A device reads brain signals and converts them to speech to help people with disabilities communicate.
But how does it know which of your thoughts you want to say? I certainly wouldn't want my interior monologue broadcast for the world to hear!
Friday, March 07, 2008
Half-formed idea: a fetus is a positive physical attribute
So I've been thinking about this Bill C-484 thing. I see what they're trying to do, so I've been trying to think of another way to define the fetus that would satisfy the perfectly understandable desire to see people who hurt unborn babies punished, without creating legislative definitions. Yeah, because I'm SO qualified to think of tenuous legal language like that.
Anyway, the idea I'm currently mulling over is that a fetus should be thought of as a positive physical attribute.
We all have a few positive physical attributes. For example, I have a beautiful smile, spectacular breasts, and long silky hair. (And a surfeit of humility). Now most people in the world think these are positive things. There are one or two family members who I suspect aren't too thrilled with the breasts but are too polite to say anything, and my grandmother has said outright that she thinks the length of my hair is disgraceful (ironically, this rather closely mirrors what the reaction would be if I were pregnant), but the vast majority of people see these things a positive, or at least can understand why I like them.
However, I have every right to destroy them if I want. I could pull out all my teeth, get a preventive masectomy, and shave my head. And that is absolutely without question my right, and in no world would it be illegal for me to do any of those things. Futhermore, it is absolutly without question legal for my dentist, doctor, and hairdresser respectively to do those things for me at my request. Some people may question getting these things done electively, some individual practitioners may refuse to help me, but once I can find someone to do it there is no question that they were behaving legally.
But if some other person pulled out my teeth, cut off my breasts, and shaved my head without my consent, that would be bizarre and weird and creepy and clearly illegal.
And if someone attacked me, and as a side-effect of their attack I lost my teeth, breasts, and hair, that would surely make their crime come across as worse. Again, I don't the exact legal terms, but it would be a big part of the victim impact. Any decent prosecuting attorney would show the jury a picture of me posing like a movie star to show off my figure to its best advantage, a veela smile on my face and the ends of my hair grazing my hips, then have them compare it with the bald, toothless, flat-chested woman on the witness stand. And that would surely make the crime look worse than if I had come out looking exactly the same.
Now you're thinking "You shallow bitch, a baby is FAR more important than your hair!" Which is perfectly true, and which is why these things would be evaluated in a matter of degrees rather than as a true or false question. If my attacker had simply shaved my head or pulled out my hair, that wouldn't be judged as nearly as bad as if he had knocked out my teeth. You wouldn't assume that the attacker would be punished the same for pulling out my hair as for knocking out my teeth, nor would he be punished the same for killing my unborn child. Same concept, different degree.
Anyway, the idea I'm currently mulling over is that a fetus should be thought of as a positive physical attribute.
We all have a few positive physical attributes. For example, I have a beautiful smile, spectacular breasts, and long silky hair. (And a surfeit of humility). Now most people in the world think these are positive things. There are one or two family members who I suspect aren't too thrilled with the breasts but are too polite to say anything, and my grandmother has said outright that she thinks the length of my hair is disgraceful (ironically, this rather closely mirrors what the reaction would be if I were pregnant), but the vast majority of people see these things a positive, or at least can understand why I like them.
However, I have every right to destroy them if I want. I could pull out all my teeth, get a preventive masectomy, and shave my head. And that is absolutely without question my right, and in no world would it be illegal for me to do any of those things. Futhermore, it is absolutly without question legal for my dentist, doctor, and hairdresser respectively to do those things for me at my request. Some people may question getting these things done electively, some individual practitioners may refuse to help me, but once I can find someone to do it there is no question that they were behaving legally.
But if some other person pulled out my teeth, cut off my breasts, and shaved my head without my consent, that would be bizarre and weird and creepy and clearly illegal.
And if someone attacked me, and as a side-effect of their attack I lost my teeth, breasts, and hair, that would surely make their crime come across as worse. Again, I don't the exact legal terms, but it would be a big part of the victim impact. Any decent prosecuting attorney would show the jury a picture of me posing like a movie star to show off my figure to its best advantage, a veela smile on my face and the ends of my hair grazing my hips, then have them compare it with the bald, toothless, flat-chested woman on the witness stand. And that would surely make the crime look worse than if I had come out looking exactly the same.
Now you're thinking "You shallow bitch, a baby is FAR more important than your hair!" Which is perfectly true, and which is why these things would be evaluated in a matter of degrees rather than as a true or false question. If my attacker had simply shaved my head or pulled out my hair, that wouldn't be judged as nearly as bad as if he had knocked out my teeth. You wouldn't assume that the attacker would be punished the same for pulling out my hair as for knocking out my teeth, nor would he be punished the same for killing my unborn child. Same concept, different degree.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
One thing I don't get about Big Love
In Big Love, polygamy seems to be against the law - like the Hendricksons and the co-worker's family, not even the people on the compound.
But how can that be illegal? Like I understand that the marriages aren't sanctioned by law, but how can it be OMG-afraid-of-the-police-illegal? So a man gets married and has children, then has children with two other women and provides for them all. That simply cannot be against the law.
But how can that be illegal? Like I understand that the marriages aren't sanctioned by law, but how can it be OMG-afraid-of-the-police-illegal? So a man gets married and has children, then has children with two other women and provides for them all. That simply cannot be against the law.
Amy Winehouse is GOOD!
Being lazy about pop culture like I am, I never really paid attention to Amy Winehouse. I only ever saw her in celebrity gossip, which didn't make me terribly inclined to seek out her work.
Then I heard her mashed up with Ella Fitzgerald. And she made Ella's voice sound weak and immature!
So I'm thinking okay, awesome voice, unfortunate hair. Fair enough. Then I found pictures of her with different hair and it turns out the big hair actually suits her - it's more flattering to her face than normal hair. I gotta give the girl props for figuring out that a big fuck-off beehive is flattering on her! If my most flattering hairdo were a big fuck-off beehive, I would certainly never figure that out.
So onto the ipod she goes!
Then I heard her mashed up with Ella Fitzgerald. And she made Ella's voice sound weak and immature!
So I'm thinking okay, awesome voice, unfortunate hair. Fair enough. Then I found pictures of her with different hair and it turns out the big hair actually suits her - it's more flattering to her face than normal hair. I gotta give the girl props for figuring out that a big fuck-off beehive is flattering on her! If my most flattering hairdo were a big fuck-off beehive, I would certainly never figure that out.
So onto the ipod she goes!
A plot hole in the NAFTA saga
First of all, I should make it clear that I don't understand NAFTA at all. It happened before I was economically aware (I have a vague memory of seeing newspaper headlines about it and feeling terrified at how big and scary the grownup world was with all this free trade stuff I couldn't even begin to understand) so I have trouble understanding it because I don't have anything to compare it to. So nothing I say in this post is intended to say or imply that I think NAFTA is a good idea or a bad idea.
But understanding NAFTA isn't necessary to see this plot hole.
So first both Clinton and Obama mentioned that they'd renegotiate or opt out of NAFTA if elected president.
Then both Stephen Harper and David Emerson made statements to the effect that it would be a bad idea on the Americans' part to reopen NAFTA because NAFTA is pretty darn good for them and we would renegotiate something that is more in our favour.
So why did they make these statements? They really sounded like they were intended for American ears too. But if NAFTA actually so good for the Americans and renegotiating was such a risk for Americans, they wouldn't need to say things like that for American ears. They could just quietly wink at Canadians and say "Don't worry, they don't know what they're talking about." Then if the Americans do reopen NAFTA, we could just shrug our shoulders and go along with it in a docile Canadian way, then work out a deal where we make some nominal concessions to whatever the perceived slight is in exchange for ALL the oil plus one of the nicer Hawaiian islands and access to Hulu and free shipping from amazon.com. (See, I told you I don't know what NAFTA is actually about).
But then (apparently, allegedly, etc.) someone leaked a memo from Obama's team saying "Don't worry Canada, this NAFTA stuff is all just rhetoric, we don't really mean it" (traduction libre) and all kinds of shit happened as a result.
But again, if they knew that it was all just campaign rhetoric, why would both Harper and Emerson make these seemingly US-directed statements about how it's not that good an idea for the Americans?
I don't know what to conclude, but it is a plot hole.
But understanding NAFTA isn't necessary to see this plot hole.
So first both Clinton and Obama mentioned that they'd renegotiate or opt out of NAFTA if elected president.
Then both Stephen Harper and David Emerson made statements to the effect that it would be a bad idea on the Americans' part to reopen NAFTA because NAFTA is pretty darn good for them and we would renegotiate something that is more in our favour.
So why did they make these statements? They really sounded like they were intended for American ears too. But if NAFTA actually so good for the Americans and renegotiating was such a risk for Americans, they wouldn't need to say things like that for American ears. They could just quietly wink at Canadians and say "Don't worry, they don't know what they're talking about." Then if the Americans do reopen NAFTA, we could just shrug our shoulders and go along with it in a docile Canadian way, then work out a deal where we make some nominal concessions to whatever the perceived slight is in exchange for ALL the oil plus one of the nicer Hawaiian islands and access to Hulu and free shipping from amazon.com. (See, I told you I don't know what NAFTA is actually about).
But then (apparently, allegedly, etc.) someone leaked a memo from Obama's team saying "Don't worry Canada, this NAFTA stuff is all just rhetoric, we don't really mean it" (traduction libre) and all kinds of shit happened as a result.
But again, if they knew that it was all just campaign rhetoric, why would both Harper and Emerson make these seemingly US-directed statements about how it's not that good an idea for the Americans?
I don't know what to conclude, but it is a plot hole.
Things They Should Invent: a way to say "This is so stupid it's not worthy of attention" without giving any attention to the thing in question
I'd link to the thing that gave me this idea, but that would defeat the purpose.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Dear Eddie Izzard, please come to Toronto
Update, since I still seem to be the first google result: Massey Hall, April 30 to May 2, plus some other Canadian cities. Info here
Dear Eddie Izzard,
So you're doing another tour! Fantabulous! But why not come to Toronto too? We're a way bigger market than most of the places you're going to, and we're also one of the more expensive markets so you can get away with charging outrageous ticket prices here. Plus you can try out your material in French and everyone will be able to follow along well enough even if they don't think they speak French (this is how we sell bread up here), and no one is going to give you shit if you want to get a bit tarted up.
Besides, you can't call it a North American tour unless you put Canada in there too! Pretty please?
Edit: since I posted this, I've been getting about half a dozen hits a day from people trying to find out about Eddie Izzard coming to Toronto. I normally average 18 hits a day, so this is significant.
Edit again: I'm getting so many hits here I decided to add a proper pitch.
Dear Eddie:
Are you in it for the money? Our dollar is stronger now in absolute terms than it was when you were last here, and way stronger compared to the US dollar. You will not take any hit because of the exchange rate. Also, our economy hasn't taken nearly as big a hit as the US economy has, so we generally have more disposable income to spend on overpriced tickets and souvenir tchotchkes.
Are you in it for the exposure? Your stand-up specials never been on TV in Canada. (Why? I don't know. Talk to the Comedy Network.) Every audience you've ever had here was word-of-mouth only, so a live show would increase your relative exposure here far more than it would in the US. Also, most of our national media are headquartered here, so doing a show here will get you media coverage across the country.
Are you in it to get exposure for The Riches/your acting? The Riches does air in Canada, but not until after it airs in the US. Season 2 hasn't started yet here. And frankly, like it or not, your comedy is the single best tool you have to make people go "OMG I must seek out everything he has ever done!" So come here, do a show before season 2 of The Riches starts airing on Showcase, and people will start madly googling you and end up watching The Riches.
So you want a diverse audience? Based on pure demographics, I guarantee you your Toronto audience will be more diverse than 90% of your US audiences. And 100% is well within the realm of possibility.
Does your market research show that Canadians don't like you that much? If you're going by DVD sales, you should know that lots of us buy our DVDs from the US, because our dollars have more or less reached par but DVD prices haven't been changed accordingly (it's generally about 30% cheaper to buy from the States). If you're going by the size of audience you draw, remember that a) our population is only 1/10 that of the US, and b) you've never been on TV here, so it's word of mouth only. Statistically, if your audience numbers here are equal to 10% of what your US audience numbers were before Dress to Kill, then we like you just as much as the US does. But I'll bet your Canadian audience numbers are way higher than that, and will be even higher if you come do a show here.
A Toronto show will achieve any goal you might have, unless it's "Completely ignore Toronto because they suck."
Dear Eddie Izzard,
So you're doing another tour! Fantabulous! But why not come to Toronto too? We're a way bigger market than most of the places you're going to, and we're also one of the more expensive markets so you can get away with charging outrageous ticket prices here. Plus you can try out your material in French and everyone will be able to follow along well enough even if they don't think they speak French (this is how we sell bread up here), and no one is going to give you shit if you want to get a bit tarted up.
Besides, you can't call it a North American tour unless you put Canada in there too! Pretty please?
Edit: since I posted this, I've been getting about half a dozen hits a day from people trying to find out about Eddie Izzard coming to Toronto. I normally average 18 hits a day, so this is significant.
Edit again: I'm getting so many hits here I decided to add a proper pitch.
Dear Eddie:
Are you in it for the money? Our dollar is stronger now in absolute terms than it was when you were last here, and way stronger compared to the US dollar. You will not take any hit because of the exchange rate. Also, our economy hasn't taken nearly as big a hit as the US economy has, so we generally have more disposable income to spend on overpriced tickets and souvenir tchotchkes.
Are you in it for the exposure? Your stand-up specials never been on TV in Canada. (Why? I don't know. Talk to the Comedy Network.) Every audience you've ever had here was word-of-mouth only, so a live show would increase your relative exposure here far more than it would in the US. Also, most of our national media are headquartered here, so doing a show here will get you media coverage across the country.
Are you in it to get exposure for The Riches/your acting? The Riches does air in Canada, but not until after it airs in the US. Season 2 hasn't started yet here. And frankly, like it or not, your comedy is the single best tool you have to make people go "OMG I must seek out everything he has ever done!" So come here, do a show before season 2 of The Riches starts airing on Showcase, and people will start madly googling you and end up watching The Riches.
So you want a diverse audience? Based on pure demographics, I guarantee you your Toronto audience will be more diverse than 90% of your US audiences. And 100% is well within the realm of possibility.
Does your market research show that Canadians don't like you that much? If you're going by DVD sales, you should know that lots of us buy our DVDs from the US, because our dollars have more or less reached par but DVD prices haven't been changed accordingly (it's generally about 30% cheaper to buy from the States). If you're going by the size of audience you draw, remember that a) our population is only 1/10 that of the US, and b) you've never been on TV here, so it's word of mouth only. Statistically, if your audience numbers here are equal to 10% of what your US audience numbers were before Dress to Kill, then we like you just as much as the US does. But I'll bet your Canadian audience numbers are way higher than that, and will be even higher if you come do a show here.
A Toronto show will achieve any goal you might have, unless it's "Completely ignore Toronto because they suck."
Monday, March 03, 2008
Read this if you ever need to feel better about yourself
Until today, I didn't realize Jeff Healey and Jeff Buckley were two different people.
Irony
You know how grocery stores are trying to sell us tote bags so we won't use (and throw out) plastic bags?
Well, despite the fact that I use plastic bags, I seem to have acquired a number of totebags. And I can't find a good place to keep them. And I never use them, at all, ever, for anything. So I'm starting to consider throwing them out.
Well, despite the fact that I use plastic bags, I seem to have acquired a number of totebags. And I can't find a good place to keep them. And I never use them, at all, ever, for anything. So I'm starting to consider throwing them out.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Saturday, March 01, 2008
I wonder if dog shows have dress codes for humans?
I was watching a dog show on TV, and I noticed that all the female handlers were wearing skirts, hose, and closed-toe flats. That seemed odd to me. Under normal circumstances and given the normal variation of human wardrobe preferences, you'd think at least some of them would be wearing pants, or bare legs, or heels or boots or sandals. I wonder if they have a dress code? That would be a strange thing to have a dress code for.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
I think the assholes have a new technique for trying to get laid
I was reading the comments for the Globe & Mail article I linked to below, and some guy started going on quite adamently about how he hoped his daughters would be virgins when they got married because he really didn't want them sleeping with several different men.
Suddenly, I had this mighty need to go out and have sex with like three or four people all in a row.
Not because I was horny - quite the contrary! I was repulsed. I was so utterly disgusted by the idea of a father thinking about his daughters in those terms I can't even articulate how disgusted I was. The last time I cringed that much was when I was watching The Aristocrats and Bob Saget was telling the joke and he got to the point where an eyeball popped out of its socket (and understand that eyeballs are one of the things I'm most squeamish about - and when I get squeamish I'm the most squeamish person I know!). But the idea of a father thinking of his daughter that way repulsed me so much I felt this huge urge to go whore around so that my father could not possibly think of me that way.
Now I have no idea whether the person who wrote that comment is my father. I have no idea whether my father actually thinks along those lines (I suspect he might, but I don't discuss this sort of thing with him for fear of giving him the idea that his thoughts on the matter are welcome). And I'm not even a virgin! And I can't even think of three people that I'd actually want to have sex with right this minute! And yet there I was, my instinctive gut reaction telling me to add more notches to my bedpost in exactly the same way it makes me cross my legs and arms when someone gets creepy, mentally scrolling through a list of everyone who has ever flirted with me to see if I could find someone I could stand to let touch me for half an hour or so, all before I even realized what I was doing.
But I just realized that this is all a clever scheme on the part of the asshole. He isn't actually posting because he cares about whether his daughters (if he actually has daughters) have sex. He posting because he wants to get laid himself. So he puts out there an idea that will make every woman who reads it want to have suboptimal quantity-over-quality casual sex. Very clever, that.
Suddenly, I had this mighty need to go out and have sex with like three or four people all in a row.
Not because I was horny - quite the contrary! I was repulsed. I was so utterly disgusted by the idea of a father thinking about his daughters in those terms I can't even articulate how disgusted I was. The last time I cringed that much was when I was watching The Aristocrats and Bob Saget was telling the joke and he got to the point where an eyeball popped out of its socket (and understand that eyeballs are one of the things I'm most squeamish about - and when I get squeamish I'm the most squeamish person I know!). But the idea of a father thinking of his daughter that way repulsed me so much I felt this huge urge to go whore around so that my father could not possibly think of me that way.
Now I have no idea whether the person who wrote that comment is my father. I have no idea whether my father actually thinks along those lines (I suspect he might, but I don't discuss this sort of thing with him for fear of giving him the idea that his thoughts on the matter are welcome). And I'm not even a virgin! And I can't even think of three people that I'd actually want to have sex with right this minute! And yet there I was, my instinctive gut reaction telling me to add more notches to my bedpost in exactly the same way it makes me cross my legs and arms when someone gets creepy, mentally scrolling through a list of everyone who has ever flirted with me to see if I could find someone I could stand to let touch me for half an hour or so, all before I even realized what I was doing.
But I just realized that this is all a clever scheme on the part of the asshole. He isn't actually posting because he cares about whether his daughters (if he actually has daughters) have sex. He posting because he wants to get laid himself. So he puts out there an idea that will make every woman who reads it want to have suboptimal quantity-over-quality casual sex. Very clever, that.
Open Letter to the person who wrote in to today's Globe and Mail Group Therapy column
The reader is having sex drive issues, and her partner thinks the Pill might be the problem. Various responses and comments either tell her to go off the Pill, or that the Pill isn't the problem.
Dear reader, please listen to me, I am speaking from firsthand experience: you need to switch pills. Do not go off the Pill, do not disregard the Pill as a possible source of the problem.
Every pill has a different level of hormones, and every person has a different level of hormones. If the hormone levels in the pills are incompatible with your own personal hormone levels, you may experience side effects including reduced sex drive. Finding a more compatible hormone level will alleviate these side effects. Also, switching from monophasic to triphasic or vice versa may also have an effect.
Personally, Alesse killed my sex drive, Cyclen brought it back, and Ortho-Tri-Cyclen actually increases it for one of the three weeks (which is nice - it's fun, but it would be unsustainable if I were like that all four weeks).
So don't stop the Pill, don't disregard the Pill, just tell your doctor your sex drive is waning and ask if switching pills might help. There are at least a dozen different hormone levels available, so give it a try before you write it off.
Dear reader, please listen to me, I am speaking from firsthand experience: you need to switch pills. Do not go off the Pill, do not disregard the Pill as a possible source of the problem.
Every pill has a different level of hormones, and every person has a different level of hormones. If the hormone levels in the pills are incompatible with your own personal hormone levels, you may experience side effects including reduced sex drive. Finding a more compatible hormone level will alleviate these side effects. Also, switching from monophasic to triphasic or vice versa may also have an effect.
Personally, Alesse killed my sex drive, Cyclen brought it back, and Ortho-Tri-Cyclen actually increases it for one of the three weeks (which is nice - it's fun, but it would be unsustainable if I were like that all four weeks).
So don't stop the Pill, don't disregard the Pill, just tell your doctor your sex drive is waning and ask if switching pills might help. There are at least a dozen different hormone levels available, so give it a try before you write it off.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Cake AND death!
Poor, poor Adam Deely of Birmingham.
Not only does he die in a terribly embarrassing way, by choking on a cupcake, but Eddie Izzard fans everywhere are giggling despite themselves.
Not only does he die in a terribly embarrassing way, by choking on a cupcake, but Eddie Izzard fans everywhere are giggling despite themselves.
Another stroke of luck
Let's pretend I live on a corner. It's more complicated than that, but the arrangement doesn't actually matter so we'll just pretend it's a corner.
There is a power outage on the other side of the street my building is located on. There is a power outage on the other side of the street my building is located beside. But there is no power outage on my side of the two streets.
This is a really weird amount of good luck to be getting
There is a power outage on the other side of the street my building is located on. There is a power outage on the other side of the street my building is located beside. But there is no power outage on my side of the two streets.
This is a really weird amount of good luck to be getting
Linguistic research needed
Dear Abby readers complain about being addressed as "You guys".
Based on the letters, it seems to be a regional dialect thing. I can see how the word "guy" can be masculine when it is intended to be so, but personally when I say "you guys" it is gender-neutral. By that I mean that there's no intention of gender in it. It's even more gender-neutral than the intentions behind "Everyone should bring his book," because I don't see unless you point out to me and make me think about it how "you guys" could even be interpreted as masculine. It would be like interpreting the word "human" as masculine because the word "man" can be found in it. It isn't even like the French ils for a mixed group (which seems to be falling into disuse, incidentally). In my train of thought in using this word, it isn't marked as masculine at all. It's like "you guys" is a completely separate term from "guy".
So what they should study (in addition to mapping "you guys" usage) is whether anyone who says "you guys" ever intends it as masculine, whether explicitly or through an "everyone should bring his book"/ils/mankind type usage. Because in my dialect there's no thought of gender whatsoever. It's just that we don't have "y'all" or "folks" in our active vocabulary, so there's not much else we can put there.
Based on the letters, it seems to be a regional dialect thing. I can see how the word "guy" can be masculine when it is intended to be so, but personally when I say "you guys" it is gender-neutral. By that I mean that there's no intention of gender in it. It's even more gender-neutral than the intentions behind "Everyone should bring his book," because I don't see unless you point out to me and make me think about it how "you guys" could even be interpreted as masculine. It would be like interpreting the word "human" as masculine because the word "man" can be found in it. It isn't even like the French ils for a mixed group (which seems to be falling into disuse, incidentally). In my train of thought in using this word, it isn't marked as masculine at all. It's like "you guys" is a completely separate term from "guy".
So what they should study (in addition to mapping "you guys" usage) is whether anyone who says "you guys" ever intends it as masculine, whether explicitly or through an "everyone should bring his book"/ils/mankind type usage. Because in my dialect there's no thought of gender whatsoever. It's just that we don't have "y'all" or "folks" in our active vocabulary, so there's not much else we can put there.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The problem with interesting work
Right now (yes, literally right now, blah overtime) I'm working on a terribly interesting text. It's the kind of thing I want to have a massive conversation about. I want to sit down with the author with coffee and ask "But what about cases where..." and "In your research, did you ever find..." and "If I were in that position, I'd be inclined to think...but is that just a function of my own cultural background?" I want to take this text and show it the people that it concerns and ask them what they think and is the situation on the ground really like this. I want to find supporting and refuting research and anecdotal evidence.
But there's no time. I just have to get it into English and get it revised and get it to the client by deadline and then I've got a dozen other things waiting for me.
But there's no time. I just have to get it into English and get it revised and get it to the client by deadline and then I've got a dozen other things waiting for me.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Chitchat poll
My shyness and introversion incline me to talk too little. My attempts to compensate for my shyness and introversion to put others at ease incline me to talk too much.
If I were just an acquaintance that you don't care about any more than anyone else (because if you're reading this you probably care more about what I have to say than the average person) would you rather I err on the side of talking too little or talking too much? (No, I am not capable of just talking appropriately or only about interesting topics.)
If I were just an acquaintance that you don't care about any more than anyone else (because if you're reading this you probably care more about what I have to say than the average person) would you rather I err on the side of talking too little or talking too much? (No, I am not capable of just talking appropriately or only about interesting topics.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)