I suppose if you're going to wear unstable shoes, deliberately training to walk in them makes sense.
I suppose I also don't fault ballet dancers their crazy fucking toe shoes, nor ballroom dancers their high stillettos. But with both of those, there are a lot of traditional reasons to kill your feet.
At least ballet dancers don't walk around town on point. Every now and then I will throw on a pair of heels for that, "Aw yeah, my calves are hot," feeling. Then I get off the train and try to walk to the office and remember that I fucking hate high-heeled shoes. (Mind you, a 2-inch heel is high in my world.)
3: I do ballroom, and it seems crazy to me that you have to wear heels if you want to compete; having good shaping and technique is hard enough, even in flats. Then again, pretty much every serious Latin dancer I know has had to switch to Standard or retire before they've reached the senior I age division (35+), due to a back injury, so there are bigger problems.
Although the ballet dancers that I know find it a breeze to spend the day in high heels, because their calves and core are so strong, and feet already decimated.
Instead of wearing heels, couldn't women just stand tiptoe? All the calf aesthetics, none of the foot crushing/ankle snapping.
Yeah, I have a couple of pairs of heels, wear them occasionally, and then remember how much I hate them. It's not so much that they literally hurt if they're good shoes and you don't have to walk much, it's the having to be careful about every single step. I suppose if you wear them all the time, it's second nature.
I try not to be self-righteous or judgmental about my slovenliness, but heels as a standard for formal women's shoes really does mystify me. How did that get locked in as a norm?
And when did men wearing heels stop being a thing?
When the king of France stopped being short?
I can see it as training, but having it be part of a regular exercise routine seems foolhardy.
One of the famous ballerinas (Gelsey Kirkland, maybe) asserted that because of the pointe work, she couldn't wear flat shoes any longer.
but heels as a standard for formal women's shoes really does mystify me. How did that get locked in as a norm?
Well, I do think they often look great. (On other people. I will put up with them once a year and take them off as soon as the reception starts or alcohol starts flowing.)
12: How did that work? With each step, her powerful calves would send her rocketing off uncontrolled?
I know several women who wear heels most days who say that flat shoes are uncomfortable for them -- they've gotten so used to the position heels make necessary that anything else is difficult.
Isn't it because your calf shortens if you are up on your toes too much? And so walking around flat-footed feels like you're doing a constant calf stretch?
16 crossed with 15, but in partial answer to it. If you're used to having your calves contracted all the time, as you do when your toes are pointed or as they are in heels, it can be an uncomfortable stretch to get your feet at a right angle to your legs, the way they are in flats.
The story I remember had something about the achilles tendon shortening.
Heel Hop's emphasis on shifting weight to the balls of the feet, Ms. Kline said, helped her feel more stable.
This particularly caught my eye, because I think it's precisely that weight shift that makes the high-heeled gait so mincing and stupid looking. The most powerful-looking stride has a more natural rolling from the heel to the ball of the foot. It is really fucking hard to do that in high heels that have poor heel placement, which IME is most of the ones that aren't fucking expensive.
Is there any other conventionally fashionable thing, for men or women, that significantly restricts what you can physically do while wearing it? Long, tight, straight skirts do, but I can't think the last time I saw someone wearing a narrow more-than-knee-length skirt. Tight pants, I suppose, if they're not stretchy, but they generally are these days.
Then again, I am not so sure the mincing and stupid looking gait isn't what is sought after here.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to mince.
Remember, if you wear flats, you might incur the wrath of the mayor of New York.
25: or alternately I saw that link somewhere and hoped somebody else would dig it up.
21: Ties make it harder to do a lot of manual labor. Anything that involves bending over risks getting the tie dirty. Executives at Caterpillar used to be required to wear snap-on ties so they could go on the factory floor without the risk of the tie getting caught in rotating machinery, pulling them in and snapping their necks. In the military it is common to tuck the tie into the shirt in order to get the damn thing out of the way so one can get something other than desk work done. I honestly believe that one of the reasons for the persistence of ties is that they signify that one does not do manual labor.
I realize this isn't exactly what you are talking about, but I hate ties and couldn't miss the opportunity to go off about them. I love tie knots, OTOH. If ties weren't dangly I'd wear one all the time.
FWIW, when you are boxing or kickboxing, you spend all your time on the balls of your feet, except for brief moments when you plant your support leg heel (for booting someone, for example). But then you have your knees bent, so it's not really mincing. Sometimes instructors will make you do drills with the heels up, for minutes at a time. Big time burning calves.
It seems odd that you'd intentionally want to shorten the calves, though, or do exercises with the heels up but the heels supported (by shoes) as you lose all the calf/ankle strengthening benefits of keeping the heels up by dint of muscle contraction.
Isn't that why bow-ties are a doctor thing? Not having your tie touch the nasty infected patients, and spreading disease from one to the next?
But you're right about ties, generally.
I wasn't aware bow-ties were a doctor thing. The doctors I see wear regular ties.
30: That's what people who sell bow ties say, but I've never seen a doctor who was wearing a bow tie. I think the bow tie market is limited to whimsical, deskbound eccentrics with indulgent, patient wives: e.g., the Flip-Pater.
OT: In other relationship news, I think TWYRCL could bring much less incredulity to queries like "Are you eating sugar cubes?"*
* "... No?"
||
Cui bono? Wasn't this thing already in the bag?
|>
19: Yeah, my grandmother wore 2-inch heels basically all her life, every day, all day, including at home while making dinner, etc., and by the time she was in her 70s, she was unable to walk barefoot due to a shortened achilles tendon. It was sort of sad, and problematic once she entered into a semi-bedridden stage in her 80s, as we'd have to put geriatric-style heels on her in order to allow her to get to the bathroom or the dinner table.
30: That's an interesting thought. I have no idea, but now you mention it I recall few if any doctors wearing long ties even when they otherwise were dressed in a manner that might call for them. My sample is limited and my memory is poor, but as this suits my prejudices I'm going to run with it.
I have strong, angry views on the OP.
OT: In other relationship news, I think TWYRCL could bring much less incredulity to queries like "Are you eating sugar cubes?"*
I you coming to unfoggedecacon? I have a bag of gourmet (raw sugar) sugar cubes that I've never had a use for. But they'd probably be tastier than standard sugar cubes, and I'd be happy to give them to you.
I can't type today. Probably not a good sign for getting actual work done.
33.1: I used to work for one, in the year before law school. He may be the only bow-tied sawbones I've met in person, but I think they show up on TV occasionally.
33.2: It's a step up from asking "What are you, a horse?"
I'm serious about 7, people. A simple extrapolation from sexiness as a function of heel width leads to one conclusion.
My doctor wears Mandela shirts and jeans. But he's basically a hippy. Most of the other male doctors in the practice wear office shirts open at the neck.
Mmm. The doctor/bowtie thing might be dead now that there aren't a lot of workplaces that really require ties -- it made sense if you absolutely had to wear some kind of tie, so you'd pick the most practical option, but given that skipping the tie is now possible they probably mostly do.
21. Suit jackets? I'll tear the sleeves off if I bring my arms forward.
Basically, it's everything that exercise should never be -- you are actively making people less healthy. Whoever is the "best" at this stupid fucking nonsense will just be whoever looked the best before going into the class in the first place, while the class itself is making everyone there worse off. And for pretty gross reasons. I have nothing against high heels in their place (as an uncomfortable fashion accessory, sometimes it happens) but this is fucking ridiculous.
On the other hand, I just ate three cookies. I admit they were delicious, but now I feel like a weakened, dying animal.
I think the bow tie market is limited to whimsical, deskbound eccentrics with indulgent, patient wives
Churchill was a bow-tie man, and that pretty much sums him up.
On the other hand, I just ate three cookies. I admit they were delicious, but now I feel like a weakened, dying animal.
And once he's eaten the weakened, dying animal he'll probably have an espresso or something.
I can't think the last time I saw someone wearing a narrow more-than-knee-length skirt.
Even a knee-length skirt is constricting on a bike if it's not quite a-line.
46: I completely agree. I couldn't tell though if you thought the class was terrible or h-g's take on it.
On the other hand, I just ate three cookies. I admit they were delicious, but now I feel like a weakened, dying animal.
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
Even a knee-length skirt is constricting on a bike if it's not quite a-line.
Il faut souffrir pour être belle.
Il faut souffrir pour être belle.
Yeah, but if you're riding a bike, you can wear much higher heels than you can if you're walking any decent distance. Trade-offs!
45: Mine don't seem that bad. I suppose I'd want to take one off if I were going to split wood with an axe, but I don't notice them as restrictive in the course of an ordinary day.
Girls in Copenhagen wear quite short skirts on bikes.
If you're not bothering yourself unnecessarily about modesty, the shorter the skirt, the less restrictive it is.
Comfort and movement in a suit coat depend largely on the positioning (preferably high) and size (preferably small) of the armholes, or "scyes." With low or too-large scyes, the arms and shoulders swim in the jacket, rather than the jacket moving with them.
Dunno what style they're riding in Copenhagen, but dutch-style bikes will be easier in tight skirts than other frame geometries.
I read about the neckties-are-bad-for-doctors thing in the context of how more regulation for health care would be good for America. Apparently there's some enlightened topless place that banned neckties for doctors, because even though it was widely understood that they transmit disease, doctors felt obligated to keep up appearances as part of the professional class and keep wearing them. Ban them, though, and, well, nothing the doctors can do about that.
I believe I advocated once for the proposition that "no one can look sexy on a bicycle." I was dead wrong* about that. Less spandex on middle aged dudes would be nice, though.
*This is not in violation of my "no retreat, no surrender" policy, since the argument is not going on right now. It's more like Napoleon admitting to errors while on St. Helena.
|? (34)
IRS Expects Cheapest Obamacare Family Plan Will Be 20000 in 2016 ...Yves Smith
"One of the benefits claimed for Obamacare was that it would help lower premiums by bringing healthy people who heretofore had gone un or underinsured into the risk pool. It looks like the insurers plan to more than offset that by the premiums they are charging for the higher risk groups they had heretofore managed to exclude. Or at least that will be their excuse.
Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.
I expect the gnashing of teeth over the ACA to get louder as it is rolled out. We said at the time, and we'll say it again: this plan is a gimmie to Big Pharma and the health insurers. It makes the underlying problem of the American health care industry, that of excessive costs, only worse. The predictable outcome will be costly insurance that does not cover much. Expect it to be OK on routine care, restrictive on preventative care (that may not be entirely bad given how much doctors overtest) and stingy on big ticket items."
Yes, much worse than nothing. A healthcare disaster, and even worse, an incredible political catastrophe. Don't know how Repubs can beat the demographics?
You'll learn how in the next decade.
|>
My eye for what looks good on other women is not reliably close to that of the average straight man, but bike commuting, I'm often impressed by how great other women in sundresses on cute bikes look; the pretty bike turns into an integral part of the outfit.
Cui bono? Wasn't this thing already in the bag?
From the text, it looks like they're mostly just finalizing the compromise unveiled last year (religious employers like churches can opt out of coverage; religious organizations like hospitals and universities can opt out of paying for it but their employees will still get contraceptive coverage from the insurer); the only difference is they're very slightly broadening the definition of a religious employer.
60: I saw that a little while ago, and it's pretty shocking, but I do have a question: how much does a family plan for 4-5 family members really cost now? By "really" I mean including the employer-paid portion.
A friend of mine's plan costs them $12k, which is for 3 people (they added their 24-year-old daughter back in 2010), and they are paying 80% of the cost, 20% paid by the employer. That doesn't sound ridiculously far off from $20k three years from now for a family of 4-5.
This isn't to dismiss the seriousness of the IRS hypothetical, but I would want to know how much of an increase it actually represents.
Huh. It turns out Kevin Drum raises a similar point.
I get nonetheless that the PPACA was supposed to reduce health insurance costs.
In recent years, I have seen two doctors who wear bow ties. One has an MD from Harvard, and one from Yale. Both over fifty years old. Is it some kind of signifier among doctors? If so, what does it signify?
One doctor I knew who wore bowties said it was because children grab on to normal ties.
Our pediatrician wears normal ties with Sponge Bob on them.
I guess 'normal-shaped' ties would be more accurate, lest you think that the norm is for ties to have Sponge Bob.
63/64:
1. I'm not sure that that $20,000 is even based on analysis; on the linked site it looks like it's being provided as a nice round number for illustrative purposes.
2. As noted many places, it's not considering subsidies, which cover up to a given sliding percentage of income.
3. The law's cost control provisions are definitely on the milquetoast side; but overall control was never likely to kick in before the law's main provisions did.
4. I think bringing in healthy people does make it cheaper, compared to the baseline in the individual market of total unaffordability for sick people; the numbers we're comparing to are employer-based insurance, where there's already a risk pool in place (average total family premium $15,745 in 2012).
Yale has a medical school now? Well, I suppose the criminal classes deserve care, too.
I wear a bowtie now. Bowties are cool.
69: average total family premium $15,745 in 2012
Thanks. I've always tended to think that those with employer-provided insurance (which may cover 50% or more of actual cost) have no idea of actual cost, so it's good to get it out there.
After you look at enough IID ties, what you really wind up remembering is normal, at least in the long run.
It's more like Napoleon admitting to errors while on St. Helena.
I think Nietzsche, in The Gay Science, provides a quote from N.B. to Josephine on matters matrimonial that suggests that even "Mistakes were made" was well outside his comfort zone.
72: Now available on your W2, box DD.
75: I think you mean one's W2, since I'm self-employed and don't have one of those -- and therefore know exactly what my health insurance costs!
I don't wear pointy heels, but I find I'm much more comfortable in a boot with a nearly two inch heel than I am in flats.
I don't notice a serious change in my gait until about 2.5"-3", but I wear heeled shoes only if they have a fairly robust heel. No pumps.
But exercising in them sounds absurd.
Box DD? Call me when you're up to J.
77.1: Weird.
On the health costs front, I mean, come on: it turns out that when I went back to my primary care physician to point to my arms (covered in hives/rash) and suggest that I probably needed to stop taking the antibiotic, her charge was $350. Dude. All she did was look at my arms, say "Yep, stop taking the antibiotic, here's a prescription for prednisone". Oh well.
I was just informed that I will be taking a paycut this year because someone senior to me (in years, not in title) complained that I was making more than him. Call me crazy, but I think his point was that he wanted to be paid more.
80: That is some bullshit. (One is inclined to ask, "Is that legal?" but that is naive.)
81: Apologies. Her charge was $250, of which just under half was disallowed by insurance (as basically too high a charge). I think the charge was that high because it was an 'emergency' visit, meaning that I called that morning and was told to come in right away. I do appreciate being able to go in right away to my doctor's office.
Still it's a little fucked up.
Presidential pardon's situation in 80 is troubling as well.
I see I misread who was replying to whom just now.
Her charge was $250, of which just under half was disallowed by insurance (as basically too high a charge)
Actually, especially if this is a PPO/HMO type plan and the doc was a participating provider, I think that's just an adjustment based on rates prenegotiated with the health plan. I might, however, be talking out of my ass here, so someone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong!
re: 80
And 'fuck the fuck fucking off' is not an option? I presume you have a contract, no?
85: I think that's just an adjustment based on rates prenegotiated with the health plan
Right; I think of the prenegotiated rates as representing the insurance plan's idea of what counts as a reasonable charge. The doctor then writes off as a loss the difference -- the disallowed amount. It's a crazy system. Especially since if you're uninsured, a so-called self-pay client, you have to pay the full (artificially inflated) amount.
Right, "charges" are basically play money, much higher from actual negotiated contracted rates, but this completely screws over the un- and underinsured, as well as those seen by out-of-network providers (which happens a lot with ER specialty care).
80: I would be looking for a new job. That's BS.
I was just informed that I will be taking a paycut this year because someone senior to me (in years, not in title) complained that I was making more than him. Call me crazy, but I think his point was that he wanted to be paid more.
Whaaat.
What 89 said. That's look-for-a job level maltreatment.
Now available on your W2, box DD.
$16,583 for my family of five. Because of my long tenure here, my employer picks up 100% of our premiums, but the deductibles are on the high side.
And just because this is where my mind goes, not because legal action is at all likely to be a good idea -- is it your impression that racial/gender/national origin/religious status might play any role in the event?
80 is fucked up! I agree with 89.
86: Contracts are year to year. My new contract is for less salary.
89/91: I agree. It's not actually a huge amount of money, but it does send a message as to how my contributions have been valued.
93: No, I don't think there is any unlawful discrimination involved. My senior colleague is, in fact, underpaid and justified in complaining.
95: Does anybody involved own a race horse to which you could obtain access?
If we're doing job-search-bitching, remember I'm on two search committees with an unusual number of really great applicants? We got them phone-interviewed and scheduled to come to campus. Now they're dropping like flies. "I went to my chair/provost/etc and told them I was interviewing and they offered me the TT job I've been wanting." Etc.
1. I'm glad they're cancelling their trip to campus instead of jerking us around further.
2. I'm aware that the candidates are just participating in a system that forces them to go on the job market in order to be taken seriously at their current job.
3. This system massively sucks for all parties. Yes, we're going to revisit the pool and find out who is jobless and since the original pool is so big, it's likely we can still connect with someone. But there has been a ton of sunk time into this process already, by people on all sides.
Off to go do one of these endless extracurricular activities all afternoon long. Awesome.
Everything you say in 97 is right, heebie, and I admire your equanimity about the whole shitshow.
Social media to the rescue? Just have the talented staffer responsible for an official twitter or facebook feed put the word out.
|| A question arose that fits into this website's area of expertise. My client has legitimate reasons that his name should not appear on documents filed in Court. the Clerk of Court refuses to accept documents filed by "John Doe," because there are too many dockets with John Doe on them already and they might be misfiled. But we are permitted to use a pseudonym. So, what name should we use for our client? It has to be a first and a last name. I don't think he'll go for Wry Cooter. ||
I suppose Richard Roe is right out.
Peter Simon Eustace Donym?
Or of course, "George Washington".
the armholes, or "scyes."
New vocabulary word!
102.2: Sue D. Nimm would be simpler.
In keeping with the Doe/Roe rhyme scheme, why not Joe Blow?
Actually, Norm McCorvey is the clear answer.
TCBP (The country's best plaintiff)
"Pseudonymous Contingency Fee Vehicle Number 1"
Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola
I don't understand why Richard Roe isn't, in fact, the right answer. (Aside from the jocularity factor.) There's a whole series of X. Xoe pseudonyms for just this purpose, isn't there? Quentin Qoe, Grace Goe, Carla Coe, Tommy Toe (hee), Mark Moe, William Woe (!! amazing).
Smithee is also a good choice, as long as your client isn't involved with the director's guild.
I don't understand why Richard Roe isn't, in fact, the right answer. (Aside from the jocularity factor.)
Seriously, my guess is that if they won't take John Doe, they won't take Richard Roe. Any other variant, probably, but Roe seems obvious enough to be barred for the same reasons.
They wouldn't take John Doe because of all the other John Doe cases on the docket, though. Are there likely to be a ton of Richard Roe cases as well? Maybe, I guess.
141: Once you bar John Doe, I'd expect every case that would have been filed as John Doe to be filed as Richard Roe, recreating the same problem. There's not a perfectly obvious next step, so just those two would be enough. (And Roe may be permitted, I'm just guessing.)
101: Hand the clerk a note with "polish it in the corner" written on it, and ask him to read it. Then, when he does, say "She did? Oh, that's terrible. I know Polly, and I would never imagine her doing something like that." It won't get your docket filed, but you'll enliven the existence of a drab civil servant.
Actually, the best one would be "Avaricious J. Wardheeler" -- that's not going to get misfiled.
157 made me laugh, that's how juvenile I've become lately. Have I mentioned how awesome the Partridge Family is?
While we are on names... Parents of a long-time friend call you by your first name. They make known that they expect you to refer to them as Mr. and Mrs. Soandso. Is this common? Compelled by the rules of etiquette? What sayeth the mineshaft?
When I was your age I respected my elders, Ms. Kotimy.
They're asshole to insist. If you want to be an asshole too, either insist they call you Mrs Kotimy or just call them by their names.
159: Personal preference, which is up to them to say. Since they have said, I'd just go with it. Calling parents of friends by their first names is totally godless, you realize, in the same ballpark as letting unmarried persons sleep in the same bed in your own home.
Seriously, I've encountered both preferences: first names or Mr./Mrs.
TJ is right.
Reminds me...I have a an old friend, he calls his parents by their first names (as does his wife). Me, I still call them Mr. & Mrs. I'd feel uncomfortable using their first names.
I've never encountered anyone who wasn't an asshole who insisted anyone call them Mr. or Mrs. Anything, outside of certain professional contexts.
Just use "Hey Chief" and "Hey Sugartits."
Yeah, I mean if they want to be Mr. and Mrs., then thus shall they be called. It does make me like them less than I had when I thought they were Bob and Linda. "You are family, welcome here anytime," huggy huggy... It just doesn't fit. Wasn't sure if that was just me or not.
159: When you're around them, you could do your best Sidney Poitier impression and say "They call me MISTER Tibbs!" over and over again -- like at least 3 dozen times per night -- until they relent.
Their preference is a bullshit power-trip. If one insists on titles, one should reciprocate. Here's the compromise. They have to call you Di Kotimy, Esquire.
Thanks for the ideas. I will report on the client's choice on Monday.
I hate to be contrarian, but I don't think it's necessarily a power-trip. Some people are just more formal that way, without intending anything dastardly by it. Generally I'd want to be explicitly told, "Call me Linda! Call me Bob!" before I did so -- or, similarly, to be introduced to them as Bob and Linda, or have them introduce themselves so.
170: Parsimon, I could be wrong, but this reads strongly to me as "formal for thee, but not for me." In that situation, I call shenanigans.
170: Because I know them through their child? I can't imagine, in any other circumstance, having someone call me by my first name (actually, by a nickname variant that generally only those closest to me use... ) while expecting to be addressed formally.
Yeah, that's very strange. Correcting the formality of how an adult friend addresses you at all is weird, honestly -- I'd expect even someone who preferred to be called Mrs. Madison to accept a 'Dolley' without more than an internal eye-roll.
It's a generational thing, isn't it? Having to do with addressing one's elders, as nosflow observed. Which means, yeah, formal for thee, for not for me. I don't share the mindset myself.
Correcting the formality of how an adult friend addresses you at all is weird
Agreed on that. How awkward for them to be brought to the point of feeling so strongly about it. Weird.
174: So, now I'm interested in pinning down in what sphere this rule applies. Obviously, this family (or portions thereof, anyway) believe calling the elders by first names is uncouth. I (and I gather some others) find it offensive to be asked that of someone calling me by a nickname. My understanding of the formal you in German was always that, among adults, it was all or nothing -- either everyone was addressed formally or everyone was addressed by first name. The exception being children. But I may have just been botching that system the whole time... So, where does this standard come from?
I've never heard of such a standard among adults -- older generation getting titles while the younger generation gets firstnamed. The only standard like that I've ever seen is adult/child, which is a little ambiguous around twenty or so, but not for long.
That is, you're right, they're strange and rude.
||
Watching RuPaul's Drag Race immediately after Louie is an extremely strange television experience.
|>
178: That's good. The alternative was that I'm a mannerless sod, and I wasn't entirely comfortable with that.
Have you tried calling people "Hoss"? Nobody does that anymore, so I think a comeback is overdue.
I've never heard of such a standard among adults -- older generation getting titles while the younger generation gets firstnamed
This is making me distinctly uncomfortable, because I can't tell whether you guys are pulling a Pauline Kael here. I'm pretty sure that in various areas of the country, parents are to be addressed by their honorifics, while children, no matter if they're actually adults, are firstnamed. Parents are firstnamed just in case they provide an invitation to do so in one way or another.
That's not the default in the godless areas of the country, of course, but I believe it is otherwise. This usually happens seamlessly (e.g. parents introduce themselves as "Bob" and "Linda", so there you go). What's weird about Di's situation is that apparently Bob and Linda are outliers for Chicago.
If you want well-mannered children, try to make a horseman baby.
182: Maybe the south, but while I've seen that pattern, I've never seen it persist until the children have school aged children themselves.
Mooooooooon River
Wider than a mile
I'm something something style
Some daaaaaaay
You Moooooonraker
that's the wrong song.
Wherever you're going,
I'm going your way.
I'm obviously in the minority here but addressing your elders as Mr/Mrs does not seem the least bit odd or inappropriate to me. I do it instinctively even though I'm in my mid forties. I expect it of anyone significantly my junior, not that I get it, but Americans are pretty forward and informal by the standards I grew up with. These folks are obviously a little old fashioned, but going along with their desires is harmless and nothing to get worked up about
I know several people who grew up calling their own parents ma'am and sir. Like, only those titles - not just for requests or something.
190: Southern thing. Always horrified me. I had a linguistics class at U of C (pragmatics sorta, discourse analysis and shit) where I mentioned this as a "can you believe it?" kind of thing and a southern woman said "if I have kids you'd better believe they're going to call me ma'am." Yeeps.
What, nobody else wants a song?
It's not the Mr/Mrs that strikes me weird, it's the asymmetry.
189: So is it a European (maybe continental European?) thing? Had I gotten the duzen/Siezen conventions wrong? (Mentally, that is. In practice I reformulated every sentence to the outer limits of awkwardness to avoid ever using the second person for fear of screwing it up...)
How to Do Things with Words. Now there's a book.
I like that btocking gives smearcase a mildly clipped, hard-boiled sort of diction. But with more yeeps.
Would you kindly sing me a song, Mr. Smearcase, sir?
192: I really don't see why: there are asymmetries in forms of address all over the place.
If someone wants me to call them by their last name they can damn well signal that by using mine.
I think that if someone tried to pull 159 on me I would go the passive-aggressive route and pretend to be confused. Every time my first name gets used, I use theirs. Every time they correct me, it's "I'm sorry, I must have misheard you. I thought I heard you call me Ben instead of Mr. Quo."
Not sure whether I'd have the guts to do that, or chicken out, though.
Cultural differences about this are confusing.
199: I see from the thread linked in 199 that Sugartits is apparently the clear norm for addressing an older woman. Duly noted.
199: I see from the thread linked in 199 that Sugartits is apparently the clear norm for addressing an older woman. Duly noted.
196: you bet I would.
Spring this year
Has got me feelin' (apostrophe)
Like a horse that never left the post...
I lie in my room
something something something something
Spring can really hang you up the most...
Why this song is not one of the standard standards I do not know.
There's a thing that comes up in Uncle Vanya where one or the other of them says to the other or the other of them that they should really перейти на ты, which is to say use informal pronouns with one another. It's hard to translate. I can't remember quite how she says it in Russian. The last production I saw it in, she says to the audience, "audience," she says, by implication, "let's, me and this other character, speak na ty" and of course nobody knew what the fuck she was talking about.
I mostly get voluble at this level of btockedness. Not so much with the misspellings and stuff, I don't think. I kind of just can't shut up.
I kind of just can't shut up.
eeeeexcellent.
Doesn't George call Sandy Dennis "sugartits" in Who's Afraid at some point before he calls her "Monkey Nipples"?
Maybe I will walk to the all night Dunkin Donuts so as to avoid posting 300 comments.
Also, based on recent linkage patterns, one of you is apparently a FB friend that I don't know to be one of you, one of my FB friends knows one of you, or one of my FB friends would really like it here.
My professors (and in undergrad, my tutors) never expected to receive a more elevated form of address than they gave. I don't see why I should give more respect to someone just because they were born earlier.
No one has ever actually insisted on something as stupid as this, so I don't know why it pushes my buttons so much. But 159 somehow infuriates me. And the last time someone described something like this on unfogged I got disproportionately annoyed too. I think it was some sort of physician who wanted to be called "Doctor."
Maybe it's just the bourbon talking. I finally bought handles of WL Weller and Buffalo Trace to try side by side to see which one I liked better, and I have no idea. Buffalo Trace tastes a little bitter, but by comparison Weller doesn't taste very distinct at all. At least I'm not drinking Eagle Rare or Corner Creek.
Keep testing 'em, Benquo. Just keep focused.
But it's kind of neat that you can have this little conversational moment with someone where you say "this is the moment where we use second person singular pronouns with each other, yes?"
Then Sonya and Elena Thingovna do the thing where you wrap your arm around the other person's arm to drink your drink. "Bruderschaft," one of them says.
Ok donut.
Damn it, now that I said that, I realized that I have to try all of my bourbons side by side. Well, science calls.
"this is the moment where we use second person singular pronouns with each other, yes?"
Shortly after becoming engaged, I met UNG's best friend's mom for the first time. She very quickly offered me the informal you (Wir duzen uns, oder?). I later found out this caused a bit of scandal as UNG's stepmother, who was standing next to me at the time, had known this woman for 20 years and was still confined to formal address.
210: Well, yes. But I didn't take it as *authoritative* until I saw you'd used it.
193: I think it may be more of an old fashioned kind of thing.
I seem to have it wrong but anyway. Some of the only interesting acting Julianne Moore has ever done.
I don't see why I should give more respect to someone just because they were born earlier.
Benquo has no respect for the elders.
Hey Buffalo Trace, won't you come out tonight, won't you come out tonight, won't you come out tonight? Hey Buffalo Trace, won't you come out tonight, and dance by the light of the moon?
217: I have respect for some elders. But not the ones who are assholes. Or at least not all of those.
I have great respect for W.L. Weller, whoever he or she was.
217: Not "no respect." Just no more (or less) respect than peers or the youth.
Best quote from this episode of Louie: "I'm serving Jem and the Holograms acid-punk going to the Met gala."
Shit, wait, no, wrong show.
Speaking of bourbon, y'all recommended Evan Williams not long ago (maybe when I was bitching about my pricier bourbon not being properly respected). Definitely a thumbs up. Though I think the Kirkland brand beat it in a blind taste test.
The most awesome elders I know never spoke to me except in such a way as I might speak to them.
So elders without that kind of magnanimity have distinguished themselves as unworthy of my respect. After all, they've had longer to develop their virtues than I have.
222: What are the pricier bourbons that it replaced?
I ask so that I'll know if I should consider replacing my pricier bourbons with the same.
Yeesh, my sentences get stiffer when I'm drunk.
Evan Williams is less pricey than almost any other bourbon, and better than many still-inexpensive bourbons that cost twice as much.
Speaking of comparing whiskeys, I bought a fifth of Jim Beam rye the other day to see if I preferred Bulleit rye to all the bourbons I tried because of something special about Bulleit specifically or just because I like rye more than bourbon. Turns out it's the latter.
I do still like the Bulleit better, but the difference isn't anywhere near as huge as between the respective bourbons.
225: Hmm. I know there was a Knob Creek and a Maker's 46. Some Bulleit. A couple of bottles I picked up in Kentucky that I don't remember by name right now.
A couple of bottles I picked up in Kentucky that I don't remember by name right now.
I'm amusing myself by trying to think of all the words that could replace "bottles" to make that sentence more scandalous.
Also, I am so far behind on reading threads! I really have to work on my time management skills.
I suggest a boring office job with relatively lax internet controls.
No, "A couple of boring office jobs with relatively lax internet controls I picked up in Kentucky that I don't remember by name right now" doesn't quite have the right ring to it.
No, see, not even remembering the jobs you had is hella scandalous.
I mean, I guess I kinda had that the summer after my junior year of high school, but there was only one, not a couple.
I had to spend the whole afternoon today talking to random students. I can't really tell if they can tell that I have no clue what I'm doing. Probably the undergrad who I was told yesterday I'm supposed to be academically advising, with no further instructions, could tell. "Yeah, it is kind of cold today. So, uh, you need me to sign this form? Okay, I can do that. I see you're taking one class in this department and, uh, some kind of history class? Oh, you like to learn about wars. Great. That's... nice. So... uh... now that I signed that... got any questions for me? Um..."
205: It's not related to me, is it? I've got some overlap between my myriad FB accounts (which is stupid, because that's the whole reason I even have multiple accounts, to wit: no overlap. Sigh.) So it gets confusing sometimes.
208: There's a funny bit right at the beginning of Dead Souls about that stuff, isn't there. I should just reach the book down from where it sits, less than 36 inches away from me and check, I suppose. But I am very lazy.
I bought a bottle of Breaking & Entering bourbon for an aficionada, and she liked it better than a bunch of fancy bottles. It's under $30, although it may be specific to California.
I'm so sorry I wasn't on here last night to enjoy the fun. But I did get a fair amount of sewing done before bed!
I could go on about how ticky I find that class, but eh, why be a hater. Instead I will remark how much I love LXD, despite loathing several of its plot tropes.
Apologies. Her charge was $250, of which just under half was disallowed by insurance (as basically too high a charge). I think the charge was that high because it was an 'emergency' visit, meaning that I called that morning and was told to come in right away.
When I visit my doctor it's usually during the morning walkin and it's free, but then I live in a socialist hellhole. G. P. visits are always free under the Dutch system.