What I got wrong:
Q 7. _____ are hurtling through space and not captured in Earth's atmosphere.
Q 13. What are the two main functions of fruit for a plant?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Nyah Nyah Nyah
What I got wrong:
Q 7. _____ are hurtling through space and not captured in Earth's atmosphere.
Q 13. What are the two main functions of fruit for a plant?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Quick Check In
Y HALO THAR, INTERNETS! Hope you're feeling spiffy today coz I sure am, lalala ponies.
Or perhaps I am lightheaded from donating blood. HEEE. Yes I did. In honour of independence day, too, and got cookies and cake for my trouble. There was a little dip in the happiness radar when they didn't have a free tshirt in my size (I WILL AVENGE THIS INJUSTICE, RED CROSS) and now Saurabh gets the fruit of my labour. Oh well.
Oh and a weird thing happened. My blood floated up in copper sulphate solution (they do that to check its specific gravity; if it sinks it means you have enough iron to donate). But then they ran the centrifuge on a sample and my iron levels are perfect. So why's my blood light, I ask you? Huh? HUH??
Or perhaps I am lightheaded from donating blood. HEEE. Yes I did. In honour of independence day, too, and got cookies and cake for my trouble. There was a little dip in the happiness radar when they didn't have a free tshirt in my size (I WILL AVENGE THIS INJUSTICE, RED CROSS) and now Saurabh gets the fruit of my labour. Oh well.
Oh and a weird thing happened. My blood floated up in copper sulphate solution (they do that to check its specific gravity; if it sinks it means you have enough iron to donate). But then they ran the centrifuge on a sample and my iron levels are perfect. So why's my blood light, I ask you? Huh? HUH??
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Independence Day
My mom sent me a "Happy Independence Day" email today, all bright and happy primary colours flashing at me first thing in the morning when I opened my inbox. Not a bad way to start the day. She says she's going to the Indian Embassy out there in Shanghai for celebrations. :)
Then my Greader (if it's Gmail, it's Greader, yo) threw up a slew of patriotism-inspired posts - no fewer than FOUR from Wini alone - and this one from Sayesha induced pangs of discomfort.
I am so conflicted about India.
On one hand, it's my country, dammit. On the other, I loathe automatic patriotism.
On one hand, those old patriotic songs and nation-building exercises on Doordarshan ( see Snowbeak's Muffler: Hamara Kal) bring back such fond memories, but on the other, they just remind me of all that propaganda India stuffed into me in place of a civics and history education.
On one hand, India calls to me with its homeyness, its lip-smacking food, its welcoming heat, its familiar trees, the smile in its air every time I visit it - but on the other, it repels me with its insane rules and its thieving public officials, making what is now "normal life" to me impossible there.
On one hand is its earthiness, its reality, that sense of being free from this artificially hyperhygienic remote bubble I live in now; but then there is the reality of living too close to the earth: the raw emotions, the crudeness of behaviour, the snap-reaction way of life that just takes you over when you start living there.
On one hand, I have such rosy memories of the people I knew as a kid, and on the other there is the stark reality that though I will never relate completely to Americans, never really know them in my bones, never feel at home with them, they are simply vastly more civilised than Indians on the whole.
On one hand, I cringe at my statement above, because a big romantic part of me still considers India home, but on the other, I must admit I see its truth every day: I see its truth in the doors that are not shut in my face, in the racism I have not experienced, in the respect others have for my body.
The patriotic part of me now wants to say something like: perhaps my conflictedness is a reflection of India itself, maybe this is how a person who really loves India should feel. The realistic (cynical?) part of me says: what a load of bollocks that is.
Happy independence day? Yes, I think so. I think so.
Then my Greader (if it's Gmail, it's Greader, yo) threw up a slew of patriotism-inspired posts - no fewer than FOUR from Wini alone - and this one from Sayesha induced pangs of discomfort.
I am so conflicted about India.
On one hand, it's my country, dammit. On the other, I loathe automatic patriotism.
On one hand, those old patriotic songs and nation-building exercises on Doordarshan ( see Snowbeak's Muffler: Hamara Kal) bring back such fond memories, but on the other, they just remind me of all that propaganda India stuffed into me in place of a civics and history education.
On one hand, India calls to me with its homeyness, its lip-smacking food, its welcoming heat, its familiar trees, the smile in its air every time I visit it - but on the other, it repels me with its insane rules and its thieving public officials, making what is now "normal life" to me impossible there.
On one hand is its earthiness, its reality, that sense of being free from this artificially hyperhygienic remote bubble I live in now; but then there is the reality of living too close to the earth: the raw emotions, the crudeness of behaviour, the snap-reaction way of life that just takes you over when you start living there.
On one hand, I have such rosy memories of the people I knew as a kid, and on the other there is the stark reality that though I will never relate completely to Americans, never really know them in my bones, never feel at home with them, they are simply vastly more civilised than Indians on the whole.
On one hand, I cringe at my statement above, because a big romantic part of me still considers India home, but on the other, I must admit I see its truth every day: I see its truth in the doors that are not shut in my face, in the racism I have not experienced, in the respect others have for my body.
The patriotic part of me now wants to say something like: perhaps my conflictedness is a reflection of India itself, maybe this is how a person who really loves India should feel. The realistic (cynical?) part of me says: what a load of bollocks that is.
Happy independence day? Yes, I think so. I think so.
Waitin' on the world to change, Part 1
Let me tell you a story about fandom and its mistress, LiveJournal.
LiveJournal is where fandom lives. There are fan communities of every breed there, from supersnotty academic meta-fandom-critiquing geeks to squealing preteen fangirls to adult-locked hardcore porn fanfiction/fanart communities. Many have built their fandoms from scratch - think obscure Anime stuff, or short-lived TV shows - and the fans have built LiveJournal up with them. They form the largest LJ's largest paid-user base. These people spend their lives on LJ, posting half a dozen times a day, creating an enormous wealth of content - essays, fiction, art - that you have to read to believe. The quality of the material is stupendous, if you know where to look. Much of it makes my college sociology class (among others) look like a joke.
LiveJournal, of all people, should know that fandom is worthwhile.
Apparently not.
First, there was Strikethrough '07. In May, SixApart, which owns LJ, suspended more than 500 accounts without notice for percieved Terms of Service violations. A group called Warriors for Innocence complained (quite legitimately) to LJ about the hundreds of pedophile comms, and LJ mindlessly hacked journals off left, right and centre.
Now, even the mildest kind of porn squicks me out. Slash, het, whatever - I find it all immensely distasteful. It is incomprehensible to me that otherwise brilliant writers like Copperbadge find writing graphic sex scenes interesting... Call me a girl, but my response is basically EWWWWWW.
But this isn't about personal preferences. It's about freedom of speech. The vast majority of the suspended accounts proved to be entirely innocent of the charges: most were deleted because they listed "incest" or "non-cons" (for non-consensual) as interests... there was no objectionable content in their journal itself. Many were incest and rape survivor support groups. Two journals were deleted even though the accounts belonged to clearly labeled fictional characters in a role-playing game. Another deleted community was home to Spanish-language discussions of Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita. The suspended users' names appeared with a strikethrough whenever their accounts were invoked by other journals - Strikethrough '07 became the community's rallying cry.
LiveJournal responded with a reinterpretation of their Terms of Service: "... [E]xpressing interest in, soliciting or encouraging illegal activity places LiveJournal at considerable legal risk." (emphasis mine) By which standard, a New York user who lists "Gay Marriage" as an interest risks account deletion without warning - not to mention hundreds of journals belonging to gay rights activists.
But would any of these journals place LJ under "considerable legal risk"? No. A 1996 federal law immunizes web-based discussion forums from lawsuits as long as the content of the discussions is not otherwise illegal. Do you think fiction involving squicky sexual stuff should be illegal? Think again. You'd be banning Romeo and Juliet (Juliet is 13 years old when married), Mary Shelley's Mathilde, Sophocles' Oedipus plays, and It by Stephen King along with the rest.
Anyway. These events in May 2007 caused an uproar in fandom, because for some reason, they were the hardest hit, instead of all the actual pedophiles. Did LJ apologise? Guess. And always remember: these are the people who keep LiveJournal alive. LJ was built on slash writers.
Nor did LJ learn from its mistakes.
Just a couple of weeks ago, on 2nd August, LJ once again deleted two members (all their journals and communities) without warning for supposed TOS violations. This time, there was no Strikethrough, the deleted account names were BOLDED instead. Har de frickin' har.
The deleted members drew Harry Potter fanart in manga style - and if you've ever seen manga art, you know how young the adult characters look, big eyes and little bodies on all of them. The art posted with warnings in an adult community featured Harry and Snape going at it - both of whom are well above the age of consent, as anyone who's familiar with manga would know, as anyone who's read the books would know, and frankly, it's not that hard to find people who've read Harry Potter.
Fandom was incredulous and outraged.
So what does LJ do?
(a) Keep mum officially
(b) Meanwhile, *comment* on outraged users' journals publicly mocking fandom as being a bunch of pedophile pornographers (no, really)
(c) Not apologise for said mockery (or the account deletions, but that goes without saying)
(d) Claim (still in comments) that the art was deleted only because it was "lacking in artistic merit" (I am not making this up)
(e) Post an official response five days later clarifying nothing, apologising for nothing
(f) Stick to the comments section for any actual clarifications, which was basically: Tough luck, our TOS says we can delete whatever we want for no reason.
(g) Refuse to refund money for the deleted accounts, one of which was a lifetime permanent account.
Yes, really. It did all of the above.
Today, 12 days later, LJ finally allowed one of the users back, and her account has been reactivated. No official statement was released regarding this miraculous resurrection. It simply... happened.
My question is? Pedophiles, I ask you. Who's got their eyes on them while LJ chases predatorily after its own livelihood?
LiveJournal is where fandom lives. There are fan communities of every breed there, from supersnotty academic meta-fandom-critiquing geeks to squealing preteen fangirls to adult-locked hardcore porn fanfiction/fanart communities. Many have built their fandoms from scratch - think obscure Anime stuff, or short-lived TV shows - and the fans have built LiveJournal up with them. They form the largest LJ's largest paid-user base. These people spend their lives on LJ, posting half a dozen times a day, creating an enormous wealth of content - essays, fiction, art - that you have to read to believe. The quality of the material is stupendous, if you know where to look. Much of it makes my college sociology class (among others) look like a joke.
LiveJournal, of all people, should know that fandom is worthwhile.
Apparently not.
First, there was Strikethrough '07. In May, SixApart, which owns LJ, suspended more than 500 accounts without notice for percieved Terms of Service violations. A group called Warriors for Innocence complained (quite legitimately) to LJ about the hundreds of pedophile comms, and LJ mindlessly hacked journals off left, right and centre.
Now, even the mildest kind of porn squicks me out. Slash, het, whatever - I find it all immensely distasteful. It is incomprehensible to me that otherwise brilliant writers like Copperbadge find writing graphic sex scenes interesting... Call me a girl, but my response is basically EWWWWWW.
But this isn't about personal preferences. It's about freedom of speech. The vast majority of the suspended accounts proved to be entirely innocent of the charges: most were deleted because they listed "incest" or "non-cons" (for non-consensual) as interests... there was no objectionable content in their journal itself. Many were incest and rape survivor support groups. Two journals were deleted even though the accounts belonged to clearly labeled fictional characters in a role-playing game. Another deleted community was home to Spanish-language discussions of Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita. The suspended users' names appeared with a strikethrough whenever their accounts were invoked by other journals - Strikethrough '07 became the community's rallying cry.
LiveJournal responded with a reinterpretation of their Terms of Service: "... [E]xpressing interest in, soliciting or encouraging illegal activity places LiveJournal at considerable legal risk." (emphasis mine) By which standard, a New York user who lists "Gay Marriage" as an interest risks account deletion without warning - not to mention hundreds of journals belonging to gay rights activists.
But would any of these journals place LJ under "considerable legal risk"? No. A 1996 federal law immunizes web-based discussion forums from lawsuits as long as the content of the discussions is not otherwise illegal. Do you think fiction involving squicky sexual stuff should be illegal? Think again. You'd be banning Romeo and Juliet (Juliet is 13 years old when married), Mary Shelley's Mathilde, Sophocles' Oedipus plays, and It by Stephen King along with the rest.
Anyway. These events in May 2007 caused an uproar in fandom, because for some reason, they were the hardest hit, instead of all the actual pedophiles. Did LJ apologise? Guess. And always remember: these are the people who keep LiveJournal alive. LJ was built on slash writers.
Nor did LJ learn from its mistakes.
Just a couple of weeks ago, on 2nd August, LJ once again deleted two members (all their journals and communities) without warning for supposed TOS violations. This time, there was no Strikethrough, the deleted account names were BOLDED instead. Har de frickin' har.
The deleted members drew Harry Potter fanart in manga style - and if you've ever seen manga art, you know how young the adult characters look, big eyes and little bodies on all of them. The art posted with warnings in an adult community featured Harry and Snape going at it - both of whom are well above the age of consent, as anyone who's familiar with manga would know, as anyone who's read the books would know, and frankly, it's not that hard to find people who've read Harry Potter.
Fandom was incredulous and outraged.
So what does LJ do?
(a) Keep mum officially
(b) Meanwhile, *comment* on outraged users' journals publicly mocking fandom as being a bunch of pedophile pornographers (no, really)
(c) Not apologise for said mockery (or the account deletions, but that goes without saying)
(d) Claim (still in comments) that the art was deleted only because it was "lacking in artistic merit" (I am not making this up)
(e) Post an official response five days later clarifying nothing, apologising for nothing
(f) Stick to the comments section for any actual clarifications, which was basically: Tough luck, our TOS says we can delete whatever we want for no reason.
(g) Refuse to refund money for the deleted accounts, one of which was a lifetime permanent account.
Yes, really. It did all of the above.
Today, 12 days later, LJ finally allowed one of the users back, and her account has been reactivated. No official statement was released regarding this miraculous resurrection. It simply... happened.
My question is? Pedophiles, I ask you. Who's got their eyes on them while LJ chases predatorily after its own livelihood?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sobering thought for the day
Read Glamour, Popularity, Truth - a rare look into the reality of an anorexic woman.
Once you're done, allow me to direct your attention to the thoughtful, appropriately horrified responses to this article in the comments section (the following comments are complete, unedited, and a fair representation of the rest of them):
You're my new idol. Well written and very insightful!
Amazing.- to spare the weak of stomach, let's just say Beethoven and I require the same ammount of time and pressure to create a movement. Haha, nice analogy :P I'm adding this to my memories as well.
you're a rockstar! thanks for posting this! and for the time and energy it took to put it in words.
... and just because life gives you a triple-punchline joke, sometimes, the author of this article committed suicide last year. Her Livejournal account is alive, the latest comments are from online friends who are still thinking of her.
(nothing more to say)
Well, I'm still waiting for Cosmopolitan to come banging on my door. I'm sure that since I've accomplished "aNa" I should be all set ... I should go beam in the mirror at this new wonderful girl that can't walk for more than eight feet, gets dizzy when she stands, and can't function without a load of caffiene.
Once you're done, allow me to direct your attention to the thoughtful, appropriately horrified responses to this article in the comments section (the following comments are complete, unedited, and a fair representation of the rest of them):
You're my new idol. Well written and very insightful!
Amazing.- to spare the weak of stomach, let's just say Beethoven and I require the same ammount of time and pressure to create a movement. Haha, nice analogy :P I'm adding this to my memories as well.
you're a rockstar! thanks for posting this! and for the time and energy it took to put it in words.
... and just because life gives you a triple-punchline joke, sometimes, the author of this article committed suicide last year. Her Livejournal account is alive, the latest comments are from online friends who are still thinking of her.
(nothing more to say)
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Gender Issues (Another HPDH Rant)
Here's a quick quiz on the issues of gender in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. In answering all these questions, please consider the books alone - not your speculation, fannish theories or likely extrapolations. And while I realise that interpretation is an essential part of reading, for the purposes of this quiz answers should be limited to your best guess of what the author's intent is. For example, while you may consider Minerva McGonagall to be "obviously a lesbian", there is no textual basis for it and the authorial intent in such matters clearly boils down to Normal = Heterosexual Petit-Bourgeois. So the correct answer to the question "How many gay characters do you see in the books?" is ZERO.
Caveat: yes, this quiz is biased; yes, it's really a vehicle for my opinions; no, it's not meant to be an honest-to-goodness, check-the-key-to-find-your-personality-type sorta quiz. I'm venting. When seven years of happy, devoted fannishness meets the sort of train wreck that HPDH was, venting happens.
Ready?
1. Which main character does NOT have a major conflict to contend with, internal or external, that drives the story forward?
a. Harry Potter
b. Lord Voldemort
c. Ron Weasley
d. Hermione Granger
e. Severus Snape
f. Draco Malfoy
2. Which main character's family and background do we know the least about?
a. Harry Potter
b. Lord Voldemort
c. Ron Weasley
d. Hermione Granger
e. Severus Snape
f. Draco Malfoy
3. Which main character does NOT have a character arc to speak of in the series (coming-of-age, redemption, comeuppance, conquering inner demons, etc.)?
a. Harry Potter
b. Lord Voldemort
c. Ron Weasley
d. Hermione Granger
e. Severus Snape
f. Draco Malfoy
4A. True/False: We find out more about Lily Potter in HPDH.
a. True
b. False
4B. True/False: We find out more Lily Potter herself - her life, her motivations, her personality, and the reasons for her choices.
a. True
b. False
5. Which of the following issues is apparently NOT essential to the exploration of the Lupin-Tonks marriage?
a. Remus's insecurities about lycanthropy, poverty and age.
b. Remus's ambivalence about fatherhood.
c. Remus chickening out on his family.
d. Harry's thoughts on Remus chickening out on his family.
e. Voldemort, Bellatrix and the Death Eaters' thoughts on the happy union.
f. How Tonks feels about it all.
6. Molly Weasley is able to kill Bellatrix Lestrange because:
a. of her superb DADA skills in evidence throughout the series (especially that Boggart scene in OotP)
b. Raising seven children prepares you for combat duelling action
c. The lone female (and childless) Death Eater needed killing via a Mother's Wrath(TM)
7. True/False: The only female Death Eater is described as the famously friendless Voldemort's "lover".
a. True
b. False
------------
Now, I honestly see that Jo Rowling is trying her level best in this series to keep men and women on an equal footing, but she still (a) fails dismally and (b) is so transparent in her efforts that she renders them mostly ineffective.
For example, I'm not blind to kickass characters like Hermione and McGonagall, but even with these characters, Jo's inner sexism seeps through and corrupts. Hermione is a member of the Golden Trio, the bedrock of the series, and yet we don't so much as know her parents' names. Both Harry's and Ron's families are the main driving forces in the books, but Jo Rowling decided that Hermione with her inconvenient Muggle heritage was best treated like a bespectacled, buck-toothed Venus arising fully formed from her scalloped shell at the age of eleven.
In her effort to make Hermione admirable, Rowling forgets to give Hermione any faults at all. It's almost as if she built up this character so she could point and say, look, I have strong female characters in my books! No, Jo. The essence of a real character is one who overcomes obstacles, not one who effortlessly glides through tricky situations with no story arc, emotional or plotwise. Perfect!Hermione was irritating, unrealistic and unpalatable - best left to the movies, thx.
And McGonagall? I have just one thing to say: here is a witch who needs a 17 year old boy to "chivalrous"ly rise to her defence risking his own life to protect her from a single, common, oft-used verbal insult. And apparantly, this is grounds enough for him to use unforgiveable curses. 'Nuff said.
Tonks shows up to flash a ring, get pregnant, and run after her man in the final battle. Finito. She didn't even do pig noses in this book, so what's the point? [/sarcasm]
Ginny: Disqualified from the final battle because she's a few months shy of a birthday. Disappeared for the whole book except when hero needs a birthday snog.
And Lily Potter, Queen Mother of the series with a Big Revelation coming in the seventh book, LOOK OUT! Aaaaaand....she's the object of a man's affections - two men's affections. !!!!!. OMG *dies*.
I think about the only major female character rendered largely without sexist overtones in the series is Umbridge. God, I loved her - I mean, I hated her so thoroughly that I loved the character. Finally, a smart, loathesome, truly evil woman who isn't some man's pawn.
Oops, gotta go - work calls. That's today's lecture, then, boys and girls. Moral of the story is that I hate Jo Rowling.
Tra la.
Caveat: yes, this quiz is biased; yes, it's really a vehicle for my opinions; no, it's not meant to be an honest-to-goodness, check-the-key-to-find-your-personality-type sorta quiz. I'm venting. When seven years of happy, devoted fannishness meets the sort of train wreck that HPDH was, venting happens.
Ready?
1. Which main character does NOT have a major conflict to contend with, internal or external, that drives the story forward?
a. Harry Potter
b. Lord Voldemort
c. Ron Weasley
d. Hermione Granger
e. Severus Snape
f. Draco Malfoy
2. Which main character's family and background do we know the least about?
a. Harry Potter
b. Lord Voldemort
c. Ron Weasley
d. Hermione Granger
e. Severus Snape
f. Draco Malfoy
3. Which main character does NOT have a character arc to speak of in the series (coming-of-age, redemption, comeuppance, conquering inner demons, etc.)?
a. Harry Potter
b. Lord Voldemort
c. Ron Weasley
d. Hermione Granger
e. Severus Snape
f. Draco Malfoy
4A. True/False: We find out more about Lily Potter in HPDH.
a. True
b. False
4B. True/False: We find out more Lily Potter herself - her life, her motivations, her personality, and the reasons for her choices.
a. True
b. False
5. Which of the following issues is apparently NOT essential to the exploration of the Lupin-Tonks marriage?
a. Remus's insecurities about lycanthropy, poverty and age.
b. Remus's ambivalence about fatherhood.
c. Remus chickening out on his family.
d. Harry's thoughts on Remus chickening out on his family.
e. Voldemort, Bellatrix and the Death Eaters' thoughts on the happy union.
f. How Tonks feels about it all.
6. Molly Weasley is able to kill Bellatrix Lestrange because:
a. of her superb DADA skills in evidence throughout the series (especially that Boggart scene in OotP)
b. Raising seven children prepares you for combat duelling action
c. The lone female (and childless) Death Eater needed killing via a Mother's Wrath(TM)
7. True/False: The only female Death Eater is described as the famously friendless Voldemort's "lover".
a. True
b. False
------------
Now, I honestly see that Jo Rowling is trying her level best in this series to keep men and women on an equal footing, but she still (a) fails dismally and (b) is so transparent in her efforts that she renders them mostly ineffective.
For example, I'm not blind to kickass characters like Hermione and McGonagall, but even with these characters, Jo's inner sexism seeps through and corrupts. Hermione is a member of the Golden Trio, the bedrock of the series, and yet we don't so much as know her parents' names. Both Harry's and Ron's families are the main driving forces in the books, but Jo Rowling decided that Hermione with her inconvenient Muggle heritage was best treated like a bespectacled, buck-toothed Venus arising fully formed from her scalloped shell at the age of eleven.
In her effort to make Hermione admirable, Rowling forgets to give Hermione any faults at all. It's almost as if she built up this character so she could point and say, look, I have strong female characters in my books! No, Jo. The essence of a real character is one who overcomes obstacles, not one who effortlessly glides through tricky situations with no story arc, emotional or plotwise. Perfect!Hermione was irritating, unrealistic and unpalatable - best left to the movies, thx.
And McGonagall? I have just one thing to say: here is a witch who needs a 17 year old boy to "chivalrous"ly rise to her defence risking his own life to protect her from a single, common, oft-used verbal insult. And apparantly, this is grounds enough for him to use unforgiveable curses. 'Nuff said.
Tonks shows up to flash a ring, get pregnant, and run after her man in the final battle. Finito. She didn't even do pig noses in this book, so what's the point? [/sarcasm]
Ginny: Disqualified from the final battle because she's a few months shy of a birthday. Disappeared for the whole book except when hero needs a birthday snog.
And Lily Potter, Queen Mother of the series with a Big Revelation coming in the seventh book, LOOK OUT! Aaaaaand....she's the object of a man's affections - two men's affections. !!!!!. OMG *dies*.
I think about the only major female character rendered largely without sexist overtones in the series is Umbridge. God, I loved her - I mean, I hated her so thoroughly that I loved the character. Finally, a smart, loathesome, truly evil woman who isn't some man's pawn.
Oops, gotta go - work calls. That's today's lecture, then, boys and girls. Moral of the story is that I hate Jo Rowling.
Tra la.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
As I type up last Friday's blog inviting questions for the weekly "Ask Me Anything Day", Saurabh looks over my shoulder. Click...
-
Yes, there have been no updates lately, but that is because - well - With a view towards relaxation and general surfing, I trolled LJ for fu...
-
. I have yet again managed to rip my schedule to shreds and shamelessly shy away from work. I need to do something about it... and what bet...
