A huge and major misquote in the local newspaper this morning. Major. Big. Large headline. This will take up the rest of at least this day, if not the week.
Editor is trying to make a personal theory stick by using an arcane report in an odd way. A report I voted to approve, and have voted to approve every singly time it's come forward. I told him he was using it incorrectly to draw a strange conclusion.
He used my quote, where I tell him he's wrong, to make it look as if I'm saying that the REPORT is wrong. This morning the big black headline is that I think that the *report itself* is flawed, and that the *District* shouldn't be relying on it at all.
Thanks, dude. I appreciate that. Remind me again why I'm supposed to talk to you guys?
Now I can't get him on the phone to demand my correction or retraction. Ugh!!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Please Forward to all your friends
I have a friend who sends me every possible "Support Our Troops" emailing. The jokes, the pictures, anything which comes into her mailbox. I get about four a day from her.
Mostly I ignore them.
Yesterday I opened one entitled "Traitor!!!", mostly to see who deserved so many exclamation marks. It was a screed against Jane Fonda, ending with an exhortation to get Barbra Walters not to do a special on her as an influential woman. How she had betrayed the POW's in Vietnam, etc. Apparently it hit my very last nerve, so I sent a note to my friend, and looking back in the forward list, I found another friend who had sent it on to her, so I cced her.
Basically I said, please stop. Please don't send me any more political stuff, no more "support our troops" messages; stay my friend and send me pictures of your kids, but no more of this. Please.
So this morning they both write back with, "Well, all you had to do was ask, and we would have stopped some time ago." (Didn't I just ask you now?)
Individually they both closed their message to me with, "I usually never forward these, but I had thought you would be interested. If you're not interested, then I won't forward."
If you don't forward, then why are you showing up on the email as forwarding to each other and why do I get four of these a day? Ugh.
And know I'm feeling like I have to go play nice with them because at least one of them has gotten her feelings hurt (she didn't send me the one in question--just sent it on to her friend).
Mostly I ignore them.
Yesterday I opened one entitled "Traitor!!!", mostly to see who deserved so many exclamation marks. It was a screed against Jane Fonda, ending with an exhortation to get Barbra Walters not to do a special on her as an influential woman. How she had betrayed the POW's in Vietnam, etc. Apparently it hit my very last nerve, so I sent a note to my friend, and looking back in the forward list, I found another friend who had sent it on to her, so I cced her.
Basically I said, please stop. Please don't send me any more political stuff, no more "support our troops" messages; stay my friend and send me pictures of your kids, but no more of this. Please.
So this morning they both write back with, "Well, all you had to do was ask, and we would have stopped some time ago." (Didn't I just ask you now?)
Individually they both closed their message to me with, "I usually never forward these, but I had thought you would be interested. If you're not interested, then I won't forward."
If you don't forward, then why are you showing up on the email as forwarding to each other and why do I get four of these a day? Ugh.
And know I'm feeling like I have to go play nice with them because at least one of them has gotten her feelings hurt (she didn't send me the one in question--just sent it on to her friend).
Monday, February 26, 2007
SBD - Multiple books
I've been looking over my blog and trying to figure out how to streamline the damned thing. I sorta make these promises to myself that I'll stop posting fourteen paragraph essays about some weird thing which happened in my political life. I keep writing about horses, but I don't really get along with a large sector of the horsie community, so that just starts up weird wars over things I'm not that upset about.
(Oh. But don't get me going on Rolkur. Oh, what the hell. Here. I think it's dangerous, painful, and disgusting looking, and this woman wrote about it so much better than I ever could, so go read it over there. Then you can come back and beat me up over here. And you're talking to a girl who rode a horse in draw reins--but never to this extreme. These are International Riders at the top of their classes.)
(Shouldn't have just posted those links--the crazies are coming, the crazies are coming.)
I keep posting long screeds about my son and his behavior and his schooling. (I have another meeting on Wednesday Afternoon! Oh, goodie!) I keep sorta meaning to get around to posting about books.
Monday is Smart Bitches Day, so named by the ever lovely Beth. We are supposed to write about something which gets us passionate in books or reading. (Lord. I spelled that "pationate" about four times, stared at it, erased it, and then typed it back in as pationate. I'm a goober.) I keep meaning to even write ONE thing about a book I've read, let alone a scheduled post on a topic of import to me within the larger sphere of books.
But that's kind of how I read. I'm all over the place. Which gets me (Ta! DA!) to my SBD topic: Reading more than one book at a time.
This seems to confuse those who do not partake of multiple books at once. I am often stopped by friends who are amazed that I read this way. To me, their amazement is mutual. Why are you amazed? Doesn't everyone read this way? I'm still shocked when I find people who are surprised that I read this way.
When I last totalled it up, I was reading I think seven books concurrently. I've finished Sorcery and Cecilia, so I guess that reduces the number, but then I added in a very over the top Romance my daughter found for me. Oh dear. We must work on her tastes a touch. So I guess I'm back to seven again.
But I'm not only interested in horses, in fact a lot of my friends still don't know that I keep up with breeders and with horses. I'm not only interested in local or national politics. Some days I research this, some days I dream about that, some days I shrug off stuff which would have been fascinating a few days ago. Some days I write and blog, some days I don't. But I'm always me in the middle of all of that. And that's why I have to read a bunch of books at once. Some days some books work, some days they don't.
When I totally fall into a book, forget it, that's the one I read all the time. I just went through a Sabrina Jeffries and Eloisa James glom which was like this. But normally I have a Romance (or two), and usually about four general fiction books going at the same time. I guess this is why I don't have a TBR pile. When it comes in the house, it's getting read. It's not set aside for later.
Do I get plots confused? No. Do I get characters confused? Generally, no. They belong to their plots, don't they? Do I forget their names? Hell, yeah. I enjoy names a great deal, but especially in Romances, the names don't stay with me if I'm reading a bunch together.
Two reading tendencies which come out in this scheme. First, I skim a lot. I read the back chapter first, so I can orient myself in the story, and sometimes if I've forgotten whether I liked the book or not, after a few days apart, I reread the last chapter again. It becomes my back cover blurb. Second, it takes a while for me to get to Did Not Finish status. If it's tapering off or I'm getting distracted, I set it aside. And I do that over and over again. Until one day, I pick up the book, read the last chapter, and say, "Nope. I'm not wasting my time with you anymore."
But if I fall into a book, look out. Bread, water, and book. All others get set aside.
So I guess I'm just going to have to leave the messy blog as it is. Is it a horse blog? (I'm a on a horse blog list somewhere. Oh, dear.) Is it a Romance Reader's blog? (Not judging my the number of books I talk about. Oh, dear.) Is it the annoying ramblings of a frustrated mother and politician. (That sounds just like a blog I don't want to read. I'd run screaming into the night if someone sent me a link to a Mommy Politician. Oh, dear.) But I'm all of them and none of them. Somewhere in here there's a point. Something about a generalized survey course giving you a fairly good overview of the complexities of the matter without delving deeply into the details of how or why.
(Is it possible to delve shallowly? Trivially? Desultorily? Mmm. Delving desultorily. There's a cumbersome Rock Group Name.)
(Oh. But don't get me going on Rolkur. Oh, what the hell. Here. I think it's dangerous, painful, and disgusting looking, and this woman wrote about it so much better than I ever could, so go read it over there. Then you can come back and beat me up over here. And you're talking to a girl who rode a horse in draw reins--but never to this extreme. These are International Riders at the top of their classes.)
(Shouldn't have just posted those links--the crazies are coming, the crazies are coming.)
I keep posting long screeds about my son and his behavior and his schooling. (I have another meeting on Wednesday Afternoon! Oh, goodie!) I keep sorta meaning to get around to posting about books.
Monday is Smart Bitches Day, so named by the ever lovely Beth. We are supposed to write about something which gets us passionate in books or reading. (Lord. I spelled that "pationate" about four times, stared at it, erased it, and then typed it back in as pationate. I'm a goober.) I keep meaning to even write ONE thing about a book I've read, let alone a scheduled post on a topic of import to me within the larger sphere of books.
But that's kind of how I read. I'm all over the place. Which gets me (Ta! DA!) to my SBD topic: Reading more than one book at a time.
This seems to confuse those who do not partake of multiple books at once. I am often stopped by friends who are amazed that I read this way. To me, their amazement is mutual. Why are you amazed? Doesn't everyone read this way? I'm still shocked when I find people who are surprised that I read this way.
When I last totalled it up, I was reading I think seven books concurrently. I've finished Sorcery and Cecilia, so I guess that reduces the number, but then I added in a very over the top Romance my daughter found for me. Oh dear. We must work on her tastes a touch. So I guess I'm back to seven again.
But I'm not only interested in horses, in fact a lot of my friends still don't know that I keep up with breeders and with horses. I'm not only interested in local or national politics. Some days I research this, some days I dream about that, some days I shrug off stuff which would have been fascinating a few days ago. Some days I write and blog, some days I don't. But I'm always me in the middle of all of that. And that's why I have to read a bunch of books at once. Some days some books work, some days they don't.
When I totally fall into a book, forget it, that's the one I read all the time. I just went through a Sabrina Jeffries and Eloisa James glom which was like this. But normally I have a Romance (or two), and usually about four general fiction books going at the same time. I guess this is why I don't have a TBR pile. When it comes in the house, it's getting read. It's not set aside for later.
Do I get plots confused? No. Do I get characters confused? Generally, no. They belong to their plots, don't they? Do I forget their names? Hell, yeah. I enjoy names a great deal, but especially in Romances, the names don't stay with me if I'm reading a bunch together.
Two reading tendencies which come out in this scheme. First, I skim a lot. I read the back chapter first, so I can orient myself in the story, and sometimes if I've forgotten whether I liked the book or not, after a few days apart, I reread the last chapter again. It becomes my back cover blurb. Second, it takes a while for me to get to Did Not Finish status. If it's tapering off or I'm getting distracted, I set it aside. And I do that over and over again. Until one day, I pick up the book, read the last chapter, and say, "Nope. I'm not wasting my time with you anymore."
But if I fall into a book, look out. Bread, water, and book. All others get set aside.
So I guess I'm just going to have to leave the messy blog as it is. Is it a horse blog? (I'm a on a horse blog list somewhere. Oh, dear.) Is it a Romance Reader's blog? (Not judging my the number of books I talk about. Oh, dear.) Is it the annoying ramblings of a frustrated mother and politician. (That sounds just like a blog I don't want to read. I'd run screaming into the night if someone sent me a link to a Mommy Politician. Oh, dear.) But I'm all of them and none of them. Somewhere in here there's a point. Something about a generalized survey course giving you a fairly good overview of the complexities of the matter without delving deeply into the details of how or why.
(Is it possible to delve shallowly? Trivially? Desultorily? Mmm. Delving desultorily. There's a cumbersome Rock Group Name.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)