PS. A bunch of flowers, unless she gets hay fever. Go for something arty, rather than classically romantic because they work either way. They're also disposable, so they won't clutter up her house with something she doesn't want to keep.
And make a nuisance of yourself calling them up the moment they open in the morning, call them from the bus stop/train station ready to do a day's work, drop into their premises as regularly as you can.
You'll pick up the emergency stuff, gain experience, prove yourself to be eager and reliable.
Catfoot, dear chap, a brief look at my profile will establish that I have been active on the forums over the last two years. Understandably, there is no record of my comments on other people's blogs, but given my activity I wonder if you ever read, or comment on anyone else's.
As for my reading psychology and other articles, it is usual to study journal papers and other texts when researching, studying and practising a discipline.
It's interesting that you view my comments as 'unfriendly' which is an ad hominem response - you criticise me personally, rather than my arguments. I've left you plenty of room for counter-argument as it's more creative and stimulating debating with others than with myself.
I pick out words because they are an important part of debate. I picked out the word 'enemy' because it's indicative of how you view interaction. Indeed, you appear to view me as an enemy and become defensive with personal attacks, rather than looking at the content of my comments.
I have argued my case for not viewing people as enemies, or adversaries and I have also argued my case for not relying upon external affirmation to bolster self-esteem. I didn't just pick out one word and declare it wrong to use it, I picked up on two trains of thought in your blog which could be debated and developed constructively.
My comments are not a personal criticism of you, Catfoot. They are a critical evaluation of your blog with the motive of introducing a different perspective based upon historical research and theories. It wasn't supposed to be threatening, or scary. It never has been. It has always been meant as a mutual learning experience.
Any other interpretation comes from your own value framework and has nothing to do with my motivations. I can do little, but try and reassure you. Only you can work on not seeing me as an enemy.
I have often said that if I were to have another dog it would be a lurcher, but knowing my luck it would be a Patterdale/Whippet cross - a high speed little sod.
Galrads posted some percussion expertise on the forums a couple of weeks ago, including a solo by Ginger Baker.
I'm in the unfortunate position of not being able to join your admiration as I see that more is going on than I can hear, deaf old git that I am.
A few years back an undergraduate student who I understand was on the autistic spectrum would regularly sit in the foyer of the arts campus where I worked, drumming on his legs with his hands whilst listening to I don't know what on headphones. I greatly enjoyed the opportunity to watch him; he was way too engrossed to ever notice that I was.
Apparently, there were complaints and some talk of stopping him. I wish I'd had the courage to fulfill my idea to pin a notice on the empty chair next to him stating, "WARNING: Passion in Progress"
From the memory of his physical movements, I know wonder if he was sometimes listening to Ginger.
Using the word 'jugular' was merely an acknowledgement of your joke, Catfoot.
Any speculation as to my timing is logical fallacy on your part. I was simply curious from your blog title and my post an evolution of your argument in the vein of Maslow's term 'self-actualisation'.
The process of self-actualisation, most notably developed by Carl Rogers, highlights the two points I made - accepting others with unconditional positive regard (other people aren't our enemies, or adversaries) and relying on our own self-evaluation rather than external affirmation (respect from others) for our self-esteem, or confidence.
If we accept others with unconditional positive regard we don't judge a person negatively. This enables us to either debate without ad hominem fallacy (personal attacks), or evaluate that person's behaviour objectively without emotional entanglement.
If a troll does their troll thing, one can debate the subject raised, observe the trolling behaviour with interest, or leave well alone. It's not necessary to become emotionally involved and given the likely motivation of trolling (getting people to take the bait via an emotional reaction), necessary to remain objective.
Thinking of others in terms of 'your enemy' is a part of the issue you try to dispel, Catfoot.
Other people are human beings with their own frailties and peculiarities which we could accept, as you recommend acceptance of those who hunt, or eat a plant based diet.
Our self-respect need not be dependent upon external affirmation. It's more emotionally mature not to rely upon others for self-respect, but to be confident with our own decisions.
If we all operated using the principle 'I'm okay; you're okay' perhaps there would be less personal battle and more functional debate.
I find it curious when people say things like 'You're not supposed to eat...' or 'Are you allowed to eat...?'
There isn't a rule book, any laws, or a parent involved in a vegetarian, plant based, or gluten free diet.
What you eat is a choice.
Even if you have an allergy, an intolerance, or belong to a religion with food guidelines, it's still a choice. I could eat a bucket of Quorn and throw up for a fortnight if I wanted to, but I don't want to.
If people want to eat meat substitutes, it's their choice.
I hear a lot about how annoying and evangelical people are if they choose a vegan diet, or lifestyle, but I hear a lot more meat eaters picking holes and judging.
It really doesn't matter what other people choose to eat.
And in answer to the question above, people choose to meat substitutes because it's not meat. If it has the appearance, taste and texture of meat, it's still not meat. It doesn't become meat by magic, or anything. Perhaps your friend didn't answer because it was such a silly question.
You should drink two litres of water a day. If you drink the other stuff as well, all the better, except the soft drinks.
Not too much juice either, it's also loaded with sugar and as much of a shock to your liver as drinking alcohol. Smoothies are better than fruit juices as they contain the fruit pulp, slowing down the rate the sugars get into your blood stream.
If I ask my sheets if they are of a religious faith, would it be discriminatory if I don't give a monkey's about about my quilt cover and pillow case's spirituality?
When our first beloved dog died, I gave my 8 year old daughter two options:
We could have him privately cremated and keep his ashes (costly, almost beyond our means); or he could be cremated with all the other dogs for free and his ashes scattered on arable fields.
She opted for the mass cremation the grounds that she didn't want him to be alone.
And yet, perhaps we are all alone in death, and maybe that's not so bad. Maybe aloneness is less important when we break down and become a part of the universe once more.
I think the relatives would likely appreciate their loved ones back.
On the other hand, the expense could be spent on the living.
It's a difficult one, where only the relatives can decide.
How about if the cost of retrieval were to be put at the disposal of the relatives? They could then decide if they wanted their loved ones back for a land burial, or if they wanted the funds to go elsewhere. It could provide closure, either way.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,973)
RE: All good things comes to an end!
PS. A bunch of flowers, unless she gets hay fever. Go for something arty, rather than classically romantic because they work either way. They're also disposable, so they won't clutter up her house with something she doesn't want to keep.