Sure thing, Joan Kelly, will do.

Re this post and the preceding ones.

Yeah, enabling Howly Blog does put you beyond the pale. I'm afraid so. I mean, truthfully, personally, I never cottoned to you much anyway, so no great loss. But, seriously? You are sucking up to a couple of vile trolls who would basically be Fred Phelps with a couple of small adjustments. Glad to see you've found a "spine" of some sort, though. It does take guts to "agree to disagree" about blatant hatemongering, fuck knows.

And, for the record, the tu quoqueing you've been doing? Yeah, those women (yes, women) are *also* toxic hateful assholes. Amazingly enough, the existence of some assholes doesn't excuse vile bigotry, which is, let me repeat, exactly what you are oh so magnanimously choosing to ignore as "disagreement." Let's not even get into the "what? I'm not saying I -like- infanticide, I'm just saying it beats the alternatives."

So, yeah, posting this will no doubt feed the martyrdom complex as well as the vomit monster machine, and, yeah, I keep swearing I'm giving up the dwama, but you know, I can live with it. Because, wrt the whole "if you don't like them, just don't read them?" You're full of shit. They post flaming gauntlets like that and especially leave hatespoor trackbacks to any trans blogger post they find for a reason. They wanted a reaction. They got it. And now, so have you.

Enjoy.

Derailing for Dummies!!

It's So Easy! Just Add Assholery And Stir!

(found via helen-bop, dilettante, Ren Ev)

I had often pondered attempting something as erm multi-purpose as this. Closest I got was here, I think. This is way better.

My favorite bits:

You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact

If you really want to excel as a Privileged Person® you need to learn to value data, statistics, research studies and empirical evidence above all things, but especially above Lived Experience©.

You can pretend you are oblivious to the fact most studies have been carried out by Privileged People® and therefore carry inherent biases, and insist that the Marginalised Person™ produce “Evidence” of what they‘re claiming.

Their Lived Experience© does not count as evidence, for it is subjective and therefore worthless.

and

A In B Situation Is Not Equivalent To X In Y Situation

Your Marginalised Person™ may put in a last-ditch effort to be patient and reasonable by using an analogy. If you are yourself a member of a Marginalised Community™ exercising privilege over the group you’re arguing with, the Marginalised Person™ may use an example of discrimination towards your community and how there are parallels in discrimination towards theirs. This will be to try and appeal to your basic humanity and provide you with an experience you can relate to, hoping you will use that relation to apply compassion.

Don’t worry! You can still get out of this one!

Simply become indignant and be very sure to emphasise that your experience is absolutely and one hundred per cent unique and there are no similarities whatsoever between the two situations. Be sure that you are very derisive of their experience, thereby indicating you believe it unworthy of consideration. You must also behave insulted, so as to indicate their issues are so worthless that it's deeply offensive your own would be compared to them!

Of course, the Marginalised Person™ was not trying to equate the two, simply trying to provide grounds for commonality. It’s very important not to give an inch, however, so feign utter ignorance of this at all costs.

Remember: you want them to feel they really are less than human. It weakens their position and that’s important if you want to win.

and

You Have A False Consciousness

In conversation, there are few things as degrading, enraging and hurtful than to tell someone their experiences are false, or that their perception of them is.

The idea behind this one is usually that oppressed people are simply too oppressed to know they’re oppressed and therefore Privileged People® have to share their wisdom and insight with them.

This one crops up a lot in issues that affect women: women who enjoy dressing in conventionally feminine ways (they’re engrained in the patriarchal construct of femininity and therefore are incapable of making a choice), women who are kinky, regardless of the gender of the person they play with (they’re engrained in the patriarchal construct of gender roles and therefore are incapable of making a choice) and sex workers who claim to enjoy their work and/or practice it with autonomy (they’re engrained in the patriarchal construct of female sexuality and therefore are incapable of making a choice).

But this also affects People with Disabilities who are routinely told they simply don’t understand what is best for them and need a Privileged Person® to make decisions for them. People with Disabilities are not able to make any decisions for their own protection. Remember to stress that: it’s for your own protection.

With the trans community, you must routinely deny their gender identity by equating their experiences as having happened to someone of the gender they were designated at birth. For example, denying the reality of gender dysmorphia means you can tell a trans woman her childhood experiences happened to a little boy, because that's how she was being raised, and so communicate your belief her reality as a little girl was false, thoroughly undermining it.

In arguments about race, it takes a slightly different form, generally in white people telling People of Colour that they’re “seeing race where none exists”. You, on the other hand, are “colour blind” and we live in “post-racial” times. It’s them who are making everything about race and their experience of racism in their daily lives is simply imagined. If only they could let it go, the whole world would live in post-racial harmony!

You really want to ignore any claims the Marginalised Person™ may make about having done thorough research, deconstructing and unpacking of these issues. You also really want to deny their autonomy. There are few things so infuriating as infantilising an adult and telling them they’re delusional about their own reality. But they need to understand that, no matter what, you know better.

Brie? Cheddar? Limburger? Perhaps some nice "Wiz du Fromage"

Just trying to think what might best go with this pungent little whine. lordies.

John McCain campaign senior strategist Nicole Wallace conceded Wednesday that the campaign “lost the spin war” by allowing Barack Obama’s campaign to brand the Arizona senator as a dirty campaigner.
“The truth is they play dirty politics, and maybe we haven't been quick enough. Maybe we don't have enough friends in the media to carry the message,” Wallace said on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" show. “

...Well, look, it's like running against God,” Wallace said. “You know, the media has anointed [Obama]. Many, many places in the media, present company excluded, and he's got more money. He opted out of public funds. No one cares about that.”

or about the sexism leveled against Palin, whereas the racism has gotten -so much more attention- and it's NOT FAIR because

“The truth is we've had a lot of thoughtful discussions about race in this campaign"

Okay. I mean, I didn't realize "I AM NOT A RACIST LIKE GEORGE WALLACE!! IT'S NOT MY FAULT! YOU MAKE HIM TAKE THAT BACK RIGHT NOW! p.s. stop insulting Obama by calling him an 'Arab,' though; he's scary but he's not THAT scary, plus also I don't actually want to be considered responsible if anyone actually goes as far as shooting him" constituted "thoughtful," but clearly in many ways we exist on different planets, there.

I -am- sorry about "not having enough friends in the media," though. Possibly the fact that your candidate is a total buttmunch who has a bad habit of calling people "you little jerk," cancelling appearances on late night shows at the last moment, and just generally being an ill-mannered troglodyte might have something to do with it. Oh, yes, and whining about how "the media is OUT TO GET MEEEE" is always a winner, there.

it -is- rather refreshing to hear what's essentially an admission of "I suck at my job" from a P.R. person, though.

Well...you just keep right on -not- spinning, there, it's what you're good at...

Natalia Antonova asks the "realness" question

to wit, in this instance, "Who's a 'real' woman, anyway?"

more specifically,

How many times have you heard some idiot** say something like, “man, I hate American chicks, might as well go to Thailand/El Salvador/Moldova, that’s where the REAL WOMEN are at.”

Now, we all know what he probably means here - women who are at a similar economic level are not submissive enough, and women who are not are “easier” to deal with. There’s also the fact that a certain woman’s upbringing may make her more “susceptible” to what the man perceives to be submissive status, or else give the appearance of such status.

That’s all pretty much clear, or so I think. What isn’t often clear is the motivation of the “submissive foreign woman” in question. Based on my experience, scenarios vary wildly. A lot of women consider the arrangement a step up, and will tell you to fuck off if you try to lecture them on who to marry and how to carry themselves.

Were you born outside of Donetsk to an emotionally sadistic mother who cleaned hotel rooms and slept with guests for extra cash? Did you have an alcoholic stepfather who tried to bash your face in with a wrench after you refused to blow him? Did your mother then kick you out of the house for “trying to steal [her] man”? If not, you’re probably not going to have a whole lot of authority in the eyes of the eighteen-year-old who just wants a nice, stable life with some aging paramour in Milwaukee...

So what do you do about all of this? I don’t know. I know that until conditions markedly improve in my native Ukraine, people are going to want to get out. Until more men realize that women’s sole purpose isn’t to gratify their sexual and culinary needs, they’re going to seek out the vulnerable among us.

And we will keep on keeping on.

Though if I have any ideas about any of this, it’s to stress that all of us, the rich, the poor, the in-between, the misogynists, the crusaders, the quiet and shy, the loud and abrasive - we are all as “real” as the next person.

I think here, as with the prostitution...talks...in feminism (among others), what happens here is that...well, I dunno, there's a whole comment thread there and I'm not currently up to opining very eloquently or originally. Just: well, yeah, the situation is...grey and complicated. As are people, including women.

**in case you were wondering whether this was a rhetorical question, some lovely examples of said idiots came up in the course of the conversation. f'r instance, as found here,

I salute those men who have gotten the hell out of the feminist matriarchal West, and have managed to find some remaining enjoyment in their lives by going Expat.

...The poor schmuck who dares marry invites the host of Hell upon his head. At any time , for any reason, a wife may “cash out” and strip the man of his assets; and if he has children get child support and alimony in addition to the house and car. Men walk on friggin egg shells in their sexless marriages as the wife manipulates him mercilessly over the barrel. That they flee the country is no surprise.

Worse you do not consider, because of your isolated perspective, that many men do not have sex at all.

or from right there in the thread, for that matter,

“Firstly women from these countries often act a little more ladylike (e.g. avoid swearing, farting, obnoxious - not playful - man-bashing) and traditionally (e.g. support men making the money, and women tending to the home and family, and often more religious).

And secondly women from these countries believe marriage is a lifelong commitment, and certainly don’t use terms like “starter husband” in their native cultures (http://www.marieclaire.com/life/sex/advice/starter-husband). A lot of men have heard the horror stories and read the statistics about divorce in America, and want more than just Til-Inconvienence-Do-Us-Part”

...That being said...If a woman cheats, farts, and walks all over her man, that says more about him than it does her.

Doesn't it, just? -poot- oh, excuse me.

The things I learn. So, apparently, if I'd been married traditional, like (and if my husband kept me in line, of course), I'd cease to be flatulent again, EVER? wow, no wonder they want to keep marriage sacrosanct. -poot- goddamit. -urp-

...blimey, this homosexual agenda's more insidious than I thought.

My favorite, though, speaking of, was this one, as ganked from another thread and reposted here:

This string has me in complete disgust! Let me tell you all…all of you feminist, male bashing\hating\demeaning bitches, you are the reason so many American men are looking for (and finding) beautiful , intelligent , talented, warm and loving women abroad …Ukraine and Russia in particular, because they are disgusted with your feminist bullshit! Go to your Gay Pride parade but don’t expect any intelligent and decent man to accompany you !

so, basically,

"I'm NOT going with you to the Gay Pride Parade! I'm going to Russia instead! Because I am an intelligent and decent MAN, and you don't deserve me, you, you LESBIAN!"

I bet he has a great big gub, though.

Attention, attention must finally be paid. Again.

("D'Artagnan! How dare you talk to me that way, you...!")

O all right then, twist my rubber dwama/trainwreckspotting addict arm. Heart's got a new blog up

"to challenge and refute the attacks on me, on radical feminists and radical feminism on the internet."

I figure it'd be remiss to not at least point the way, all things considered.** So far it looks like the first few posts are about "the attacks on me," but I expect she'll get around to the rest of "radical feminists" and "radical feminism" and "on the Internet" shortly.

I will not be allowing comments on this blog; it is intended to serve as a resource. I will post each lie individually giving it its own post, so that a compendium is compiled, both of the lies and, indirectly, of the liars who tell the lies. I envision this as a sort of “Snopes” to which people can be referred whenever someone repeats or spreads disinformation.

Really? I envision it as a sort of Checkers speech as delivered by Time Cube guy, myself. I also envision you being just about ready for your closeup...

The lies, attacks, slander and defamation will come to an end.

Um...okay! This Will Come To An End! You Will Stop Looking At Me Funny! And then: EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINAAAAATE...!

no, no, sorry, wouldn't want to spread any more lies or slander: Heart is not, repeat, NOT a Dalek. Not even a LITTLE bit. Get that out of your heads right now. Severely.

my comments speak for themselves.

That they do, Heart. That, they most definitely do.

**see, Heart, even if you change your mind and the post after the fact, if you publish the post with links to someone's blog, it still shows up in one's Technorati stats. like this, see?

#
Lie No. 2: “Heart Has Said Women of Color Oppress Her/Are Morphing
Into Her Oppressor”
http:/ fightthelies.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/lie-no-2-heart-...

morphing into her oppressor’.” Inventers, tellers, and spreaders of
this lie: Encyclopedia Dramatica (which basically tells only lies,
but still, it tells this one specifically so I am including it)
drakyn, belledame, bintalshamsa, lisa harney, veronica, aradhana,
Trinity, Renegade Evolution* Truth: I do not believe, have never
believed, have never stated that women of color “oppress” me or any
other white woman or white women. I do not believe in
9 hours ago in Fight the Lies · Authority: 1

# Author unknown
Lie No. 1: “Heart is ‘Anti-Trans’ or ‘Transphobic’”
http:/ fightthelies.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/lie-heart-is-an...

Lie: “Heart is ‘Anti-Trans’ or Transphobic” Inventers, tellers, and
spreaders of this lie: snowe, anacas, dorktastic, drakyn, belledame,
snugglebitch, piny, who has blogged at Feministe, box3, bintalshamsa,
armchairshrink, Mandolin of Alas a Blog, lisa harney, marti abernathy
*, shannon* Truth: I believe that transgender persons should enjoy
full civil and human rights with all

Sadly, that excerpt is all that comes up in the stats, so we may never know why Renegade, Marti Abernathy and Shannon were asterisked. I'm sure they'll each be devastated.

ETA: snerk.

Seriously. Isn't it just a -little- embarrassing?

Or, I don't know, I'm reading both Jill's and RE's accounts of how it all went down and I'm just...I don't know...

Jill:

-snip-

Sam writes: “that wholesale changes were being made to the panel just five days before the event without informing me. I had agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda, and I hadn’t gotten any emails saying she couldn’t attend or that they were looking for a replacement.”

I have done many panel discussion/debates both while as a radical feminist activist and later as sex worker rights activist in which the other presenters were fluid and ultimately irrelevant. One agrees to speak on a panel discussion to represent their views and present them to an audience. They aren’t intended as personality contests. Who the other panelists are should have very little bearing on anyone that is well prepared and knows and believes in what they are representing. Even in the case of Sam being intimidated by Renegade Evolution, the conference organizers went above and beyond the call of duty as not only was security and police presence and awareness of her concerns offered but Karla Mantilla another radical feminist was offered and accepted a position on the panel in support of Sam to no objection of either Ren and I.

Sam writes: “If they had told me Amanda couldn’t make it I would have suggested that pornographers and strip club owners are very easy to find through legal channels so they could have been asked to appear on the panel.”

It is entirely out of the context of standard procedure of panel discussions for panelists to place demands o who they are debating. And why would a strip club owner come take time off work running his business to debate a feminist and a male feminist? That is an unrealistic expectation.

Sam writes: “ I would have also suggested that the number of porn-using men on campus should have been able to produce just one pornsturbator willing to defend his porn consumption.”

This is almost jaw dropping. To expect Constance to find a “pornsturbator” defies the remotest level of professionalism. This would be entirely unproductive as just the term pornsturbator is so inflammatory that it would have lead to heated confrontation. It would also make Constance guilty of setting up this “pornsturbator” to be blasted with rhetoric of this nature, which would lead to him being angry, and an audience that gets cheated out of a debate and instead exposed to some kind of tag team on some guy that watches porn. To give into a demand of that nature would make Constance a very poor organizer. While personally I don’t watch porn and don’t give a lot of thought to the concerns of men that do as my focus is on sex worker human, civil and labor rights and don’t have the bandwidth or honestly the desire to defend mens porn usage, I can’t see any inherent value in placing him in what would be an obvious sham debate which ultimately would turn into a shame based free for all argument trying to convince him of his wrong doing. Again!!!! The audience is the reason for the debate. Not the other panelists...

...Sam Writes: Constance. Constance said she was excited to have me coming and offered to let me spend Monday night at her place, where she planned on cooking dinner for a group of people post-panel”

Which she did and does for every event………….. Wow, cooking dinner for you, what a terrible thing to do, offering you a place to stay so you don’t have to pay hotel costs because she couldn’t get funding. My grandmother would be making the sign of the cross over her chest and saying Ave Marias after hearing of such treachery and skulduggery

Sam Writes: How do you think it would feel if a pro-choice feminist were invited to a predominantly pro-life campus by a predominantly pro-life group and the pro-life organizer did everything Constance did without revealing her pro-life politics to her pro-choice panelist and house guest?

How about you invite me to a panel discussion that I had to pay the flight for because you couldn’t get the funding and you were concerned about my expenses and appreciated me flying to Portland on my own dime to present on your panel, so you invite me to your house for supper with other guests, audience, panelists, and let me stay the night without charge rather than having me eat supper alone and go to a hotel I had to pay for alone? I would assume you were being kind, being a human being concerned about me, my finances, my not being alone in a far away city and that you were kind enough to care about me regardless of whether you disagreed with my politics. That is how I would feel. I would appreciate your kindness and feminism that we could agree , disagree or in between but that you treated me with kindness. That would be how I would feel. It would exemplify feminism.

Sam Writes: I agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda three weeks ago. Though it was unethical to make major lineup changes at the last minute like that without telling me and things started feeling really fishy due to the lack of notification about the event anywhere besides pro-john blogs

Pro John blog,,,, I’m done with this,,, There is a difference between arguing factual misrepresentations and rhetoric. We’ve hit the rhetoric point.

Do you realize what you have done Sam? Do you even realize what you are doing?

***

You know, that is one of the questions for the ages, isn't it. Me, I'm just sitting here with the popcorn. I mean, seriously: How! Do you spell! DIVA!

Oh, I had my own answer to this bit, btw:

How do you think it would feel if a pro-choice feminist were invited to a predominantly pro-life campus by a predominantly pro-life group and the pro-life organizer did everything Constance did without revealing her pro-life politics to her pro-choice panelist and house guest?

Um, well, okay, going with the analogy just for the sake of it, I -guess-:

first of all, I'd think she was kind of a brickhead for either not figuring out that it was a predominantly pro-life campus in the first place, or knowing that it was a predominantly pro-life campus and not really considering the possibility that the person inviting her might share those beliefs.

and then I'd think she was -really- delusional if she thought that under such circumstances she'd be able to control who she did and didn't debate, given that that's not exactly a standard for debate invitees -anyway-

Then, well, what Jill said. And I'd wonder why the invitation of person X as opposed to person Y suddenly means the organizer is this Bad Person who was Clearly Trying To Set Our Heroine Up, because she, what, was supposed to know by osmosis that THIS person was unacceptable?

That she should have axed person X just because Our Heroine threw a shit fit, even when person X was being perfectly civil and reasonable and had no problem debating either Our Heroine or someone else?

That the organizer -owes- Our Heroine something after all this? That offering to put Our Heroine up for the night and make her dinner is, in the context of her not booting person X, clearly a sign of her Sinister Intent? What, like, once she got her in her house, she was going to force Our Heroine to watch pr0n sorry I mean pro-life propaganda? Drug the food? Or, just, it's not -enough-, any of this; clearly Our Heroine has been grossly mistreated, and is fully justified in her Cartmanesque denouement (tm I can't remember who coined the phrase, 'twasn't I).

"SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M STAYING HOME!"

Honestly, -even if- that analogy made sense, even if that hypothetical were true: um, bluntly, I'd be embarrassed that someone who was supposed to be representing my side was acting like such an asshole, and I'd be thankful as hell that someone -else- took it on and acted like an adult. And I'd wonder why the hell this person was acting this way, and who elected her Spokeswoman For The Cause anyway.

oh, yeah, and when I found out that there was another pro-choice person right there at the university, but instead of trying to talk sense into Our Heroine or at least taking on the other side like an adult as he'd agreed to do in the first place, stomped off because -the playing field wasn't level enough-, I'd think, "damn, what a fucking douchebag. Are we sure these people aren't actually plants for The Other Side? How embarrassing is this?"

Now: as to the analogy itself.

a) okay, so, once again, "choice" is invoked completely unironically when it comes to reproductive functions, but is BadWrongIrrelevant when it comes to what a woman does with her body -sexually.- Got it.

b) ime, generally in fact it's the pro-life side who acts the way Sam & co. did, handwaving about how TERRIBLE the industry is, never mind nuance, we TRIED talking to THEM one time but they, like, argued back, clearly that's out of the question, they're BAD PEOPLE, ABORTION IS MURDER! PORN IS RAPE! TO THE BATTLESTATIONS, THIS IS WAR!! Nuance? Vas is das "nuance?"

c) William and Mary is now apparently, what is it now? a pro-porn university? Wow, we -are- living in a Corrupt Age, aren't we. I can't wait till the Rapture I mean the Revolution comes to blast away all this Evil. Dark days ahead, the path of the righteous etc. etc. etc.

d) send us a postcard when you get to China, will you?

ETA: and it just keeps getting better!

Good grief.

This was also sort of telling, I thought:

Other women out there will come to our blogs and listen. They hate pornstitution (or do not feel comfortable about it) so they will follow their feelings and there will be other new Rad Fems in the future -- at least it is how I became a rad fem: by listening to what I believe was a group that had strong arguments backed up by thorough research and facts and refusing to listen to the other group that merely had money, corporate media, lobbyists, lawyers, managers, marketeers, industry analysts, paid writers of “opinion” and “journalism”, publicists, etc. to defend their fallacious arguments supporting misogynistic industries. Rad fem arguments are so real and based on experience. The "other side" is so fake: it is patriarchy, it is "the state of schizophrenia" (as I would call it).

specifically:

it is how I became a rad fem: by listening to what I believe was a group that had strong arguments...and refusing to listen to the other group

(because radical feminism, this person seems to think, was always primarily about hating "pornstitution.")

Not entirely unrelated, perhaps, to this:

and we will grow in numbers and get louder and louder, and stronger and more demanding until we drown out any 'what about the men' or 'but I like my porn' bullshit people throw at us. These things will happen regardless of what anybody outside of radical feminism thinks about it, these things will happen even if the patriarchy and the ridiculous patriarchy-pleasing "feminists" ignore us and belittle us, and speak about us as though we should be extinct. These things will happen, somehow, despite the world-changing presence of that MRA's wet dream the "sex-positive feminist", and despite the women-murdering men, and despite the 95% of rapists who get away with it. We are not going to shut up and go away. We are not going to be distracted into self-indulgent discussions of our 'privilege' and examining our navels. We are not going to be distracted by the stones thrown every time a woman says, "Yeah, I'm a feminist, but, like, prostitution is just a job like any other, you know?"

So.

So. Indeed.

Oh, give me a fucking BREAK.

Sam Berg, I'm sure you -are- crapping yourself, but at least be honest enough to say why, hm? It's not that you actually think Ren is going to push you in front of a truck. I mean, it's not like f'r instance these people had that particular excuse in similar circumstances. Or these, or these. Anything to avoid having to face down or even share space with the scary, dirty, cootie-infested "hot bisexee" sex worker "who will suck and fuck anything for money," not to mention a "disposable dick accessor[y]" who "hang[s] upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts," mm? And really: you have nothing shameful you've said at all that William and Mary or anyone else who keeps hiring you for respectable speaking engagements might want to know about? Really.

*ahem*

Okay, and -as- long as I'm on a fangirl streak anyway, I feel compelled to share these findings with whomever might also appreciate...such things: David Tennant in drag.

once as a joke



but here (think this must be from some years ago)...well, i think it's meant to be a comedy, probably? (i have no earthly clue what the Scottish men are saying; I think they're orcs) but um. DT's presentation/performance? oh my wordies. i'll be in my bunk...



Yeah, eventually i'll get back to more serious posting...

("bombs are flying...people are dying...the whole world's gone to hell, but how are you?...")

...eventually. Then again, i'm kind of enjoying the shallow end.

Btw, did I ever mention my theory that the Sims holds the secret of life?

No, SRSLY. See, they have these little bars indicating their virtual little needs: hunger, bladder, energy (sleep), social, comfort, fun, and, uh, aesthetic something or other. When all or most of the little bars are comfortably above the halfway point, at least, then they're happy, and you can make them do whatever you want, pretty much. They'll do the tedious shit without complaining much (take out the trash, study, look for a job, exercise), and whatever "fun" stuff they do (throw a party, come onto the cute neighbor) is far more likely to be successful. (Sexytime is part of "social," I guess). They're more likely to get promoted, spontaneously start writing a book or playing the piano, take good care of the kids, and so forth.

When one or more of the various bars is running near empty, they won't be able to do much until that need is taken care of (especially if it's hunger or sleep). And if they're running low overall, they whine and stamp their little feet and burst into tears randomly, sleep through their alarm, start fights, and go "uh uh" when asked to do something taxing, instead wandering off to watch TV.

If the social bar gets too low, they start regressing and eventually end up babbling to an imaginary giant rabbit.

It's great stuff, especially if you feel sadistic. Once I created a "Bush administration" household of eight and tormented them all to death. Well, first I had them fighting over three single beds, one shower, and one toilet; the rest had to take turns, and they were all really cranky so they kept kvetching and getting into fights. Then I removed all that stuff, and had them throw a party. It's not a great way to make friends and influence people, walking around unbathed for weeks, soiling one's virtual self and bursting into tears, picking fights, and of course, fly-encrusted garbage everywhere. Then I got tired of it. I put Rove in the swimming pool and removed the ladder; they swim till they drown. Cheney I locked in the attic with no food. Someone burned to death at the stove...and George was a schoolboy whose grades got so low that he was shipped off to boarding school; this was the old version where they don't age. If I had the capacity for Sims 2, I'd totally have had him get abducted and impregnated by aliens.

No, wait, but I had a point, here, somewhere. Something important. What was it again?...

oh, yeah:

Ole-like mjoel! Robaluki khan. Awasa poa. Uh, licht nar? Uh -uh!- Oo shonga day? Cayoo! Krach! Lamoo! Frabbit! Deepwa spanewash deepla blah!

Oh--very fucking funny. Ha, ha.

After about a hundred years a week and a half or so's worth of literal purgatory in the form of bronchitis and, well, more going out than coming in, it just suddenly occurred to me: well, it IS the season. Fasting and all. gargh.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm atoning for, but I am entirely sure there's gotta be something.

how spiritual.

p.s. anyone who'd like to take this opportunity to inform me as to what I might be atoning for, please feel free pre-emptively to go fuck yourself with something hard and sandpapery

Dear Person(s) in charge of deciding pop-up ads for (mumble) site:

Please do not emblazon "Do we eat spiders in our sleep?", complete with graphics of big crawly spiders, across the top of my screen.

I don't care that the answer is "no." I don't care that it (obviously) got me to click on it. That was dirty pool.

and no, before you ask, I don't want some disgusting ad with visuals of a dirty pool for whatever reason -either.-

i hate you a lot,

etc. etc.

Hot town, summer in the city

the air is heavy and the stench is shitty
pollution's blowin' and my eyes are all gritty
can't concentrate so i'm writing this ditty
i gotta eat something but i don't want a bit 'e
my brain is in meltdown and it sure ain't pretty

...eh, sod off.