone blowing their noses, why they don't detect
the hate filled lies on their own site."

What hate-filled lies, exactly, is he talking about talking about?
(Claim For Which No Evidence is Provided #5)

How does he know these alleged lies are "hate-filled"? (Psychic
Venture into Another's State of Mind #1)

How are these statements lies? (Claim For Which No Evidence is
Provided #6)



4. "It is embarrassing to read when she gets so filled with rage
and punch drunk...

How does he know that Jane is "filled with rage" and is "punch drunk"?
(Psychic Ventures into Another's State of Mind #2 and
#3).

Does his site not advocate for attacking an argument as opposed to the
person making the argument? (Personal attack #1)


5. ...that can't keep her story straight from one moment to the
next. These one sentence paragraphs have only two paragraphs between
them, that is if you count the witty repartee "ha ha ha *snort*" a
paragraph."

The sentences of Jane's that he quotes do not support the argument he
is attempting to make: namely, that Jane can't keep her story straight.
His purpose is more to support his ridicule of her "witty repartee" and use
of succint paragraphs. (Non Sequitor #1). Anyway, if
On Lawn wants to read an article with no sense of humor, he's gotten
it.



5. "Jane is complaining that she is being called a feminist, and
complaining that her feminist credentials are being questioned. But
worse than that, I'm afraid her conjecture is unfounded."

Jane's quotes do not support the argument that On Lawn has made:
namely, that "Jane is complaining that she is being called a feminist."
(Non Sequitor #2)

He follows this thought with a contradictory statement that Jane is now
"complaining that her feminist credentials are being questioned."
Which is it On Lawn, is she complaining about being called a feminist, or
complaining about not being called a feminist? (Internal
contradiction #1).


And, how is Jane's "conjecture unfounded"? On Lawn has come to a
conclusion without making the necessary arguments for his conclusion.
Not everyone takes his word for it that another's conjecture is
unfounded. (Claim For Which No Evidence is Provided
#7).


6. "She complains about comments being deleted about as often as
she paraphrases them incorrectly."

Since she allegedly complains about comments being deleted so often, On
Lawn shouldn't have had trouble producing a direct quote from Jane.
Not that this sentence is relevant to Jane's original article about Renee.
(Claim For Which No Evidence is Provided #8, Personal Attack
#2)


7. "Too much of what Jane says is straight from her own imagination."

On Lawn is again delving into the inner-workings of Jane's mind.
(Psychic Venture into Another's State of Mind #4, Personal
Attack #3).


To sum up this article, I'd like to end on the words of On Lawn
himself, with a key name inserted.

"In the efforts of good will and mutual respect, [On Lawn] is
offered to make corrections. In efforts of accuracy and truth, [On
Lawn] is expected to support [his] claims better. [He] has a wider audience
than the echo-chamber he runs."


I made a simple request that he verify his claims about Jane since he
is accusing her of evil characteristics. Is he unable to verify his
claims, or does he irresponsibly rant about others without feeling the need to
back up his words with, you know, evidence? Does he even believe what
he is saying about Jane? And, one is left to conclude that when
certain members of Opine Editorials write articles about others, these articles
are more unsubstantiated rants than substance.


Chairm, too, wrote his an article of Jane that, rather than including
reasons and evidence, included his conclusions. And questions. It is
up to Jane to answer Chairm if she wishes. But given the
mischaracterization and unsubstantiated claims that have already been
made, and left uncorrected, at Opine Editorials, I wouldn't blame her
for not wanting to go back there.


[Jane's note: I may eventually get around to answering these articles. Honestly, I am flattered that they wrote two articles about me. And I will give them the time they deserve. However, time will tell if I think they deserve any time at all. ;-)]

Renee of Opine Editorials: Feminist or "LAF?"

Renee, the token female blogger over at Opine Idiotorials, posted an article and several comments two days ago that warrant further attention. Now, Renee often meanders around topics, goes into depth about her lactation experiences, mistakenly calls herself "liberal" and "feminist," and posts irrelevant, unscientific articles that she believes prove how male-female "coitus" (as she calls it) and heterosexuals are superior, all in the name of "protecting children." I have already addressed how most children don't need her "protection."

But two days ago, she won the award for biggest internet fuckwad. She posted this article on her blog.

After her pal, Fitz, predictably converted the discussion of an article detailing why biological dads are better than step-dads into a diatribe againt same-sex marriage and feminism being evil, Renee ended up closing her thread to all comments, ending with this remark:

"Renee said...
Ok, I'm closing the thread. Real feminists make men accountable, they don't bash them.

Penises aren't that scary either."

(I had questioned why Fitz turns everything into a blame-game on "feminism" as the most evil enemy of the state. And told him, along the way, that vaginas are really not that scary.) Because yes, I do believe that the anti-feminist is really anti-vagina. And anti-woman. Just watch how he blames feminism and women's studies majors on the decline of marriage. At. Every. Chance.

Yes. Seriously. RENEE is now trying to hand out "feminism" badges.

ha ha ha *snort*

Little Mrs. Too-Eager-To-Please-Her-Opine-Idiot-Male-Counterparts to stick up for women's rights, is now declaring who is and isn't a feminist. This is the same woman who believes men and women aren't equal, they are "complementary." Sounds strikingly familiar to the LAF. For those of you who don't know what the LAF is, it stands for "Ladies Against Feminism." Their slogan: "Promoting Beautiful Womanhood."

Apparently Renee believes that lesbians can't be feminists because they don't like sex with men.

She reminds me of the "feminist" women portrayed on "If These Walls Could Talk, 2." In the movie the heterosexual feminists at a certain college made the lesbians leave the organization, because they didn't want to be labeled as "lesbians" and they felt the lesbians were giving them a bad name. I feel that Renee's hatred of gays and lesbians is similar to that. She frankly tells Fannie she is not a feminist without any further explanation. And when Fannie coherently addresses Renee's charge http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/11/issue-of-shorter-fecundity-period-of.html#c1908842378198754424, Renee replies with her typical non-sequitor rife with unintelligble sentences. http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/11/issue-of-shorter-fecundity-period-of.html#c907224243246132144


Sorry, Renee. Real men don't bash feminists (the way Fitz does constantly). And real feminists don't bash lesbians (the way you do).

And real feminists don't write articles denouncing gay men, other women, lesbians, step-dads, and anything other than your heteronormative cookie-cutter family.
Sorry Renee, it seems to me like you're a little too eager to please the "men" over at Opine.

Oh, and watch her talk (or cut-n-paste other people's articles, more accurately) about many irrelevant-to-the-issue concepts of biology and "coitus" here and here and here and here.

As if, no really, we gays and lesbians just don't understand basic human biology. And maybe if we understood it, we wouldn't have the audacity to be gay anymore. Because she doesn't approve of gay people. Just maybe.

Watch her protect her Opine boys when they insult women [oh wait, they deleted her "real feminists don't bash men" comment]

Watch her flinging insults as she runs out the door to receive the obligatory pat on the head from the Opine boys. [oh wait, they deleted that comment, too]. For a collective group of people who complain and whine about censorship, they sure as hell know how to do it. And no wonder they claim they do not make personal attacks on their site, they delete many of the personal attacks that their own contributors make! Have to keep up that "reasonable" nice-guy image, I suppose.

For, after Renee tells Fannie that Fannie is "not a feminist," she offers no explanation, and then restricts all comments to Opine "team members."

This censorship coming a mere day after Opine's "On Lawn" moniker claims,

"But we at Opine have never fallen short of taking the message to them. We've never left the discussions, only been kicked out."

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/11/government-controlled-marriage.html#c260069052143922786

Perhaps On Lawn shouldn't speak for all "at Opine" when he talks about leaving discussions.


Watch him claim:

"Only it is rather naive to think that if they think their carefully constructed message is so fragile that they have to retreat for safety to their own echo-chambers, gnashing their teeth and claiming victimization, that it is at the same time compelling for people to accept as truth. If John is doesn't let them out f the queue, if Fannie and Jane are so ready for the delete button on their sites, then I have to say that their message depends more on propaganda style control of the discussion more than any reliance on what they claim is truth."


Yes. Let's all ponder that.

(Did he really bring the Bible back with that "gnashing of teeth" bit?)

But back to Renee. She can hammer out the insults and anti-gay epithets like a pro, but when people start responding to her, she can't take it. She closes down her articles to commenters, and I've also seen her be aggressive and hostile towards other gay bloggers and then whine about people's nasty remarks back while she was pregnant. http://thinkingmeat.net/2007/04/07/dont-ask-renee/. Oh, we're sorry, Renee. We forgot. You are involved in the Very Important Process of Baby-Making. Oh wait, we didn't forget. Because you never fail to remind of us of the baby-making process.

I have this to say to Renee: If you can't handle the heat, then stay in the kitchen. But if you're going to keep throwing out insults, others are going to expect you to stand behind your convictions instead of hiding behind your apron and breast-suckling babies.

Apologies for the Delay

More real-life stuff going on...final exams, work, etc.

I'll be around with occasional comments and perhaps a blog in the very near future.

Until then, Peace.

Ken Hutcherson: From Pro White-Basher to Pro Gay-Basher

Somebody please stop this bully. I have mentioned him before, as one of the founders of hate group Watchmen on the Walls.

Black, conservative ex-NFL player Ken Hutcherson, who is now the leader of Antioch Bible Church based out of the same home--Redmond, WA--as Microsoft has vowed to make Microsoft his number one enemy if they keep supporting gay rights bills in the state of Washington. These are bills that would make it illegal for employees to be fired soley based on their sexual orientation.

In his own words, "...I am probably one of the worst nightmares that this corporation can have. I'm a black man, with a righteous cause,with a great deal and a whole host of powerful white people behind me..."

The entire 2007 Microsoft shareholders meeting can be found here. Hutcherson's comments are at about 38 minutes in, so you don't have to listen to the beginning.

52 minutes into the meeting, another shareholder asked what shareholders can do to support the corporation in opposition against "hurtful and hateful positions," specifically in regards to Ken Hutcherson. Microsoft Senior Vice President, Brad Smith, responded with:

"As a company we've had a clear policy with respect to the way we treat our people. It's a policy of non-discrimination...I think that was reflected last year, when over 97% of you and all of our other shareholders stood up and agreed to stand with us...and we very much appreciate that support."

But seriously? Does Hutcherson really think he is more influential and powerful than Bill Gates? Mkay. Get down with your bad self, Ken.

This is the same man who joined the NFL because it was the easiest way for him to "hurt white people." (until he became a born-again Christian).

Apparently now, his mission is to hurt gay people. My take on Hutcherson is this: he's a typical schoolyard bully, used to using his size, race (there, I said it), and strength for pushing people around and getting his way. Everyone, fear the Angry Black Man, or so he wants us to think. It's sad that he is trying to use his race as leverage for forcing hate on others. His self-ascribed nickname is "The Black Man."

He's very outspoken in his opposition to the black civil rights analogy to the gay
rights movement: "You tell me what I went through as an African-American, when they talk about discrimination, compared to what gays go through with discrimination - it's the difference between night and day, not even close. I even get upset when people say, 'Well, you got to understand what they go through.' Not when they've chosen to do what they do. They can stop choosing what to do what they do, and they can hide it anytime they want. They can hide their homosexuality. Could I take a 'don't ask don't tell' policy as an African-American? I could try even to pretend I was Puerto Rican, but I'm still going to get blasted for my skin color."

Hutcherson is missing the point. As with any analogy, the comparison is never exact. The gay rights movement isn't making claims that gay people were ever held as property or sold into slavery. They aren't saying they ever had to sit at the back of the bus. It's never been a contest of "who's suffered more?" However, in a contest of "who's suffered the longest?" one has to wonder. I also wonder how members of the gay black community feel about the analogy, as they are really the only people who can answer from their own experiences.

I don't think many people would deny that gay people have been persecuted throughout history in many ways, and as societies progress to a more tolerant view of homosexuality, we will inevitably be forced to deal with arrogant, ignorant, dangerous fuckwads like Ken Hutcherson.

Good for us that most people (besides those in his congregation) just see him for the bully that he is. Watching his videos, I can see a certain charisma that may charm a vulnerable person, but underneath that giant smile and scarily wide-open eyes I see crazy. In one YouTube video, Hutcherson crazily repeats "I'm not threatened, I'm not threatened at all by gay people. Do I look threatened to you?!?"

In the video, in which the interviewer is a gay man, he appears to instead be sizing up the gay man. It's as if he says, "see me in all my black, ex-NFL football player glory, how can I possibly be threatened by a little white sissie like you?"

Honestly, "Reverend" Hutcherson. Yes. You do look threatened.

You certainly act it.

Hummingbird

A good friend of mine emailed this story to a bunch of us a couple days ago, from Ellen DeGeneres' website:

HUMMINGBIRD (Ellen Degeneres)

"While I was making my morning coffee, I had one of those coffee ground volcanoes. You know when the filter collapses and coffee and grounds go all over the counter? So, I'm wiping up this little mess and something catches my eye out my window. I saw a little hummingbird flying. It was just sort of hovering and then it drank from my fountain. I was just staring at it, mesmerized, and I forgot how about how aggravated I was just a few moments before. I realized that I had been given this little tiny gift. Thank you little hummingbird. It lasted just a minute, but it changed my mood and made me happy and I was able to hang onto it all day.

That's our choice. We can choose to focus on spilled coffee grounds or the hummingbird outside our windows. You just need to take the time and be very still and quiet. I know that right now there is a mother of one or two or four or seven saying, 'That's easy for you to say, Ellen. You don't have a baby in a high chair crying and throwing their eggnog…or whatever babies eat.' I guess what I'm trying to say is, when you're lucky enough to see something beautiful like a hummingbird outside your window, take the time to appreciate it."

I agree.

Too many people are so focused on complaining about the sad state of affairs their lives are in, or this country is in, that we forget that we actually live in one of the most comfortable countries in the world. A country with a Starbucks on every corner and a couple McDonalds in every small, rural town. A country where it is an expectation to receive the best available medical care there is, even when one has no way of paying for that medical care. And a country where the biggest problems facing the coming generation is student loan debt and the psychiatric diagnosis du-jour.

What is more annoying, for example? Learning about a couple of completely wacky, outnumbered "Christian" fundamentalists, or living in a country where there are over 1,000 AIDS deaths per day? Where men don't even care about knowing their HIV status, because it is seen as such a burden, thus apathetically infecting dozens more women by their unprotected heterosexual sex.

Yet many people in the U.S. still find things to complain about that just aren't that big a deal. Maybe it's just a part of societal evolution. If people don't complain, how does society as a whole work towards making anything better?

My point is that complaining is just like an addiction. People become so used to complaining, and putting themselves in the position of victim, that it often seems like nothing will work to get them to stop. Because they like the position it puts them in.

Which brings me to my second point. Our anti-gay opponents are so concerned that the U.S. is going to hell in a handbasket, they are so pessimistic about human nature, I feel they often don't stop to see what they really do have. And oftentimes, that is (or, as we are led to believe) wonderful, loving spouses and children.

If they are so happy with their own lives, why are they so set on attacking other people? Why are they focused on turning gay people into the "enemy of Christianity?" Why, if they are so happy and loving, do they need to scapegoat other groups of people who have nothing to do with their lives or their problems?

They are so focused on everything negative they believe is happening, it often seems they don't stop to look at the so-called humingbirds along the way. Instead of enjoying their alleged happy lives and loving spouses, they would rather construct enemies out of groups of people who are doing nothing to harm said lives.

"Save the 'Institution' of marriage from the homosexualist agenda!" they scream.

and

"Stop mainstream acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle!" they bleat.

and

"Make America more 'Christian,' this is 'one nation, UNDER GOD' after all!" they preach.

and

"Bring Back Prayer in the Schools, and put the 'Christ' back in Christmas, even in this country that has separation of church and state!" they shriek.

Every single day, I get a new AFA Action Alert with Dom Wildmon complaining about something new. Something unintentional. Something usually harmless. For example, a couple days ago, they sent out an Action Alert screaming that the department store Lowe's had called Christmas trees "Family Trees" instead in their ads. And I quote from the Action Alert, itself, "Lowe's evidently did not want to offend any non-Christians, therefore they replaced "Christmas tree" with "Family tree." Of course, if Christians are offended that is evidently ok."

Riiiight. Because it's okay to force your religion on others. But make something neutral so that no one is excluded, it's a damn shame.

But I digress, the ads, as it turns out, were actually due to a marketing error, not any deliberate attempt to exclude God or Christ from the trees. Especially since their website includes many references to "Christmas" instead of the more religion-neutral "holiday."

But before finding out the truth, the AFA was all set to have their sheeple boycott Lowe's, as they have done with Ford. The next day, the AFA had to send out a sorry-ass email explaining what had really happened.

Here is the letter that was supposedly sent to AFA from Lowe's:
"Randy, Thanks for taking my call this morning. Let me reiterate my apology that we had an advertising error that created a stir. Here's a statement that we'd appreciate your posting on your web site, if possible:

Lowe's has contacted the AFA and assures us that it is proudly committed to selling Christmas trees this year, as it has done for more than 60 years. The company apologized for the confusion created in its 2007 holiday catalog when it headlined the page of Christmas trees "family trees." The error was not caught before the publication was distributed, and Lowe's says it is disappointed in the breakdown in its proofing process.


Lowe's assures us that they refer to trees as Christmas trees in this season's television and magazine ads and in its advertising flyers. The company says it is redoubling its efforts to proof its catalogs in the future to prevent this issue from recurring.


We appreciate Lowe's for listening to its customers and responding appropriately to our concerns."

And don't even get me started on the Watchmen on the Walls:

"We are against cohabitation, divorce, abortion, adultery and other behaviors that weaken the marriage-based society on which civilization depends. But we are especially focused against homosexuality, because those who practice this self-destructive vice, and have organized themselves into a political movement, are the chief enemies of the natural family." [emphasis added]

and

"We are seeking clear-thinking men and women of every nation and ethnicity to join with us. We don‘t want cowards who, for example, speak out against “gay” marriage but are afraid to say that homosexuality itself is wrong. And we don’t want bigots who hate homosexuals in the same way they hate races other than their own. We want brave people of conscience who love and respect the natural design of the human family and want it to be promoted, established, strengthened and protected as the foundation of every society on earth.

We are the Watchmen on the Walls and we will not shrink from our duty."

Oh really? And what duty is that? In their poor, little misguided--not to mention delusional--eyes, they actually see themselves spreading the word of God and love. Because surely if Jesus were alive today, He would approve of their speech and actions.

It reminds me of those bracelets everyone wore in grade school. "WWJD?" Surely not any of the above.

Which brings me to my third and final point. What if everyone were to throw down their weapons, their defensiveness, and their hatred for one minute and actually try to empathize with the other side?

Usually, when people complain, they don't want solutions. They don't want cheering up. They want empathy.

In an US (gay rights advocates) vs. THEM (AFA/Watchmen/Opine) battle, empathy is usually what is lacking in the debate.

So here it is, my empathy to THEM: "Wow, your lives must be terrible, and I see you are burdened with so many problems! I had no idea, as I go about minding my own business, that others like you are suffering so much. I don't know how you deal with all the problems of this country's morality on your backs. I certainly wouldn't be able to do it. It must be a horrible way to live. Thanks for tackling it for us all. I realize you are tackling an insurmountable beast that will likely fail in the end. I know how frustrating that can feel, and now I understand why you are often very hateful towards people like me. May you one day find peace."

Do We Have a Ghost?

I thought Halloween was over. Apparently not.

My girlfriend and I just moved into a new place in September. It's in a big, old building in the heart of the city.

Ever since moving to the new place, one of our end tables has been moving completely unassisted at random times. I've seen it. My girlfriend has seen it. And my dog, apparently has seen it, too. This table is the same exact one we had at our last place. But now, the top part of the table (I have negative lesbian carpenter points), which is glass, has been sliding around by itself. The top part of the table is completely connected to the legs.

Here is a picture of this haunted table, post-movement tonight. (as in 20 minutes ago). My dog was staring at something on the wall right behind the table as it was moving:


Does anyone see anything that I don't?

I decided to do a little research, and this is what I found out, from the International Ghost Hunters Society:

"What are Ghosts?
Ghosts are departed souls who have lived and died on this earth, but for some reason have elected or been forced to remain on this earth plane after death. It is my belief that the intelligence and the emotions that made up who we were in this life survives the death process. This energy may be considered as our souls, energy that can't be destroyed at death, but is transformed into another configuration. This energy is detectable with EMF meters that measures milligauss units. Since we can measure the physical energy emitted by these entities, we know that ghosts are not figments of our imagination as some skeptics suggest...

*Update*

The Girlfriend and I were just sitting on the couch watching tv and staring at our dogs, and the Girlfriend's laptop just fell off the haunted end table. Everyone was at least 2.5 feet from the laptop and its wires.

This is getting weird.

The Girlfriend is calling her mother, who knows about these kinds of things. Maybe she can help us.

In the meantime, here is info from another website:

"If you do have a ghost, be certain that it's a problem.

Even experienced ghost hunters, are startled by ghosts now & then. We also jump when someone steps out of the shadows, when a car runs a red light, and any other time the unexpected happens. We're merely startled. It's not a problem.

Many people feel as if they have something odd and unseen in the house. They don't mind sharing the space with the ghost(s). In fact, the majority of haunted houses are happily co-habited by the living and the spirits."

Oh. Great. It's a "problem?!" WTF?! OMG?!

Further down on that website, it states: "If your ghost is a problem, here's what to do. You'll probably want to print out this page, as it offers many solutions from our research as well as folklore. Start with one or two of these remedies. It should not be necessary to use them all."

Among the "remedies:"
-speaking to the ghost and telling it to leave.
-holy water (I do heart Buffy)
-prayer and religion. (a-wha?)
-garlic (I heart Willow, too)
-incense and space clearing
-convex mirrors
-flat mirrors

And, my favorite remedy, "sand, rice, split peas, etc." Because apparently you should, "Randomly toss rice, split peas, sand, salt (but not sugar as it leaves a sticky residue), coffee beans or grounds, or anything small and granular, on your kitchen floor when you go to bed at night (if that's when the ghosts are most bothersome).

According to folklore, the ghosts will pause to count the grains of whatever-it-is. They aren't very good at counting, so they have to start over again, repeatedly, or they forget the numbers.

Clean up the mess in the morning, and do the same routine again at night.

After a few nights of this, the ghosts will leave."

ha ha ha *snort* seriously?

(but don't think I won't try it, if it comes down to it)

I'll be sure to keep you updated if anything else weird happens. For now, the "ghost" isn't hurting us. And I'm a little intrigued.

On a Lighter Note: My Sad Dating History

Because I am in the midst of wrapping up some end-of-the-quarter projects in school right now (which means they are due today, of course), I decided to write on a much lighter topic.

On the way to work this morning, my girlfriend and I had an interesting conversation about actual pick-up lines/actions that people have used on me before in bars. And the assortment of just weird people in general that I have dated.

As a nurse, I realize it is common to attract weirdos and/or people with unstable personalities and/or mental disorders in real life. Or maybe it's because I'm pretty non-judgmental. Must be that nurturing quality.

As a result of this, I've decided to make a list of things people have said or done while simultaneously trying to hit on me:

1. Someone (a straight woman) once told me she has genital herpes about a week before she told me she has a major crush on me and fantasizes about doing sexual things to me.

2. Someone, in an attempt to bond with my experiences working on a psych unit, told me all about her trials and tribulations with bipolar disorder and lithium the first night we met.

3. Someone else has informed me of her borderline personality, and the fact that when her last girlfriend tried to break up with her, she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself out of a moving truck.

4. I've dated people who have attempted and/or threatened suicide upon me breaking up with them.

5. And I've been asked out on a date while crying, literally minutes after breaking up with a long-term girlfriend. Seriously. Because doesn't everyone want a new girlfriend who has a ton of emotional baggage?

6. A girl in a bar once followed me around all night, saying "you must think I'm crazy!" She was divorced, not sure if she was gay, and had a kid. All that is fine and dandy, but the fact that she had to continuously reassure me that she wasn't crazy actually had the counter-effect of making me think she really was crazy. Plus she was a cop. And, plus she tried to take my rings (from my best friend and from my grandmother) and hold them hostage until I called her. I grabbed my rings and got the hell out of Dodge.

Yes, I'm sure that makes you all think that I think I'm hot, or something.

Maybe I am. Maybe not.

But the reality is that I used to be a sucker who was more scared of hurting people's feelings than doing what makes me happy. And the above types of people totally take advantage of that when they see it.

Most of the above scenarios happened several years ago, by the way.

And before the bigotry brigades come and say this is all the more evidence that lesbianism is immoral/wrong/destructive, I also want to mention that I have also had some very good, meaningful relationships with normal women. And, most of the above people, I never ended up dating or having any sort of relationship with.

Anyone else have any fun stories?