Be sure to check out my new project: Baldercast

It's the wave of the future! It's the magic of SOUND! Soon devices everywhere will be able to provide an auditory entertainment experience, whether in the car, on a plane, or even walking down the street!

baldercast.com

Adventures in Fowler

I'll make this a quick post for whoever hasn't heard the story. It's crazy and lucky and even miraculous, depending on your worldview.
My sister-in-law, Mandy, was driving with their 2 year old, maybe 90 pound black lab, Sadie, and 4 year old son, Collin, this last week when disaster struck. She slid in some slushy snow ice, spun around some and landed in the ditch, and ditches in that area are deep. Let's do this out of order...Collin was left somewhere in the front-seatish area, I'm guessing, and quite battered. Sadie laid still, having smashed two spider-web cracks into the windshield. Water trickled in slowly from the drainage in the ditch. A following onlooker and off-duty paramedic pulled over and called for an ambulance. He got Collin, with a silent scream on his face, "safely" out of the car. Mandy appeared fine, with some obvious neck-trauma from the whiplash. Mother and son were taken to the emergency room and were checked in for a day and two, respectively.
Meanwhile, Sadie lay in the car. Mandy called animal control to ask them to get her. They went to retreive her, but she was frightened, broken, and wet, and wouldn't let them touch her. Chad, Mandy's husband, was informed that his wife and son were going to be fine, so he first made his way to the accident and pulled Sadie out. His tears meant he understood what she did not. The spider-webs were from her shattered skull and hip. She was taken to the animal hospital. Chad, still crying over the phone, but with the guidance of a friend who worked there, decided to have her put to sleep, she wouldn't make it through the night. According to the friend, she went down peacefully, unlike most.

Mandy is fine, and needed no more than a chiropractic adjustment. Collin had his head scanned and is also fine. I didn't see any bruises anywhere else, but his eyelids, all around, are deep purple, and a fainter, greenish bruise spreads from the middle of his forehead to below his nose. His eyes appear to be set deep in his head because of the swelling of the surrounding tissue. But he doesn't even seem to notice it, except that he rubs his eyes every couple of minutes. He is already back to breakdancing with glowsticks.

The accident occured less than a mile from their house, and a couple miles earlier, Collin had unstrapped himself from his carseat and moved into the middle seat to be closer to Sadie (who was, I remind you, in the front seat). Mandy noticed in the middle of the act, but didn't make a fuss since he was buckled up again and they were so close to home. When they hit, Sadie smashed into the windshield, and Collin flew out of his seatbelt, which he probably hadn't tightened, and into Sadie. Sadie's body saved Collin's life. A head-first smash into the windshield would have had obviously lethal effects on a boy less than half the size of the dog.

I'm not concluding with an analysis or moral, you can make your own.

P.S. If anyone needs more reading material, here is a post I contributed to:
I support Summer Vacation

Oh, God!

The title of this post is "Oh, God!" not to "take the Lord's name in vain" but as in saying, "Oh, God, you've done it again!" There is a prank that God laid out for us many many years before man started using air-tight seals. It is the freezing temperature of water, and I wouldn't be surprised if in heaven there are many jokes between angels and our forefathers about this one, especially those that never had the experience of using glass containers. I imagine they watched with childish grins as Granny Smith tried freezing a jar of canned apples in the icebox. Oh, what a hoot!

First of all, I am pretty confident that water is the only (or at least one of the few) liquids that expands upon getting colder. So water, in itself, is quite a prank. It doesn't start to expand until 4 degrees Celsius. In all that coldness, it acts normal, slowly shrinking until 4 degrees where it proudly exclaims, "HA! FOOLS!" as we watch, dumbfounded, nearly frozen, and on top of it all, absolutely pissed.

Second of all, it's used or occurs naturally in all of our drinks, and most of our foods. Put a can or bottle of any drink with less alcohol than wine in the freezer and what happens? It's ALMOST there, ALMOST frozen and at this point, God has decided, it would be a good time for a catastrophe. The container gives way and the nearly-freezing fluid explodes or drizzles or whatevers out and NOW, most likely within seconds, because of the small volume of each blob, it freezes. How convenient.

Along with the "curse" are some important blessings. If water didn't do this, lakes would freeze from the bottom up. I think freezing would occur longer after the onset of cold temperatures than it does now, not until the earth below the lake was at a freezing temperature. But this is what would happen, the molecules nearer the surface would be cooled, they would sink lower because of increased density, and then freeze along the bottom of the lake. But probably in the big picture, the molecules near the surface would be cooled, start sinking, then decrease the temperature of the water below it. This would carry on until the whole lake was just about freezing, and then it would start to freeze from the bottom up. If the earth beneath was still warmer than 0 degrees, it might melt some of this ice, but the cooler water would stay nearer the bottom, eventually pulling the earth down with it. I think the end result would be many completely frozen lakes, many dead fish. 10 cups of water will freeze to 11 cups of ice. So before the entire lake is frozen, rivers and lakes would overflow. I'd imagine that many animals and people wouldn't survive or never would have settled in freezing areas, because of the lack of fish.

The reason lakes don't freeze through now is that the cooler water rises to the top, and I don't think the earth beneath gets all the way down to 0. I'm making most of this up, so if anyone has a different idea, or if I got something wrong, let me know. Oh yeah, there would also be no north pole, or anything but sea in the arctic. Which would mean a lot more water all around and a lot less land. And it IS possible for rivers to freeze over, so I'd imagine that it would be a lot easier for all rivers to freeze over. especially since the cold water settled into deeper pools could freeze much easier or the same as rivers now freeze along the edges in stiller areas. The ice would "grow" and probably eventually freeze the whole thing. One last point, the ice would take much longer to thaw in the spring, especially if it's true that the ground beneath is also being held below 0.

Two More Bathroom Pet Peeves

1.) You walk forward into the stall, and you push the door shut, which isn't that hard to do. And then the world goes crazy around you. You reach out and grab the locking lever with your left hand in an upside down bird-shadow-puppet grasping position. This is the kind where the fulcrum (the point at which the lever rotates about) is at the right end of the lever, and to lock the door, you rotate the left side of the lever clockwise. No matter what the orientation, it seems unnatural, the way you have to hold and rotate the lever. The only way the beginning and ending orientation of the lever MIGHT make sense is if you were a small person or a child, because then you could reach UP at it and push it up and over to the right. If anyone knows the benefit behind this, please let me know. I'd much rather see a sliding bar or just a knob that you twist.

So far it might not sound that bad, but NOW imagine the stall opens OUT. So you PULL the door open before you walk into the stall. Now you have to hold that lever as you pull the door shut and keep pulling it towards yourself while you rotate it clockwise. This design is enraging and no benefit could possibly outweigh its annoyingness. Both sides of the lever, the ones you grip, are angled so that you have no ledge to hold. The only thing giving you a grip on it is the friction between your skin and the metal, which would at least be partially redeeming if the entire lever handle was rectangular.

2.) Automatic-flush-SIT-DOWN-toilets. Okay, I don't even need to get too graphic. But these always go off early on me. So maybe I stand on the toilet seat while I'm cleaning up, it DOESN'T MEAN I'M DONE!

Second of Most Recent Posts About Music

While rediscovering the power of music of the other day (coincidentally, with the power of love) by Huey Lewis and the News playing on my ipod), an old thought struck me. And so I think while talking about this I'll also get into what heaven might be like. Now some of this might just sound psychadelic, but I think there is something that drugs and alcohol do to the brain that loose it (pause here...not LOSE it, but loose it, loosen it), and while harmful and not recommended while on earth, maybe it's some sort of a hint.

When I listen to music that I like, I get the urge to do things that I can't do. Like fly, or maybe just stretch around in a weird position, or maybe even just dive at the ground and roll or something. Or backflip, or parkour. And while some of those are possible to some extent, they're usually not without pain or scorn from normal people. These urges I don't think would be satisfied even if I did have the skill to do those things. I think my soul wants me to do something impossible, so my mind thinks of something related but more realistic or dumbed-down that might just be possible.

This is part of why I disagree that time is the 4th dimension. If you're new, go back to the first couple posts in the archive about dimensions. If you were a 2D square, moving in the 3rd dimension would be moving in a direction that you never experienced, and that you couldn't control with your normal means of movement. So I believe it's permissible to do some extrapolation and say that being a 3D human, there are additional dimensions that are accessible, although not by our familiar means of movement. If there is a heaven in the way that many of us think or hope of it, I think we will be able to move in these additional dimensions as a way to just move, or to express ourselves, or just for fun.

Music has a way of loosing the mind to at least consider these spiritual or at least beyond-three-dimensions kinds of movements. Maybe drugs do too, but in a more uncontrolled way.

I also think that heaven will be much less worshipping God by singing and bowing than we think. I think there will be all sorts of things we like. And worshipping God by playing 6-dimensional football (we will be required to use only 6) will be as meaningful as anything else.

First of Most Recent Posts about Music

I was listening to my ipod this morning and rediscovered beauty in music. Sometimes I go a while without, I'm not sure why, but I just won't have the urge to listen. It doesn't mean I don't love music, I just want a break from or something. But then whenever I do take it to work or something, it just completely changes the day. It's a lot more bearable.

Music brings out emotions and feelings, it must touch certain parts of the brain, that nothing else does. I think other arts are more for observation, like visual stuff. When you hear music you perform it in your head, maybe similar to how you will hear the song playing in your head if you're just humming or singing a tune. And your mind, conscious or subconscious adds to it, so that it's different each time. Even if it's not so much different, it just requires some kind of participation from your mind. Even if you're not really thinking about it, your mind is processing the music. Which is probably why we like it, it's doing something in there that just makes us feel good.

Listening to the radio the other day, there was a typical 2002-to-present song, and to be honest, it's not like the music is necessarily less complex than a lot of songs I like, but I hated it anyway. So I wondered if it's fair for me to think that. I hear the guy's voice, it fits into a certain category and I don't even give it a chance. Apparently some people like the guy's voice/music if he's richer than me, so I guess the lesson here is don't make fun of anyone's music. Someone reacts positively to that music, so who am I to assume my taste is better.

If I heard any guy sing one word, I can tell you if I'll either hate the band and all its music, or possibly give it a chance. And it's easy for me to be confident that my taste is in the higher-percentile of musical tastes. I know a lot of my friends feel the same and it's really annoying.

Bottom line, that song seriously does suck. Musically it sucks. Lyrically, probably in just about every way it sucks. And mostly, to me, the reason that it sucks is that it does nothing to interest me, consciously or sub-. It's not creative, style, music, or lyrics, and I hate it. My mind does not have anything it wants to add to the music. It does not want to perform it, because my mind and all my senses are unimpressed. BUT...somebody likes it, for some reason, and they're not claiming all those things about it, they just like it. So I can live with that. Which is why we all have to try harder not to look down on anyone's tastes.

Learning a New Word

This is a short post about a new word I learned. Or at least, that I looked into. I stumbled upon an article about holiday tipping. There was a section about how for some people, tipping is actual income, and not just a bonus, like servers and drivers and the like.

The writer stated said:
"This is a very important factor to consider since an issue of livelihood is at stake. For folks whose jobs pay less than standard, tipping doesn't mean luxury; it means subsistence."

Now if I was making this statement, I wouldn't say subsistence. I would say sustenance. So I set out to find out what was more correct.

Here is the most important definition I've found so far. One of dictionary.com's definitions says that subsistence is "the providing of sustenance or support." Another is "existence."
Sustenance is "means of sustaining life; nourishment" or "means of livelihood."

When I initially did a thesaurus check in Word, subsistence had a single synonym--existence. If that was the only definition, then I would disagree with the author, because tipping does not mean existence, it just means "means of sustaining life" or "nourishment." It's a stretch to say that without temporary "means of sustaining life," one will cease to exist. Especially if you're in the service industry. There are other similar places to go and get jobs. You know that if you don't get tipped you're not going to die, you're just going to have to make adjustments.

BUT, to be fair I continued my definition search and found that subsistence can be "the providing of sustenance or support." SO, my conclusion is that either word is usable.

I still lean toward sustenance.
Tipping = sustenance = means of sustaining life
Tipping = subsistence = providing of means of sustaining life

Subsistence just seems unnecessary here.

Oh, To Devolve!

Here's a simple but sobering thought.

Things--People, society, technology--evolve. They "advance" naturally. Well, for humans they do. One of the laws of thermodynamics is basically the "chaos" theory. That things in a closed system will naturally go from order to disorder.

In animal circles, let's just say wolves, you don't necessarily see things getting more chaotic, but at least they don't tend to get more advanced. Old diseases are adapted to just as new diseases are introduced.

Human society is not a closed system. (I'm just theorizing here.) That's because we know how to build off of our ancestors. Any animal learns from it's own behavior, but except for natural microevolutionary "progress" (survival of the fittest), I don't think one generation knows "more" than the previous one.

Humans do. Because of communication and technology and medicine, we continue to "thrive" after a few millenia, rather than having a population that fluctuates in relationship with other species. (Christians might use a "sinner's in the hands of an angry God" approach. That God could let nature wipe us out at any moment and at any speed.)

That's enough background. So why am I sobered? What if our ancestors saw us now? Would they be envious? What are the other paths human society evolution could have taken? And which is best?

Humans' evolution consisted of periods, and I'm just thinking of these as I go, so this isn't an exhaustive, perfect, or even chronological list:
1a.) Survival at the hands/claws/beaks/etc. of other species
1b.) Survival against plants, bacteria, and disease
2a.) Survival against each other
2b.) Successful conquering or defending (after multiple groups exist in close proximity*)
3.) Continued survival while either advancing or maintaining current technology

*Proximity is relative to transportation technology.

And here's my opinion:
I'd sacrifice technology for simplicity.
I'd sacrifice working in front of a computer for working the land. (not NOW, but back then)

So would it have been possible not to advance technologically? Here's a sample progression. Someone has better land and better food. I gather my friends and beat them away. Some of their group joins mine. We are better protected, better fed, and richer. Any poor guy walking down the street wants some, so he tries to take some. So we have to advance our technology to either protect ourselfs against attack, or kill the attackers. A couple thousand years later, that's all we're basically trying to do. Protect ourselves and make money doing so. Then spend our money on comforts and recreation and necessities.

Let's say we still had our safety and the necessities, but not all the technology. We'd still work hard every day so that we could trade and get the other things that we don't have time to produce. But we wouldn't have to worry about all the things we have to worry about today. Probably mostly because we could learn to get along without having a tv and a trampoline. What if humans had enough self control to understand: If I steal from someone else so I don't have to do the work (or even if I just work harder!), I'll get richer. The unevenness of society and constant competition will mean everyone has to work harder to keep up. And as one person gets richer, another will get poorer. And as that rich person gets 5 times as rich, then 15 people will get poorer and will have to work harder to have a somewhat decent life for the 10% of the time that they're not working or paying bills!

That would never work, but you can see where ideas like Communism might come from. There's always at least one idiot. And once we see that one idiot advancing, the rest of us try to keep up.

So what can we do now? Basically our answer is to try to get rich for maybe 60% of our lives. Then if it doesn't work, we just decide to retire with the best pension plan. I truly abhor nerds like Donald Trump and Bill Gates. They are going to die with billions, and donate it to some school or people going to school to just continue the cycle, because they think we're all wishing we could be rich like them. If they weren't rich, and so many people weren't trying to follow, we wouldn't have to struggle to keep up. What if they gave 3/4 of their money to people with none?

I always say that well off actors and other celebrities shouldn't be praised for giving half of their money away, they should be expected to do that.

Thoughts?

Double Duty Thank You

A guy just held the door for me. It wasn't early enough to be awkward. If someone holds the door and you're 15 steps away, it's just awkward, and you don't even want to say thank you, because chances are you just jogged to the door. It's almost like you're doing them a favor. They're in the mood to do something nice, and to help them, you jog.

BUT, it was early enough to warrant two thanks. It was just barely too late for the first thank you to be a half smile*. My face didn't have time to react, and trying to make eye contact and maintain in time to half smile* at that distance would have been embarrassing. So instead I said "thanks" two steps before reaching the actual doorway. And since he insisted on doing a really good job of holding it, that is, waiting till I was all the way through to let go, I thanked him a second time. Just as I passed through the doorway I said, "preciate it." I was too rushed to keep the "I a-".

I think it only needed one gesture of thanks, but it felt like too much silence. I mean, the guy obviously thought it out. It was on the brink of being too early to hold the door, and right in the 3-step gap where not holding the door would be excusable and holding it would be thoughtful. (Note: I was 2 steps before the final decision line, past which not holding the door would be rude.)

Anyway, whether or not it was required, I belive my response will encourage him to continue his thoughtfulness and ultimately, make the universe a better place.
Segue to the discussion point:If there are two doors in a row and you are following someone (this happens at a lot of restaurants), are you supposed to thank both times? If only once, when? Is too much thanking even meaningful at all, and if one is going to use multiple thanks, should they be different?

What if A holds door 1 for B. B passes A and holds door 2 for A. B obviously thanks A at door 1. Does A thank B at 2? Do they shake hands and show each other family pictures?

*half smile: The half smile is often performed in conjunction with a head nod. It signifies, I recognize your existance, and I may or may not care. In my opinion, recognizing is nicer than not. If done after someone holds the door for you, it can safely be interpreted as "thank you." It's not a real smile, and I believe it takes less than half the energy of a real smile. If a male gives another male, who is familiar but not on a conversational basis, a real smile he is either very gay or very happy. This is allowed, but I would feel awkward doing or receiving this.

If a male does the above while holding the door for another male, then replies to the second male's "thanks" with a emphatic "shhhuuurre!", he is either definitely very gay, definitely very strange, or definitely a cartoon character.

Urine Sampling

Here is another gross post, but it seems to be what we enjoy discussing, so here goes.

I'm assuming that it's not only my urine that is radioactive. Maybe that's an exaggeration. On an average day, if I've drunk enough water and I'm peeing in the toilet, my urine is relatively odorless.

Well not to gross anyone out, but I have peed in a toilet that someone else already peed in and didn't flush! (I mean, I flushed, but the first person didn't.) I think the only acceptable double toilet-usage is when a male pees on existing pee-water. The other combinations are gross. Ladies are always at risk for splashage, as are men deucing. Actually, to be safe, I'll usually aim for the porcelain right above the water if I feel that will reduce the chance of splashing.

ANYway, the real gist of this post is that when I pee into existing pee-water, it sometimes smells awful. Putrid even. It must be because the mixing of solutions and chemicals...etc. For example, when I lived with the parents, if I peed after my dad, I'd have to flush before I even got done, because I think it stank just about every time. This is obviously also observable in public or company restrooms. Sometimes the smell is obviously due to the guy with a leaky dong who peed all over the floor, but often I'm convinced it's just because of the lack of flushing, followed by pee-mixing.

So I wonder, is the reason that the first guys pee was grosser than mine? Probably not, because if it stank right when I got in there, I would have flushed it. It's the mixing that's harmful.

Well unless I'm extraordinary and mine is the only urine that reacts badly with others, then I'm sure you have already experienced all of this. What really blew my mind is that recently I was the only one home. I double-peed on my own pee, and it stunk! And this was only within a few hours. WOW!

Two (Gross) Bathroom Pet Peeves

1.) When there are obviously more open stalls but they choose the one next to you.

This isn't as bad at urinals because you're out of there pretty quickly, and the person next to you has less of a chance of smelling like crap. There are also people who get in the stall next to you, and then slam the door, slam the seat down. They're probably also the same people who let out an obnoxious sigh when they sit down, like they've been waiting a week for this moment.

2.) When people don't know how to wipe.

I know this is a gross discussion, but that's the point. I'm grossed out by it, so I need to find out if all of the world's middle aged men are equally gross. I probably don't notice the exceptions because usually the worse things are more memorable, but I swear, the majority of people I've heard wiping (at work) do this. wshawshawshawsha. That's right, they scrub. Now I guess if it was self-cleaning, it would be okay if you did that, maybe you just want to polish up the rear. BUT, the people who do this do it for several wipes! Now I'm a one swipe guy. Toilet paper is not expensive enough NOT to be. I just can't stand the thought, but can't help to think, what is going on when someone scrubs like that. Absolutely disgusting. Are they trying to work it back in or something? Where is it GOING? Are you disgusted yet? AHHH...maybe you're just disgusted, but I'm seriously pissed off. How do you confront this sort of thing.

As someone is coming into the stall next to me, I'm going to start saying, "Excuse me grossy, don't sit next to me. Neither of us want to smell each other, and if you want to smell me, then you should get it through your gross head that I might not want to smell you." Then when he finds a stall, I'll tell him to make sure he doesn't scrub his nastiness back into his skin.

Zygotic Prophecy

So, as everyone knows, Amy is pregnant, and this is exciting!

I have a cool story (a couple, in other words, the majority of the people who see this, have already heard this).

As thanksgiving dinner with Amy's side of the family was dying down, Amy says, "Let's go around and say what we're thankful for!" She gave everyone about one breath to process what she just said before chiming, "I'm pregnant!"

Alisha, the middle sister, and of course Amy and I, were the only people who knew. So it was strange when Ma said, "I know! Elaine told me!"

Mr. Clairmont is the pastor at a small, tight-knit church in Ovid, MI. Elaine is a member of the "prayer team." (Basically just a small group that people can call or talk to and they'll pray for you throughout the day, week, etc...) Apparently she was praying and God just told her. I'm not sure exactly how, but that's the story, and I think it's cool.

And no, no one leaked the info. Right away I asked if Amy or Alisha told Mandy, the oldest sister (since they would have told her before telling mom). They both said no. And Mandy verified this. And I'm pretty sure Ma wasn't making up the whole thing.

Oh, and also, Ma said, "She told me about 4 weeks ago." In other words, it was within a week of conception, and a few weeks before WE found out!

Neon Yellow Highlighters

Oh man, this is a highly important post.

Here's the question I lay out: Are yellow highlighters worth it?

For me, no. When you first use it, it's brilliant. Hard to believe that that color is an ink and not something more complicated. Then you come back and the outsides of the lines are getting dimmer, even brownish, at least in comparison to the original. The final product, at least after light exposure for a while, is a pale mustard color.

What good is the brightness if it doesn't stay that way? If it's going to fade, why not use a normal canary yellow marker made by crayola or something. The end result would be nicer. But we're trained to seek instant gratification.

It's hard NOT to in this society. Let me give an example. "I'm going to hold out on buying that computer since it will be outdated soon." Well that's always true, so you eventually have to get one. And if you want maximum satisfaction, then you need to want instant gratification when you get it brand new, and then gradually lower your expectations until the next time that you are reasonably ready to dish out the cash for a new one.

Let me give a breakdown of highlighter colors and the results after perhaps 3 months, with the lights on, or the page exposed, for 1 month of that time:
Pink: The most faded. So faint in some spots that I imagine it will disappear given enough time. None of it's original brilliance, but at least the final color is pretty.
Orange: The brightest and most fluorescent. However, the more quickly drawn spots are much more faded then slowly drawn sections, giving an overall crappy feel.
Yellow: You heard me. Not that faint, but as dull as it gets among the citrus colors. The fluorescence is completely gone, leaving the ugliest excuse for yellow.
Green: Lost it's fluorescence, and got duller, looks like a grass-colored watercolor stroke. It's the most consistent and fairly impressive in comparison to the losers.
Blue: The most impressive, although the original was not very bright. There is some splotchiness, as if the paper was splattered with a very fine spray of oil and the ink didn't settle well there. The color is darker, but is still the "same" color (didn't get grayish or anything).
Purple: In the same family of pink, it faded pretty badly but not as bad as pink. Still, sections will disappear over time, and unlike pink, the final color is dull and grayish. Like a stormcloud.

Rank (in this "final" state):
1st: Blue
2nd: Green
3rd: Orange
4th: Pink
5th: Purple
6th: Yellow

Interestingly enough, studies show that nice guys do not finish last. They finish 3rd in a field of 6. Much like Orange. I have no idea how the studiers measured niceness or how they decided in which proportions, nice, mean, and intermediate guys exist.

Take All the Goods from All the Bads - Life Road Bumps

"Bads" are inevitable. So are "Goods," and if someone doesn't think so, they're an extreme pessimist, and even then, they're exaggerating.

I don't want to make this a long and obvious post, so I'm mainly bringing it up for thought. Let's say you have an overall fine or wonderful week, and then the Bad comes. During the Bad, no matter how short it is, you can manage to undermine much of the Good, and come close to convincing yourself the Good wasn't worth it. Now if you really thought about this, you know you're being ridiculous, but anger can do some embarrassing things.
After I had a recent bout of this (in my case, the Bad was only about 30 minutes, and it really wasn't threatening the Good, but it lead me to these thoughts), I realized that I don't even remember the Bad, and that the Good completely overwhelmed it and the Good is how I remember the week. I think this might even be true if you have a period of time that is a majority of Bad. Good just seems to be much more powerful.

I was trying to think about this logically. My first thought was that when I have good memories about something that involved both Good and Bad, the reason is that I forgot about and put the Bad aside. My preposition today is that putting the Bad aside is sometimes desired, but not necessary. In fact, I think the Bad only reinforces the Good. When you realize that the Bad was literally nothing compared to the Good, then you realize how good the Good must be.
I would hope that as I go through life, the number of Bad occurances will decrease. This is optimistic. The truth is that as some things get easier or at least more familiar, others will get harder; and in addition, there are always going to be new things dumped on my plate. So, in the optimism that I subscribe to, the Bads should be expected, but the Good can always trump the bad if we let it.

When I look at unhappily married men at work, I am honestly confident that I will never be one of them. But I'm curious how they got there. Did the Bad eventually take up 51% of their marriage and now they write it off as all Bad? Are their Bads really not that overwhelming, but they stopped (or never started) concentrating on the Goods? Or are they lazy and stopped trying to produce more Goods? Did they assume that Goods were supposed to always be natural and not require work?

Take All the Goods from All the Bads - Pain

This is part of a 2-part series. The second part to be released tomorrow. This is a straightforward thought about physical "Bad." Tomorrow's post will be about relationship and emotional "Bad."

I had a sore throat for about a half hour last week. I was pressing on my ear, scratching with my toungue, drinking water, and making weird sounds to relieve the overwhelming pain. During that time I felt so miserable. Probably mostly because I told myself that. Then, before even realizing it, it was over.

Pain, so often, is very temporary. After it's over, you can remember the pain, but it's not like it still hurts you. And in many situations, you can admit it wasn't so bad. I mean, there are some major things you go through that you would say you wouldn't want to do again (like getting teeth knocked out), but the pain itself wasn't that bad, it's just the healing and the uncomfortableness that you don't want to revisit.

I've changed my view of some things, and they're not so bad any more. Here are the two I can think of. Cold. I'll take the dogs out to pee late at night with my shirt off, when it's maybe 30-40 degrees F. If it's cold they'll try to get right back in the house so sometimes you have to keep throwing them out on the grass for maybe 1 or 2 minutes. Your feet can start really hurting (if they're bare), but the cold goes away in under 10 seconds once you get back inside. Skunks. They're not that bad. Just breathe it in. I mean I wouldn't want to lick one. But some people go crazy when they smell a skunk, and I believe it's mostly a trained reaction. And in some cases, so is shivering and letting your teeth chatter in the cold.

Anyway, when I'm going through unpleasant pain or experiences of any kind, I'd like to learn to ignore the bad feelings, or at least try not to react to the bad feeling. I wonder if that would help it to go away quicker, if I wasn't such a wuss about it. Headaches and sore throats seem to go away after you've stopped thinking about them. You know how it usually just suddenly occurs to you that it's gone, and it's been gone for you-don't-know-how-long?

Time to Stop Whining

Okay.
I've whined enough. Now is my chance to help the world. Before giving out false information, I just learned from wikipedia that a Harvard report claimed that computer use did not increase a person's risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrom.

So this isn't that serious. After a couple months of working here, my right wrist started to get a little painful sometimes. Not bad pain, just a minor, nagging one, that would sometimes persist for maybe 20 minutes after stopping on the computer. I started using the mouse with my left hand. Then, I ordered a trackball since I found out work would buy it for me. Although it's no more "mine" than the computers. I wonder how much fuss they would put up if on my last day I just walked out with my computer. No one told me I can't.

Well, my boss just asked me how I liked it since he's having a similar occurrence. I didn't really think about it till now, but I haven't had the same pain since then. That must mean the pain was primarily from the mouse, even though my hands are usually on the keyboard. I probably have felt minor versions mostly from resting my wrists on the edge of the desk.

So according to Harvard, I guess I wasn't at risk for CTS, but any time you feel a consistent pain, it's probably a good thing to try to stop it.

So if you've had similar mouse troubles, try a trackball.

Knowing Your [Load of] Crap

I know "rants" can get tiresome, but this is somewhat related to yesterday's post, so I figured now was the time. Plus I'm inspired.

I called D.O.C. at the mall. The lady who answered said they took my insurance, they would deal with everything (I wouldn't have to mess with any reimbursment crap), and that they could make the glasses within 2 days maybe even sameday if very simple in-stock prescriptions. So Amy and I go to the optometrist at 5:30, get our prescriptions. Couple hours later we go to D.O.C. Right as we step in the entrance, I remember I forgot the prescriptions, so I ask the lady at what looks like the most customer-servicy desk.

She (I'll call her Lady) will NOT listen to me. Three times I said, "I have the prescription at home. I can call home and give you the numbers and then I can just bring in the actual sheets of paper when I pick up the glasses." Three times she uses variations of, "Well how can we make your glasses if we don't have the prescription?" What are customer service reps for if they can't think for themselves? I hate when you call places and they're answer is the equivalent of "I don't know" or "I can't help you." Yes, you CAN help me, but you have to switch your brain from robot mode to free thought.
Luckily, another woman overheard, kindly interrupted the other and said, "Actually, Lady, what we can do is take the order [etc. etc.] and have them fax the prescription tomorrow." Those aren't exact words. She asked if we could fax it tonight or have someone else do it, and I asked if I could just do it this morning.
This was relieving but doubly annoying. First, because Lady should have thought of this herself, and Second, because Lady should have asked someone else instead of pretending she knew what the heck she was talking about.

So we pick out some possible frames, and get another woman to price the whole package for us. She called the insurance company, who, fortunately again, had at least one competent customer service rep. The rep asked to talk to me so he could straighten out that all I did earlier was get an exam, not order glasses. Good thinking. Ask before assuming.

The pricing news is dropped on us. Apparently, "the best insurance" doesn't make up for lunatic pricing. And of course, for driving, we'll "want anti-glare." A $110 option from Dupont. You're kidding me. Listen, why don't I buy a $12 gallon of satin glaze and anti-glare my own glasses for the next century. Well, fortune smiles on us again, and before picking out more frames for more pricing, the woman helping us tells us that it should take roughly a week for the glasses to be processed by our insurance company's lab. And the whole point in hurrying was to get glasses before Disney World (woooo!). In other words, no glasses until at best, next week.

The truth comes out. Fortune was never on our side. I bet it was Lady who told us they could make the glasses there and within 2 days. Lady then appeared to melt through the floor while laughing and shrieking. A red fog lingered for just long enough for us walk out the door, empty handed, with absolutely no leverage to get back at these people for wasting our time.

Man, I hate customer service. In my last post, I mentioned a credit card that had a "no interest" promotion, but we were told it was "no payments and no interest." This eventually led to a hind-quartersload of interest upon interest. I called, sent letters, and each time I was basically ignored, or told to try the opposite method. One letter reply, in response to my request for partial refund, simply said, "Thank you for your request. Your account balance is..."

I seriously wonder if customer service reps are chosen simply for their patience and willingness to help rip people off. Do they go through training in which they are told to stall for several months until the customer quits? I spent so long trying to get a hold of this company to try to get any possible final refunds before paying it off, because I knew if I paid it off, I would never get anything back. By the way, it was Care Credit, through GE Money Bank. Never use Care Credit. Spread the news. Just find a no interest credit card. If we would have known this DIDN'T in fact, have the added benefit of "no payments," it never would have even been an option since the interest rate was absurd. One last important point. The person at fault for this credit card caper? The lady who answers the phone at the dentist's office.

Getting Ripped-Off

I hate it. To combat it, I've been known to search out a bargain. Although, some might think I toe the line of stealing or that I'm more than toeing the line of being cheap. To me, it's just my own form of self-justice. Let me give an example.

Picking apples: One orchard charges every individual who goes into the orchard. If you don't buy a bag for apples, you pay $2 for the "hayride" that takes you 100 feet into the trees and dumps you off. Now I planned on buying apples, so it didn't matter to me, but 4 of the party of 6 (the other 2 being me and my wife) didn't seem like they really wanted to spend any money. So the simple solution is to just walk (or sneak) in. I don't want to take the hayride, so I'll just skip it, and walk out there for free. If I think we might get in trouble, then I consider the punishment. If they caught us, they would just send us back out, or worse yet, tell us to leave, and we'd just go to another orchard. So the "punishment" tells you that the crime isn't that bad, and it's not even bad, it's just against their wishes. Well we got caught. So we bought 2 more bags and took the darned hayride to find out that the apples sucked. I don't even know why I was so nervous, but after a half hour of debating whether or not to pay for the crapples like all the other spineless or easily-pleased customers, I decided to go back in and get our money back, and it worked. This might be a bad example because it's not like we cheated our way in or something. Although we did get a few bellies-full of apples.

My willingness to try to get what I think I deserve, or at least what I paid for, is what (I think) largely contributes to the fact that many people think I'm cheap or even a scoundrel. Just kidding, that's pretty extreme. (Well my wife doesn't think I'm cheap, so that's all that really counts. She wants me to get a deal, but not in front of her.) What I do is really no different than downloading movies or music illegally. Usually, when people do that, even though they know it's wrong on some level, have several ways to justify it. It's just that a lot of people who download don't do more out-in-the-open stuff like I have. This post is kind of annoying me too, partly because I don't do THAT much cheap stuff anymore like I did in high school/college, but I'm writing about it because I hate the reputation I have, when I don't think I've done any more wrong or been any cheaper than anyone else.

The whole point is that I abhor being ripped off, and I'm done with it. But what sucks is you can't get around it, or at least it's inefficient. Here are a few examples.
*A $60 pair of nice black express pants, a tad bit shiny, go dull and shrink more than any other pair of pants I've ever had. Now they're short and fading, after just a few washes. Haven't warn them in a year.
*20% off on some house decoration stuff from Meijer. Didn't get the discount, paid $2 more than I though. No big deal but annoying.
*$6 off when you buy 4 boxes of chex, the sign's in front of frosted chex, but doesn't apply. Have to go back to the store, return the old and buy the new to get my dang $6.
*Broken patio table from Kroger. Thought it was a good deal. Warranty? don't know yet.
*$75 hair dye job for Amy. Light brown comes out darker brown than her natural color. BS. Said they would call back when I called to complain.
*$60 Up-do for Amy. She gave the lady a picture and the outcome was nothing even close.
*Several more hair stories. Not a penny back.
*Bought Oakland Press for $28 to help some kid out and got a "free" Entertainment coupon book 2 months before expiration. Move out of apartment 3 weeks later, cancel paper, get $4 refund b/c of the dang book, which at that time was being given away at my work.
*$90 electric bill for apartment for the month when we weren't even there and everything unplugged.
*Manager at salvation army can't lower price on 20 year old TV cabinet, buy it anyway, go pick it up the next day and furniture is 25% off. (that's not so bad since they're nonprofit)
*buy a car for $2500, head gasket goes 2 months later, could be coincidental, could be that the guy who sold the car and his brother who rebuilt it are both jack-idiots. (Brother-in-law on phone says, "You might be able to make it home." Fails to mention, "You might melt the engine off." Result=$1000 rather than $300)
*buy two "working" vacuum cleaners for $50. Neither works. Fixing ended up being possible, but still a little annoying. Why can't you ever just get what you were promised!
*Orthodontists office said "no payments or interest for a year" when it was actually just "no interest." Hundreds of extra dollars later...

How much money do we throw away being ripped off by this kind of crap. What pisses me off is that it takes so much energy and time to deal with it. And is it worth it to call the hair place, drive out there, get it redone, or get products to compensate, or anything. If you screw up my hair, don't just offer to fix it. I've already wasted $75 and 2 hours, now I'm going to waste an hour on the phone and 2 hours getting there and getting it redone--more time to have you fix what you'll probably mess up again. No, I want my money back. And if you really want to redo my hair to save your reputation, then I want my money back and I'll LET you redo my hair!

Cow-peesh?

But if you do that, and say it in that tone, they'll think you're a jerk, and you'll be one of those 50 year olds who sit on the phone all day at work complaining to the company they bought their 30 inch LCD from. But I guess they're completely justified, they've been dealing with this for a couple decades more than me.

Dominant People

At the end of the last post, I considered continuing, but I decided to break this off into a new one. My question was going to be about the people that I can completely deal with, as a matter of fact I can usually honestly say I love them, in a friend-loving way, BUT they seem to think that there is or was a rift between us. That's kind of frustrating because I think to myself, "well you and i have traits that cause us to clash a bit, but I can get past that." But when they assume this rift, it's as if they're saying the same thing, except they CAN'T get past it, which could mean there's something wrong with ME! But what is it?

Let's delve. There are personality tests, and I'll use 2 different ones just in case anyone is familiar with either.
REVIEW:
There are 4 basic personality traits, and people have some degree of all 4. BUT, what decides their personality are the dominant traits. So here are the 4 (I'm not going really deep into this, so you can assume/imagine the rest)
Extroverted:
DOMINANT, lion, my way
INFLUENCE, otter, fun way
Introverted:
STABILITY, golden retreiver, easy way
COMPLIANCE, beaver, right way

I'm going to refer to these as D, I, S, and C, since those are the shortest. I took this test in high school and was and I and an S (with the first one listed, I, being the most dominant trait). Jason, I believe, and I would guess, is a D and a C. Chris, I would guess, is a pretty close race between S and I, with some C in there right before D at the bottom.

The tension between myself and those described in the 2nd sentence of this post is due, I think, to a simple personality difference. Let me use specific examples, keeping in mind that I like both of these people tremendously. Both of these people have specifically pointed out or shown by example or I heard through the grapevine that "we haven't always gotten along."

1.) A.J. has very extroverted characteristics. I would guess D and I are his top 2. I am also extroverted, but my I is very high and my D is pretty low. I think, "We can get along, we just could eventually get on each other's nerves if together for too long." He probably thinks close to the same thing, but I have a feeling his dominant D makes him deep down think, "there's not enough room in this town for the both of us."

2.) Laura Hal. is also a D. I guess I didn't need two separate sections, huh?

So, in summary, two extroverted people, particularly if at least one is a D, have a much higher tendency of clashing since they're often strong-willed, thick-headed, and crazy. That's why many couples naturally turn out to be a mix of extro- and introverts. For example, Jason (straight out of the lion's den) and Jessica (such a S-weetie), Adam (can act extro- but is technically intro-, an S to be exact) and Laura ( extro-), Shawn and Amy.

Interesting and personal side-note: introverts can be together, but one of them has to be able to take the extroverted position sometimes. For this reason, Shawn and Amy works better than Jon and Amy. At least 16-year-old Jon, BUT THERE AIN'T NO SECOND CHANCES IN THIS GAME, BABY!!!

For some reason, Jason and I don't clash. Not that we haven't ever, but it was never long-lasting. Maybe it's because subconsciously, we know we both have extroverted/dominant characteristics, so we choose to never compete for the same position. For example, we don't cowrite a blog, because that's not natural for us. We've had leadership questions before, but there were clear delineations between positions and it ended up working fine. Once I had to submit to Jason regarding something at camp since he was head counselor, I can't remember the issue. In a different leadership position that we were forced to somewhat share, Jason decided to concede leadership to me to avoid confrontation.

J and AJ may have band related clashes, naturally and predictably. Jon could have band issues with Dan and the rest of the band, but as an introvert, Jon would bring the issue to someone else instead of actually speaking with Dan.

I always used to be able to show my true "I" to family and even some people in grade/junior high school, unless they were too cool. When I hung around with certain people, though, my "I" was completely snuffed. All these people were very strong D or I, while I was just a fresh social "I." There was Josh M, AJ, Joe V, Drew S, Dan Z, etc. You could not even get a word out without one of these guys making a joke over you. I have never stopped being intimidated by Josh M, probably because I haven't seen him for a few years. When you're around him, he's just so extraordinarilly confident and ADHD (and admittedly, funny), that I could never shake the feeling that nothing I said was funny enough, or at least he was ready to jump in and take over again.

I think this kind of psychology is interesting. Was I destined to turn out the way I did? What if I just never hung out with those kids again? Would my personality finally find its way out in a different circle of friends? Would it be the same?

Actually, my personality didn't find its way out in that circle of friends. It was with other friends, my best friend was always someone less dominant than me. Interesting. Then, after I was a little more confident, I could mingle in the other circle, but without ever really feeling a confident equal until a couple years ago.

Please share your experience and thoughts.

Dramatic People

I don't get along with dramatic people. I just figured it out. It's not that I don't like them or that they don't like me. And it doesn't mean I can't handle them as friends. But for some reason I just can't click with them the way I do with other people.

I can go through a list of all the people I don't "click" with and can find some level of dramaticism in most of them. Here are the different classes of these people, in no particular order or rank:
-Annoying
-Can talk to but prefer not to hang out with
-Can hang out with but prefer not to talk to
-Can talk and hang out, but with extra effort on my part
-Don't get/serious reaction to sarcasm
-Can't give or receive criticism without being extremely defensive or offensive
-Perfectly nice person, I just don't really have a desire to get closer

Now, I should say here, although this is such a cliche, that I am not without fault. And if someone who I consider dramatic could tell me some quality about myself which causes them not to click with me, I would be thrilled to find out!
Some philosopher said something, and since I don't remember the exact words (and since the exact words were probably greek or latin anyway), here is my version:
When someone criticizes you or points out your fault, respond by saying, "If you knew of my other faults, you wouldn't only point out this one!"

This seems to be similar to "heaping burning coals" on someone's head. My view: be comfortable with your own faults, but if you find something you think you should change, change it, and try not to always use defensive excuses.

I annoy myself sometimes, and I think everyone is annoyed with me sometimes (hopefully not all at once, I'm just saying we all have personality traits that clash with others'). I'm assuming everyone could find something annoying about themselves or about most other people. This isn't a bad thing, except I guess, if you're always gossiping and can't get past those characteristics. I mean, the people you love, everyone, including your same- and opposite- sex friends/relatives, have probably annoyed you at some [or several] time[s], but you love them--it's just part of them. That doesn't define them.

I used to worry more about being annoying, because who wants to be annoying? I guess now I'm comfortable with myself because let's face it, most of my characteristics are pretty much defined for life. I think what put my worrying to death is finding my wife. From the very beginning, I liked her a lot, and vice versa. And once you find out someone likes you like that, you know you can't be too bad.

As far as being annoying to friends, well, I guess the same is true. If you have any friends at all, you can't be too bad. And if they really want to pick on something annoying about me, well I can probably return the favor. But since we all know we're not perfect, we can all agree to call it even. Like Chandler and Monica.

Here is the food for my thought. See next post...

Jason's Mom

I told this story to Jason, but my other readers, namely Chris, hasn't heard it. It will make for a nice short, but amusing, post.

At Jason's surprise birthday dinner with a few friends and family, someone brought up the profession of a fifty-x year old friend of our parents. We'll call him Mr. Spock. Well Mr. Zito went about explaining the line of work, which happened to be writing technical manuals, to Mrs. Zito and whoever else cared. Well his explanation was surprisingly close to what I do every day.

At the end of the explanation, Mrs. Zito looked satisfied, and after a pause, said, "Sounds boring." And then she kind of laughed.
I knocked the proverbial wind out of her by chiming, "That's what I do."

Then I knocked the literal wind out of her, and then Mr. Zito knocked the chicken shwarma out of my hand. Then we sang happy birthday.

Dogs' Thoughts

I like to think about what dogs would think if they actually thought the way we do. I think that would make a pretty good short film. Me just sitting there thinking about that. Silently.

Moving on:
Harley's (A female 9-month German Shorthair Pointer) first toy had a "body" made out of thick rope and the head of a monkey. The monkey-head was a squeeker, and after a couple weeks, I slit his throat to cease the squeek. It didn't take long for Harley to rip off the head, the rubber was pretty thin. Pretend you are holding a racquetball in your closed hand. Thank you. This is about the size of the original monkey-head. After several months (up to sometime this last week), there were unexciting developments. The monkey-head was torn into at most 3 pieces, with the main one maybe 5/8 of the original monkey-head. Even the smaller pieces, for months, were just chewed for a few minutes at a time and then spit out.

On my lunch break I went home to let the dogs outside for the rest of the work-day. I scooped poop since the sun was up. And I'm sure you can guess, the large portion of the monkey-head was wrapped around a nice, healthy t*rd. I imagine it came out as the tail-end, squee-geeing as it went, but that's not the point. The point is that after 8 months of gently or roughly chewing on it, I never caught her gagging trying to get it down. So I wonder if she made a decision...Today's the day. The funny part about this is not what I imagine her thinking, so feel free to imagine it yourself.

We also have a 3 month old pit/lab/beagle/shepherd named Nala. My best guess is that Harley got jealous or nervous about Nala having the delicious piece of rubber, and after all those months of idly chewing, decided that it might be now or never.

(If you're getting tired of this post, read only the first and last few lines of this paragraph.)
Enter Mother-Nature. I buried the poop. And if you've never buried poop, it decays quickly. We have a small patch (16 sq. ft.) that will/could eventually be used as a small garden. The dirt is almost completely clay, so it obviously needs a lot more mulch/leaves/poop/ashes (ooh, i didn't think of ashes yet) to get it ready for plants. What I'm getting at here is that I bury dozens of loads there. I don't remember where I buried the last couple dozen, but when I dig a new hole, there is almost always small pieces that I know is poop in the process of becoming dirt. Another predictable but amazing observation is that since burying poo there, a single shovelful of dirt has at least 3 worms sticking out of it (and those are just the sticking out ones!). In maybe 15 poop holes I've dug there in maybe 5 months, I don't think I've ever uncovered a full t*rd. Well I buried the monkey-head, because I wasn't going to extract it. My point was that nature will completely clean off the monkey-head for me. In a few months, when I chance to dig it up, I will either throw it out or let the dogs find it. I'll tell you more about it when that happens.

Perfect ACT Scores and the Smashing of Faces

So I read this article in the bathroom about the seven metrotroiters that got a 36 on the ACT. Six of them looked like pretty normal kids, if not a little dorky because they're smart.

Well they asked for tips that these kids had for other ACT-takers...and the 7th's tip is: "Don't forget your calculator. I forgot mine and had to do all the math in my head!"
I want to punch that kid. And looking at his picture, you know you want to punch him before you even meet him.

First off, and obviously, his tip sucks. Second, and most importantly, you know he was saying that to point out the fact that he did it without a calculator, and you know he points that out to all the other kids who also want to punch him.

He is an opposite of, but also very similar to, the cool kids who think that you don't like them because you're jealous of them. Now I don't care about the fact that deep down, different people are jealous of different people because of coolness, looks, smarts, athleticism, etc. That is true, but the fact is that this kid, even if he didn't have one special or outstanding quality about him, you'd still want to knock him out. Except that you probably wouldn't because you pity him.

The true disaster is that at least some minority of people on this scale of annoyingness inevitably also are very smart or very "cool" or really really good-looking. And then they have followers or emulators who join in and help to make the world a worser place by being aloof and assuming you don't like them because you're not {blank} enough. If you punched them in the face, you would just help prove their point that you're jealous, but the truth is, you just really don't think their face deserves to go unpunched.

Ethiopian Starvation

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=2372
Alright guys. Read this and tell me you're not inspired to do something. We need to start raising money. You guys agree? I'm thinking start making flyers/posters (that can be our donation) for our neighborhoods. Make people trust us. If we do this in our own sub, I was thinking about actually having a posterboard on the porch showing how much money was raised, and then eventually show the "receipt" from the UN or whatever, showing the total given.

You can deposit stright to UN OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) at Chase Bank (I think). Or, to be more specific, you can donate to the Horn of Africa Drought relief. I just sent an email to UNICEF about how to make specific donations NOT just online by credit card.

So what are your feelings?

Phallics, up to and including Patrick Swayze

Before starting this post, I looked up some spelling, but I didn't go too far into it. So this is what I'm settling on.A phallus is an actual penis or picture of one.A phallic is something that resembles a phallus. like a metaphor.(You can also use the word "phallus" for this last definition, but according to wikipedia, "phallic" is more correct)Plural phallus is phalluses.Plural phallic I didn't find. Phalli apparently isn't plural for phallus, so maybe I'll use that. Or maybe I'll avoid the problem by using phallic symbols. Phinally, maybe I'll use phallics or phallix or phalliz, because this is my blog, and that's what I do. I just rock out however the heck I want.

Here's what I have a problem with: The whole idea of phallic symbols. Now I don't care about the psychology of it and I don't care who Freud is, because that's exactly what I think is so ridiculous.

Skyscrapers: phallics? I don't think so. Practical, probably, but not phallics. Do they represent power and MANLINESS and a huge penis? Maybe they can resemble those things, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're meant to represent those things. Now I'm not getting too psychologically into this. I'm sure you can argue the psychology of phallic symbols pretty convincingly in the right context. It doesn't make sense to build that huge of a building NOT that tall, because you'd take up acres and acres of extra real estate. Would females argue to build the building down into the ground to emphasize womanhood? No, it would be way more expensive and difficult.

It's just that it's so overused and overanalyzed. There's so much that COULD be a phallic symbol, so it doesn't make sense to really look into every possibility too deeply. Let's say a bully walks up to me and haughtily points his finger at my face saying something intimidating like, "You're mine punk, you're MINE!" Should my main concern be the phallic his finger is making? And in his toughness, is he subconsciously trying to act manly by sticking his straight finger in my face? If I was too psychological about it, I would say, "Gross, get that thing out of my face!" I would say, "Are you emphasizing your manhood or compensating for a lack thereof?" Then, when he went to punch me, I would say, "Gross, don't touch me with your arm in that position." Or let's say I had some sense and ran away, would I turn around and observe his legs and arms and say, "Gross, you're going to get arrested for exposing all of those phallics in public!" The smartest thing to do would be to run and forget about the phallics.
This leads to another point.

Using psychology theories, you can discount anything. Who remembers when Donnie Darko was making some good points against Patrick Swayze's character, that the reason the kid doesn't know what to do with his life is that it takes time to figure out and it's not just a result of fear? Swayze's response was to totally discount Donnie by telling him and the whole crowd that he's afraid, and that he just needs love. Meanwhile the crowd hypnotically nods in agreement with Swayze. I just read that Freud was extremely angered by those that disagreed with his theory. Swayze=Freud. And not just because they're killer dancers.

I agree that the phallically obsessed bully I explained earlier probably has a deep-rooted machismo complex (and I just looked up and found out that machismo is and arrogant attitude by men towards women, although the way I'm using machismo here is to describe someone who has an arrogant attitude toward any male who is too far from his definition of pure man), BUT it doesn't mean his pointed finger is subconsciously a phallic. It also doesn't mean that I can completely discount his claim that I'm a "punk."

Let's talk about taxes!

Why do people want to "stick it to the man"? Because they think they're getting ripped off.

Taxes are ridiculous. Now I honestly don't know much about this. I'm sure that when my employer sells something to a customer, taxes must be paid to government. I'm also sure they get some kind of right-off by saying that x% of this income is going to pay our workers, but I don't know how that works.

Either way, my employer pays taxes on this income. Then they write me a check, and the government gets a slice of that. Then I buy something...I pay sales tax! Then the company I bought something from gives those taxes to the government, plus some more for their profit. Then they cut a check to the employees, and it goes on and on and on. Or maybe I go to a doctor, and then he pays taxes on his income, and again, it goes on...

The amazing thing to me is how many times that money is taxed in so short of a time. And I wish I had numbers here because I'm sure they're mindblowing.

And then they go spend it all in a controversial war. I don't think I want to get on the saturated topic of the war at all on this blog, so I'm just mentioning it this once. The point is that they're now rebuilding Iraq after spending billions to destroy it. What about Detroit, etc.? What about schools?

I read a few days ago that 47% of Detroiters are "functionally illiterate."
It would be nice if we had at least some sort of choice. I went to a private school and my parents' and now my taxes are going towards public schools. I'm not upset about that, but it would be nice if I could say I want all my money going to Detroit schools, rather than going towards extra sports fields, pools, and glass roofs at some new flashy high school.

"LOST" Open Forum

Season 3, Episode 1
This post is specifically to discuss LOST.
This has been posted after the first show, and I'll make newer posts after a few episodes if this starts to get too long.
Have at it.

Open Forum

This post is about whatever you want it to be. It's for talking about whatever you want to talk about. If you have something random to say that would be better said/discussed here than in an email (and that doesn't make sense to include in response to one of the other posts), do so here. If it ends up starting a good discussion, I may make it into a new post topic.

Smoking Jerky

Stay tuned. Later I think I'll be blogging about phalluses and phallic symbols.

For now, I'd like to question the reason that no one smokes beef jerky...
Why doesn't anyone smoke beef jerky?

I'd imagine that would taste pretty good, while staving off hunger. I know tobacco fags probably stave off hunger for some more advanced reason, like the nicotene or whatever, but these jerky fags would at least keep you busy.

I think the reason is probably that it tastes too good. Maybe it's a waste to just breathe it when you can swallow it.
STILL, there are so many people that are "social" smokers that don't necessarily care THAT much for the flavor or the buzz. I would think some of those social smokers might rather suck in something that tastes a little bit better. Plus, wouldn't you still get some sort of buzz? At least from depriving your brain of oxygen?

I guess that leads to a whole new question:
Why don't people just hyperventilate using a bag? Skip the possible nausea, keep the slightly woozy.

That leads to another question:
Could a [former] smoker please tell me what you like[d] so much about smoking?
(then we can have a discussion about why, and what alternatives could serve the same purpose.)

Gay People

So I've decided to start reading the Bible to find out what it says about gay people. I'm going to try to find out what really seems God-inspired and what could have been forged by the leaders of the day.

I have an uncle who's gay, and one of my wife's best friends through high school was gay, and our conversations about these two people have made me want to find out how I and Christians/the Church could more fairly approach homosexuality.

One feeling I've had lately is: Let them come to church.
I've gotten the impression from the Net that if an attendee was blatantly gay and chose to keep coming but not repent and start living non-gay, he/she would be asked to leave or change. That is a problem for me. Some might say because of this "blatant sin," that person probably can't even meet with God anyway. But we're all human, and God is gracious. So I've been thinking that if that person was really trying to pursue God, and not any self-interest besides that, that God will reveal Himself, and we shouldn't create a time limit. And if homosexuality is wrong, then God will eventually find some way to convict that person so that they understand.

(Note: Remember that I'm just starting my investigation, I'm not actually stating whether I feel homosexuality is 100% sin or 100% permissible)

I think we need to learn to have peace between Christians and homosexuals, just like we need to learn to have peace between Christians and Muslims. You would invite a Muslim to stay in church, why not a homosexual. But I think for peace, we also need to think about things from every viewpoint. I'm sorry that homosexuals are often turned away from Churches, and I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to try to get involved, in a volutary or paid, low or high position and be told that I'm not allowed. If you were gay and you believed that it was all genetics, you would probably feel as discriminated against as a black person [in some situation that black people have been left out]. That's how you would feel. The truth is, it's not the same. If they eventually prove that it's genetic, and not just a genetic tendency, but actual predestined homosexuality, then it may be the same.

Here's something I can compare it to. Swearing. I honestly don't have a problem with swearing. I know the Bible talks about not cursing or taking the Lord's name in vain, so I don't say "D*** you" (cursing), or "oh my god" (taking the Lord's name in vain). And I don't say f*** because it sounds bad, and it actually annoys me a lot when it's used constantly in movies. Also, "f*** you," could probably be called a curse. I just don't use those because I have no reason to. Here are the funny ones though:
s***
a**
dick
piss
etc. etc.
this list could probably include a bunch of other "dirty" "curse" words that are "bad."
Ok, they're dirty words, but they're just things.
Jesus said the thing about whatever is pure, noble, right.......I forget what else...
I'm sure someone will say that that makes these words bad...

Well they're just words.
Jesus called people "vipers."
Is that really much different from calling them dicks? Haha, maybe it is, but you have to admit that that's funny to imagine.
Maybe "vipers" could be compared to my dad calling anyone who p***es him off, "jerks"
And so is "craphead," "s***face," or anything else like this really that bad?
Now this is not about me,but this might make some good sense. The reason I don't use these words, at least the more offensive ones like s*** and a**, is that I don't want to offend people. And I don't want people who, 1.) Assume these words are bad or 2.) Assume that I should think these words are bad to call me a hypocrite. I think they're wrong in calling me a hypocrite, but I'd rather avoid the issue. I don't want those people to nullify everything else that I say/believe just becuase of some stupid dirty words.

Well that may have seemed like an aside, but this is going to end up being a very simple comparison. Let's say the Net (that's the church I've always gone to, if anyone doesn't know) has a speaker who insists on constantly using these "dirty" "curse" words (barring what I defined as cursing or taking the Lord's name in vain). Now a ton of people in the church think those words are wrong and maybe even "sins." If they don't think that, then at least maybe they don't want their kids to start saying them. Well whether or not these words are bad, that speaker would be asked to change or to stop speaking. Leadership would be worried that people would be offended, maybe some even leaving the church because the new lack of "morals," and therefore missing out on the true purpose of church. Plus it's just a distraction.
Now compare that to having a homosexual pastor or usher or group leader. We don't even have to decide right now whether gayness is a sin or not, the point is, homosexuals should try to understand where the church is coming from when they don't want them in a public position. Leadership doesn't want it make it look like this behaviour is condoned or overlooked. In response, many people from the Net would leave, I know that (or else start some fuss until the person leaves). If a homosexual loves God, they should try to see that this would distract from what church is really about.

I think that church leadership should be able to tell a homosexual who is interested in a public position that they simply think this would be distracting. You don't have to start an argument, just make it clear that a lot of people would have a problem with this, and you want to ensure that the church remains a place where everyone can feel comfortable and welcome. BUT, you are welcome to attend services.

Why dickshunarys are embarassing themselves

If you wiki "sherbert" it will redirect you to sherbet, some fizzy powder...then there's a link to sherbet (U.S.). This is all very confusing. It looks like part of the confusion might be that this "fizzy powder" in the UK is pronounced Sherbet, or Sherbert in australian or new zealand english. Our closest comparison to these sherbe(r)ts would be a mix between pixy stix and pop rocks.

Under "Sherbet (U.S.)," it explains that sherbet is a frozen dessert made from iced fruit juice or puree. Sherbets usually have more ingredients, like milk, while sorbets (sor-BAY) are usually not milky.


"Sherbet is known as sherbert in the more cultured areas of the country (New York)" -wikipedia

"Also sherbert Australian, An alcoholic beverage, especially beer." -American Heritage Dictionary


For this reason I think sherbet is more correct. The quote above about "sherbert" being from cultured areas...I think is bunk. Usually when you say someone is more "cultured" it means they're more classy or prissy. I wonder if what they mean or should have said in that quote is that there is more of a mix of cultures, so no one knows what the heck they're talking about, or maybe know one knows how the heck to talk.

When you search on dictionary.com for sherbert, it redirects you to sherbet, where the entry says "also sherbert."
Tons of people, if not a majority, say sherbert, so it's become "correct." I wouldn't really have cared about anyone calling it sherbert, it's just that a friend of mine was trying to say that "sorbet" wasn't a word...

Word History: Although the word sherbet has been in the English language for several centuries (it was first recorded in 1603), it has not always referred to what one normally thinks of as sherbet. Sherbet came into English from Ottoman Turkish sherbet or Persian sharbat, both going back to Arabic arba, “drink.” The Turkish and Persian words referred to a beverage of sweetened, diluted fruit juice that was popular in the Middle East and imitated in Europe. In Europe sherbet eventually came to refer to a carbonated drink. Because the original Middle Eastern drink contained fruit and was often cooled with snow, sherbet was applied to a frozen dessert (first recorded in 1891). It is distinguished slightly from sorbet, which can also mean “a fruit-flavored ice served between courses of a meal.” Sorbet (first recorded in English in 1585) goes back through French (sorbet) and then Italian (sorbetto) to the same Turkish sherbet that gave us sherbet.


Here's my summary.....Please let me know if you agree or not...
I don't mind when words are pronounced differently even though technically it may be incorrect.
If I come across one of these words, I will use my best judgment, based on what I think might be good references (for example, the way the history of the word "sherbet" never once puts an "R" in front of the final "T." That's just how I decide how I will say it. I probably do this so that people don't correct me...and if they do correct me because they say it the way that I decided against, then I can tell them my reasoning.
Some examples of words I choose to pronounce the way I do, after once pronouncing differently:
I used to say sherbert, now sherbet
I used to say KYU-pon, now KU-pon
I used to say Feb-you-ary, now Feb-ru-ary (this was partly in defense of my dad, who mispronounces a few words. Well this one is correct, and it’s just not fair to be corrected for something that you do more correct than anyone else.)
I never said "AMbercrombie and FiNch" and I still don't because that’s not even close.

I don't care if other people say these differently (except for ambercrombie), but I will bring it up if I think it's interesting, or if someone starts to correct me about something I’m pretty confident that I’m right about. I hope I don't just correct people out of the blue, because that would annoy me. Everybody says something(s) wrong, and once you know them good enough (like your own self), you don't even notice, it's just part of their personality. Someone, for example, might notice that my last sentence was probably a run-on--something about clauses and the lack of a semicolon.
And here's my REAL summary:
What pisses me off, I mean WAY off (just kidding), is that you can't read in the dictionary about what things are supposed to be. So all we see is that it's "sherbet, OR sherbert" or "ku-pon OR kyu-pon." Why can't someone keep track of the way it originally was. I know that languages evolve, but pleeeeease, the fact that everyone pronounces February "FEB YOU AIRY" is no reason to say that February can be pronounced either way! It's fine to say something wrong, but if it is supposed to be pronounced KU-pon or KYU-pon, then leave it that way in the dictionary, and don't modify it because people start saying it wrong.
I remember when they were adding "ain't" and other slang words to the dictionary. Watch, someday they'll take out the slang and we'll all be allowed to say isn't or aren't or ain't whenever the heck we want. And when we're 80 and angry and complaining about it, young people will call us cloze-meindid. "We're not close-minded," we'll croak, "we just want to be able to read and understand what is supposedly english."

Anyways or anyway....I always say anyways, but does that make sense? Would you say, "Any ways you look at it" or "In any cases"
The dictionary just says "nonstandard" or maybe something about the U.K. pronunciation...or something to do with "anywise"
Well what if I want the dictionary to just tell me blatantly which is correct. I would like to know if it is a mispronunciation, or if it comes from "anywise," etc.
I shouldn't have to research to find out.
It's always common, easy, short words that have this problem. There aren't 3 different spellings of the scientific name for mosquito (in full: Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Culicomorpha Culicidae) just because some people started pronouncing it differently.
They should have two books, the dictionary, which tells you how it's supposed to be,
and the Understanding-English dictionary, which helps you understand what people mean.
Or maybe just make an appendix.

Here’s something else I’m dying to know. Who speaks more correct English, the English or the Americans (and I’m talking about the most standard, TV American you can find, not the crazies from Bastin or New Yaak or Saaayin Aentooonio). I just started realizing that this is a tough one, because you can’t say, “No, you’re not saying ‘bike’ correctly. It rhymes with ‘like.’” If either an American or English person looks in the dictionary and reads through the vowels with funny symbols, that is the correct way and there’s probably no way to correct either person. Still, I’m pretty sure British people speak with more quirks. Say “proper” like a Brit. If you said it like they do, there’s no “r.” How about something as simple as “go”—I’m curious if the real technical pronunciation for a British long O sound is “ao” rather than just “o.”

I guess I’ll talk more about British people in my next post.

Thanks George

Thanks, George Bush, for lowering gas prices. You've really outdone yourself this time!
Although, my shoes are getting old and the insides are way past beginning to fall apart. Are you sure that the you're doing the most you can to develop new shoe programs for Americans?

And thank you for the sunny day! I doubt Clinton-Gore could have given us a September 25th like this!

The fourth dimension

chris already started arguing against the idea of time as the 4th dimension (4thD) in response to my last post. The 4thD is very hard to argue/think about since the 4th D is not like the first 3Ds. You can't see it and affect it, like chris said. If humans are ever sure of what the 4thD is, then I think scientists should be able to explain it in away that you and I little people can really believe. That's my rationalization for trying to argue against it even though real scientists would probably scoff and spit upon me. But hey, they're still theorizing, right? Until it's agreed upon as a fact, it's a theory, and so I'm allowed to theorize. And I'm definitely allowed to explain why I doubt their theory.

Ok, well here's one thing I hate: looking at the 4th dimension geometrically. Supposedly, one dimension up from the cube is the tesseract. I think the easiest way to rationalize the tesseract is by using the point, line, square, cube...method that I outlined the dimensions with yesterday. A geometry reminder: each corner of a square, or any shape that has a corner, is called a vertex (vertices plural). So just imagine geometric shapes as being made up of points/vertices and lines that connect them. A line goes on to infinity in either direction, a line segment is discrete, meaning it has a definite start and finish (2 vertices, and one line that connects them). If I just say line here, I probably mean line segment.
0D: point: 1 vertex, has 0 lines that connect to 0 other vertices
1D: line: 2 vertices, each vertex has 1 line that connects to 1 other vertex
2D: square: 4 vertices, each vertex has 2 lines that connect to 2 other vertices
3D: cube: 8 vertices, each vertex has 3 lines that connect to 3 other vertices
4D: tesseract: 16 vertices, each vertex has 4 lines that connect to 4 other vertices

Are you serious? They apparently are. Am I pissed off? I am.
Ok...a mathemetician would probably rip me apart about how this 4th dimension isn't technically visible, but they draw it like it's visible. The shape that most makes sense to me is like this...
Imagine a cube, now imagine it has a clone that is in the exact same position as the first. One of these cubes grow, so now you have a cube inside of a bigger cube. Now just connect each of the corners of the inner cube to the nearest corner of the larger, outer cube. So now, there are 2 cubes, which each have 8 vertices each (16 total). And each vertex has 3 lines that attach it to its original cube, and 1 new line that attaches it to 1 vertex on the other cube.
THIS IS A 3 DIMENSIONAL OBJECT, you can't just add more sides and vertices and say that now this shape is 4D! Say you have a sphere, this is a 3D object, and however you change it or try to make it more complex, everything that you can still see is still just as 3D as a tree or a cloud.

Alright, that's enough about geometry, let's talk theory.
Time:
We move forward through time. We don't know if we can go backwards in time, although supposedly if you go faster than the speed of light, you might be able to go back in time, or at least view the past. You could also see the past if you can control the bending of light, but this is all very vague and unstudied by me and should just be a future topic.
Here is a reason why time being the 4thD might make sense. Imagine you are the square (read the last blog about Flatland if you don't remember) living in a 2D world. Your 2D plane (what you envision is the universe!) could be moving through 3D space. You have no feeling of experiencing 3Ds, except that you get clues, like a 3D object passing through your plane and briefly looking like a 2D object. (Here's a brief glimpse into future blogs...like a multidimensional God dipping his finger into our 3D world and briefly looking like a 3D Jesus...HHUUUUUUUUHHH???). So you, a 2D square, are living your normal life, but passing through 3D space...which you have no control over. This is similar to being a 3D human, living in 3D space, but passing through time...which you have no control over.

But I still don't believe it...we need to talk more about it. What do you think?

Flatland and Time as the "4th Dimension"

On christianheresy.blogspot.com I started discussing the book Flatland, but didn't want to distract from Jason's theme. So I've decided to make my blog be a place where you can discuss things that aren't necessarily so serious. Here's the rule though. I'm not writing to be heard. I'm writing because I get bored, but it is fun to know that it's not just a diary. So the rule is that if you read it, you HAVE to leave a comment, even just to say you read it. Otherwise I'm just going to start thinking these things to myself rather than type.

Flatland overview:
A 2-dimensional square lives in a 2D world, basically a plane. He sees a circle which actually turns out to be a 3D sphere intersecting with the plane. The square has no idea what the directions "up" and "down" are, so the sphere "disappears" back into space. The sphere begins to nudge the square out of his 2D plane, which feels weird for the square, since this pressure is coming from inside of him, in a direction he can't comprehend. The square is eventually in 3D space...
The details you can read for yourself.

The point:
Some people say time is the 4th dimension, because the dimensions progress like this:
0.) 0 dimensions - a point (now this story is for demonstration, so don't get all technical, it doesn't matter how something in 0 dimensions can have an eye, or that technically you can't "see" a point, it's more of a parable)
1.) 1 dimension - a line (here's something interesting, you couldn't technically see a line either...)
2.) 2 dimensions - a square or some other shape you could draw on paper
3.) 3 dimensions - a cube, sphere, etc.

4.) 4 dimensions - a 3D object travelling through time. The argument is that everything gets more and more complex...imagine a point...becoming a line....the line sliding/stretching perpendicularly to become a square...the square sliding/stretching perpendicularly (what I mean by perpendicularly is that the square is sitting on the table, and then it just starts rising straight up off the table) to become a cube....

and...a cube constantly having a new position (or the same, it doesn't matter) as it travels through time. Another way to look at it is this way: Imagine a 3D image, look out your window or something, now that image has the 3 dimensions that you see, left/right, forward/backward, up/down, but an infinite number of times every second it is updating/changing as it travels through time. Just like there are an infinite number of positions that a point could take along a line that may be only 1 inch long, there are an infinite number of 3D pictures that take place in one second. So time is the 4th dimension.

Until it's proven, I think it's a good suggestion, but I think it's wrong....

to be continued...

Oh boy, this is a doozy

The pope makes some statement about Islam and violence. He apparently was quoting or referring to something written in medieval times. Which is a GREAT example from the pope's point-of-view, because the Muslims were violent in the middle ages, not the Christians, right? uuuuuuh...?

Almost as ridiculous is this...
In response, several churches in the middle east are burned down, a nun is killed, and effigies of the pope are set on fire (on camera, which means there must have been a preceding outrage that gave the camera-people time to get there for the finale), and who knows what else. This is an angry response because the pope will not say that he was wrong or sorry or something. If someone calls you violent, but you're not, you would get angry. And the very very worst way to show that you're angry is to prove the original statement has some truth to it.

I'm pretty confused. Were the people who reacted in violence (which makes no sense) actually just proud of the statement? And separately, other peaceful people just protested? That would make at least some sense.

If this wasn't such a sensitive subject, it could be a comic or something.
"You're violent"
"I am not!"...PPRFFF!... (that was the *onomatopoeia for a punch)
"ouch!"
END

*A word that sounds like the thing it describes, like "bang" or "clang"
I don't think PPRFFF really qualifies since it's not a real word.

There are an amazing number of people in the world.

This number borders on infinity. (FYI: Every increasing number borders on infinity. Although there is an end to human population in sight--if nothing drastic and no event-seemingly-subtle-but-having-severe-eventual-consequences happens to interrupt the future, then presumably the burning out of the sun, it is not fair to limit the growth of numbers. After all, we can calculate how quickly HIV spreads throughout the body, and while unfortunately, most people die from a resulting sickness, no one argues that if left undisturbed by medicines or death, HIV would continue to infect cells until there was no where left to go. Infinity is infinity, and it is no fair to the number 6 billion to say, "Six Billion, excuse me, but you are further from infinity than you THINK! Yes-sir-eee! I, Twelve Billion am twice as far as you!" We use numbers, but numbers are numbers and they know where they stand (except, oddly, for Twelve Billion). Six Billion is not embarrased by Twelve Billion's teasing, but he is also not proud of his own standing in regards to infinity. The crux is this: Infinity minus any number is infinity. Six Billion knows that Twelve Billion is no closer to infinity, they both have infinity to go. That is why I don't believe in enlightenment for mortals. And what I beieve in even LESS, no, what I despise, is that anyone should consider himself closer to enlightenment than anyone else.

Alright, ENOUGH. You get my point. But I have TWO, so stay tuned in!
What I just did is NOT FAIR, that is, if my intent was to convince the average person.
FIRST POINT:
Someone who does not care for math would read that and get bored or what they might think is "confused." Or maybe they'd get annoyed. I wrote that, and sometimes write things like that, as a joke, because I like books that are witty, like Hitchhikers or Flatland, and involve math. The truth (and the reason I want to make it clear to people that I am at heart trying to be funny and not pompous) is that this kind of thing really could come off as pompous. When you have knowledge, you have power, and when you have knowledge of philosophy, math, science, etc. you happen to be someone with an analytical mind and sometimes think you are smart. While we are arguing about philosophy and designing our war machines, there are people with other kind of knowledge. Maybe our side-interests of "forward-thinking" will change the future. But I want to consider the other people with power: nurses, good parents or other caretakers, emergency workers, etc. These are people who have just as much knowledge and power, but in a different area, and in an area possibly crucial to people-like-us's survival. I'd really hate to be bleeding to death and have several "forward-thinkers" sitting around contemplating where my soul was headed.
I appreciate JZ's new blog christianheresy.blogspot.com because although Jason loves to think lofty thoughts, he writes so that everyone can understand. He even includes some definitions, not to prove that his vocab is bigger than the lay-person's, but because he really thought that word could help get the point across. He's saying, "Here, Everyman, you're the same as me."

The reason my infinity argument is not fair is that it is over many readers' heads (not in intelligence, just in subject matter), but it is used to argue a point that everyone should be able to respond to ("enlightenment"). It may or may not sound convincing, but the bad thing about it is that it's so specific to a certain subject matter, in this case, math, that probably a good amount of people wouldn't know enough about it to grasp what's going on, so they can't really respond or participate in the discussion. The truth is I just made it up as I was typing, and then I made it sound technical, putting some truths in there, so that it would sound somewhat credible. And the grand finale, the woeful deed: I used it to get my "point" across. Now if someone doesn't know math, they can't argue with it, all they can say is, "It doesn't make sense." And then me, having been forced to understand math, can use that to my advantage and say, "Well it's true, you just don't understand. You must be stupid." And here comes the saddest part of this un/non-literal, unspoken argument...The non-math person has some possible responses. And they are these:
"I must be stupid since I don't understand, I don't belong here."
"I don't understand, but I know it doesn't make sense, so I'm frustrated, I don't belong here, and I am not going to participate."
Maybe there are more choices, I don't like to ultra-analyze.
The point is that you just alienated that person and possibly made them feel stupid, which is not true or nice, or you just annoyed them and now you and they will never be able to grow together or learn from one another.

SECOND POINT:
I actually was able to act like I had a point at the end of my argument, saying that I don't believe in mortal enlightenment. And I could use that point to support my FIRST POINT that people shouldn't write above everyone's heads, but my logic would really start to get screwy since I just explained that my argument didn't make sense and wasn't fair. But ironically/coincidentally (i'm not sure which should be used here) that statement does apply to my FIRST POINT. No one should act more enlightened, because we all have infinity more to learn.
To summarize:
Can we please speak/write so that everyone can understand? I mean, if you know the audience is potentially anyone? I had a couple philosophy classes, and it really made me feel smart to know and understand St. Augustine and Euripides, and blablablatcetera. I felt like now I could hold my ground against friends who argued philosophy, but looking back, I'm just annoyed with myself and embarrassed (not about what I said, but just how smart I assumed I was). I mean, when I hear people talking/writing all deep and confusing, I don't get mad or annoyed. I just think there are easier ways to say things so that everyone can participate. Really, you know everything that those old philosophers said (OK, maybe not everything), mostly they teach you to THINK-which is good. You don't necessarily have to make everything as hard to understand as they did (some people equate hard-to-understand with cleverness). It's tedious when you have to re-read someone's argument 3 times so that you know exactly what they're saying, and THEN make a counterargument.

Let's say what we mean.
One more thing. Sometimes out of fear of not being open-minded enough, I'll make vague arguments or preface statements with stuff like "in my opinion" or "i believe" so that I don't offend people. I do this all the time. I'm not going to use, "I think" or "I believe," quite as much as I do now. I'm just going to state what I currently believe, and that's obviously my opinion since I said it and not you! Of course I'm not forcing you to believe it, and I'm not saying "your opinion is impossible because mine is different." If anyone participates in philosophical discussions or claims to be a "forward-thinker" anyway, then why should I worry that they'll be offended? So I've made up my mind to say what I think! And if I change my mind I'll start saying something else! WHO'S WITH ME?!!!! GARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!