Link: 
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
"LOOK AT THAT CLEVER DISTRACTION DIRECTLY BEHIND YOU!!"
Hello Boys and Girls! Here is your required reading.
Now whether you chose you read that or not isn't the point... but if you aren't more studious than prepare for an epic FAIL!
I came across this article earlier this week when I was reading the K/W Record. As usual I had showed up at work obscenely early and it seemed better than doing nothing.
When I read this article I tried to remember the last time I actually noticed a roadside memorial the last time I was on the highway. It may have been sooner than last year but I usually see them and then disregard them immediately. I have never really given them much thought because in the event I notice one, my thought process is something like, "that's too bad...... HEY! Gas is cheaper here!".
CTV has even quoted the blogger community which is supposedly abuzz with debate on this topic with one person suggesting the 'shrines' are a reminder to drive safely while another person believes them to be 'distasteful to the max'.
I really don't see what the big deal is with them. Although I can honestly say that I agree with the idea of proposed time limits. Some municipalities have proposed a 3 month limit while others have a more prolonged year limit following the death of a person.
CTV supplies us with 2 quotes on opposite extremes:
"I have asked my loved ones to ensure that no such memorial goes up in the event that I die an untimely death. A tombstone in a cemetery somewhere will suffice for me."
and
"People grieve in their own ways, and it doesn't really hurt me to let them. I'm willing to overlook an eyesore if it's helping someone get over the loss. How selfish is it not to?"
The first quote is from someone who is truely playing the devils advocate. I have never felt compelled to build a roadside memorial for someone who was killed untimely in a vehicle related accident. I don't think this person has either and as a result does not understand what motivations a person could have for building a shrine.
The second person is a pushover. The "say what they want to hear" guy. I can understand how a shrine or memorial can act as a reminder and help with the grieving process in the short term, however, in the long term the removal of these shrines also helps with the healing.
It's much like when there are 2 people who have been married almost as long as they've been alive and one of them dies. For a while afterward the surviving spouse takes comfort in being around their loved ones abandoned things, but in the long term the healthiest thing for them to do is start giving away or disposing of those things because they are only holding the surviving person back from fully healing.
I guess you could say I agree with Gord Steeves.
So while some municipalities have enacted time limitations on roadside memorials, Calgary has decided to fund a study to determine whether or not these shrines negatively effect driver behaviour:
'The leader of the study in Calgary, Richard Tay, says memorials are an increasingly familiar sight on North American roads and everyone seems to have an opinion about them. That, he adds, makes if hard for politicians to impose rules.
"We need to have scientific evidence to base our decision on."'
I don't agree with this... Why bother wasting money on this? It really smells like a "A new study reports that cellphones cause cancer in rats" study.
I have a better idea. Keep your eyes on the road.
So what do you guys think about this? I know its been awhile since I've posted but I don't appologize.
*PEACE*
Now whether you chose you read that or not isn't the point... but if you aren't more studious than prepare for an epic FAIL!
I came across this article earlier this week when I was reading the K/W Record. As usual I had showed up at work obscenely early and it seemed better than doing nothing.
When I read this article I tried to remember the last time I actually noticed a roadside memorial the last time I was on the highway. It may have been sooner than last year but I usually see them and then disregard them immediately. I have never really given them much thought because in the event I notice one, my thought process is something like, "that's too bad...... HEY! Gas is cheaper here!".
CTV has even quoted the blogger community which is supposedly abuzz with debate on this topic with one person suggesting the 'shrines' are a reminder to drive safely while another person believes them to be 'distasteful to the max'.
I really don't see what the big deal is with them. Although I can honestly say that I agree with the idea of proposed time limits. Some municipalities have proposed a 3 month limit while others have a more prolonged year limit following the death of a person.
CTV supplies us with 2 quotes on opposite extremes:
"I have asked my loved ones to ensure that no such memorial goes up in the event that I die an untimely death. A tombstone in a cemetery somewhere will suffice for me."
and
"People grieve in their own ways, and it doesn't really hurt me to let them. I'm willing to overlook an eyesore if it's helping someone get over the loss. How selfish is it not to?"
The first quote is from someone who is truely playing the devils advocate. I have never felt compelled to build a roadside memorial for someone who was killed untimely in a vehicle related accident. I don't think this person has either and as a result does not understand what motivations a person could have for building a shrine.
The second person is a pushover. The "say what they want to hear" guy. I can understand how a shrine or memorial can act as a reminder and help with the grieving process in the short term, however, in the long term the removal of these shrines also helps with the healing.
It's much like when there are 2 people who have been married almost as long as they've been alive and one of them dies. For a while afterward the surviving spouse takes comfort in being around their loved ones abandoned things, but in the long term the healthiest thing for them to do is start giving away or disposing of those things because they are only holding the surviving person back from fully healing.
I guess you could say I agree with Gord Steeves.
So while some municipalities have enacted time limitations on roadside memorials, Calgary has decided to fund a study to determine whether or not these shrines negatively effect driver behaviour:
'The leader of the study in Calgary, Richard Tay, says memorials are an increasingly familiar sight on North American roads and everyone seems to have an opinion about them. That, he adds, makes if hard for politicians to impose rules.
"We need to have scientific evidence to base our decision on."'
I don't agree with this... Why bother wasting money on this? It really smells like a "A new study reports that cellphones cause cancer in rats" study.
I have a better idea. Keep your eyes on the road.
So what do you guys think about this? I know its been awhile since I've posted but I don't appologize.
*PEACE*
Saturday, July 12, 2008
*LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX*
I've always been a guys-girl (if that makes sense). For most of my life I have had a couple female friends but most of them felt the way I do... that 'traditional' female ideals are bullshit.
I've been told that for the most part I just get what guys think. (It's not that hard really... most guys say what they mean and mean what they say. For Example: Girl: "What are you thinking?" Guy: "Nothing". Seriously, sometimes guys really are thinking about nothing)
I tried for awhile to do the girl thing where I'd buy Cosmo and other magazines (I still do but not as religiously). I realized that if you pay attention all of those magazines are just the same regurgitated stories revamped ("Holy Crap! Girl-On-Top is STILL the hottest position because it 'let's you be in control'?!? Where have I been?!?")
And another thing, why is it that when these magazines (and independent bloggers alike) post "THE TOP 10 RELATIONSHIP WARNING SIGNS YOU SHOULD WATCH OUT FOR" it's always aimed at women. I don't know this for sure but you'd think that since media influence says men are clueless to the female psyche that they'd have these articles out there for men.
I came across one of these articles whilst perusing Boinkology today:
The Top Six Relationship Red Flags (*insert imperial march here*)
SUBMITTED BY THE FRISKY: Everyone has their faults…even relationship bloggers who are skilled and rational lovers (ahem, coupled with being a little neurotic). But when you’re with someone, it’s all about understanding and complimenting each other’s strengths and weakness. However, some things are flexible, some things are sticking points and some things are straight up warning signs. Even though it’s hard to keep your eyes open when all you feel is sex and love, turning a blind eye will bite you in the booty eventually. So no matter how in love you are, you gotta look out for red flags. Michael Snayerson wrote some for dudes that still totally apply for us ladies, from rudeness to waiters to dirty underwear. We love that he thinks a man should always offer to pay on the first date, although his aversion to eggs and ketchup may seem a little irrational. To tell our side, we’ve assembled some red flags that are visible even through the sex haze and should not be ignored!
(*** T-Notes: The opening paragraph to this post isn't all too bad. I'm sure they're out there somewhere but I think being out to dinner with someone in general who is blatantly rude to the server is a jerk-face. It's a little more than a red flag for the simple reason that if someone treats a complete stranger like an asshole than how do they treat the people they're supposed to care about? I would also never credit someone who clearly writes what he thinks ladies want to hear versus what he actually thinks. I guarantee Micheal Snayerson doesn't mind paying for dinner on the first date, HOWEVER, I think we can all agree that it's nice to go out with someone who doesn't expect to be paid for. ***)
1. He Knows Women Everywhere You Go Oh, and they know him! It’s good to date a social guy, but too much of a good thing isn’t a good thing at all.
(*** T-Notes: There are a lot of things that can be said about this one. As a woman who knows and is friends with a lot of people of the opposing gender, this point isn't fair. I once dated a guy who knew a lot of women, we had the odd tiff here and there where he would accuse me of being jealous of him talking to so many women whenever we went out. The fact of the matter is that he got along better with women than he did with other guys. If I had originally posted this one it would have been more to the idea that if you're with someone who knows a lot of people of the opposite sex and whenever they see these people your partner acts like you don't exist, you may have a problem. There is nothing wrong with being social as long as it isn't hurting the people you care for. ***)
2. Doesn’t Dress Up For Dates. You are beautiful, special, important and it just took you an hour to slap on some make up and coordinate a cute outfit. If you’re willing to walk around in pumps so high you could dunk a basketball, the least he can do is put on a nice shirt. If he’s not trying to impress you too, you’re wasting your time.
(*** T-Notes: Who really goes on 'dates' anymore? And furthermore, where are you going on your night out? Are you going to the local pub for a night of live music? If so that hour you spent 'coordinating an outfit' and those gigantic heels you're going to wear are kind of retarded. Part of being with someone is being okay with how each other looks right after the gym or first thing in the morning after a bender. From experience I could wear a black eyeliner for a night out and a brown one during the day. The response from my guy? "Oh... I can't see it... there's no difference." Besides, if you spend all of your time trying to look fantastic when you are going somewhere nice it won't be anything new. If he looks presentable and comfortable for dates consider yourself lucky! At least you know that he likes you enough and is comfortable enough around you to not look completely out of his element. ***)
3. Never Picks Up On Your Calls Or Only Texts You First of all, texts are the bane of the modern dating experience. If he’s afraid to let you reach out and touch him via technology, i.e. the phone, he’s already avoiding the easiest way to communicate with you. Lame!
(*** T-Notes: This is probably one of the most common misunderstandings. If most of the time he texts you rather than calls you he could genuinely be very busy. Maybe he's in an important business meeting risking termination by texting you while his boss drones on about surpluses... could happen. It's highly unfortunate that the female species is conditioned to think "if he doesn't take my calls he hates me/is cheating on me/thinks I'm psychotic". Although don't get me wrong I'm sure there are people on both sides of the gender fence that could stand to back off in this area. ***)
4. Friends and Family Disapprove Whether the people close to you hate him or the people close to him hate you, it’s bad. After all, how are you going to go places together or worse yet, what’s the point of having a partner if you’re forced to go to things alone due to personality differences? Listen to the people who love you. You’ve already picked them to be in your life, you can find someone else who will slip right in.
(*** T-Notes: Have you made an effort to figure out why his friends/family don't like you? It could simply be that they're afraid you could be a permanent fixture in their lives (which shouldn't be taken personally, it's largely fear on their part). In these situations people should understand that there is always a bigger person. You need to be that bigger person if you want your relationship to work out. You and your partner need to discuss the options you have. Not just "his family hates me so I'm going to dump him"... don't be retarded. Your family and friends, as much as they can be assets, don't have the full view of what it's like from your description alone. And besides, the bigger person would never gang up on their partner with they're friends. ***)
5. He Insists On Something You Don’t Like Whether it’s anal sex or a flea bag restaurant, if it’s not his birthday, he doesn’t always get his way. If he really cared about you and your opinion you would be able to do things you both enjoy. But if he’s consistently choosing to be a selfish jerk, you should too and dump his egocentric butt.
(*** T-Notes: So if he insists on something you don't like he's an egocentric jerk? Didn't you say right from the beginning, "it’s all about understanding and complimenting each other’s strengths and weakness"? So understand this: compromise. 'Nuff said. ... unless it's the Stratty Theater versus Famous Players. That's not even the same sport. ***)
6. You Only Take Bad Pictures Together The camera is a scientific device that never lies. It gives you a close up look at your chemistry, even if it’s a crowd shot. So, if you don’t look good together for some reason, albeit superficial, it’s a warning sign.
(*** T-Notes: The camera is not a scientific device. The fact of the matter is some people are just naturally more photogenic than others. If either of you looks just horrible in pictures that doesn't mean your relationship is doomed to failure. It means you suck at posing for pictures. If you take #6 literally you might as well ask the magic 8-ball if you're going to get married... and don't forget to listen to it... after all, it's magic right? ***)
So that's it. I've wanted to do a post on this kind of thing for while and now I can die happy.
Someone has to stick up for the guys of the world.
I just realized we didn't actually talk about sex... So here it is: Watch yourself sometime.. the faces you make can be hilarious.
*PEACE*
I've been told that for the most part I just get what guys think. (It's not that hard really... most guys say what they mean and mean what they say. For Example: Girl: "What are you thinking?" Guy: "Nothing". Seriously, sometimes guys really are thinking about nothing)
I tried for awhile to do the girl thing where I'd buy Cosmo and other magazines (I still do but not as religiously). I realized that if you pay attention all of those magazines are just the same regurgitated stories revamped ("Holy Crap! Girl-On-Top is STILL the hottest position because it 'let's you be in control'?!? Where have I been?!?")
And another thing, why is it that when these magazines (and independent bloggers alike) post "THE TOP 10 RELATIONSHIP WARNING SIGNS YOU SHOULD WATCH OUT FOR" it's always aimed at women. I don't know this for sure but you'd think that since media influence says men are clueless to the female psyche that they'd have these articles out there for men.
I came across one of these articles whilst perusing Boinkology today:
The Top Six Relationship Red Flags (*insert imperial march here*)
SUBMITTED BY THE FRISKY: Everyone has their faults…even relationship bloggers who are skilled and rational lovers (ahem, coupled with being a little neurotic). But when you’re with someone, it’s all about understanding and complimenting each other’s strengths and weakness. However, some things are flexible, some things are sticking points and some things are straight up warning signs. Even though it’s hard to keep your eyes open when all you feel is sex and love, turning a blind eye will bite you in the booty eventually. So no matter how in love you are, you gotta look out for red flags. Michael Snayerson wrote some for dudes that still totally apply for us ladies, from rudeness to waiters to dirty underwear. We love that he thinks a man should always offer to pay on the first date, although his aversion to eggs and ketchup may seem a little irrational. To tell our side, we’ve assembled some red flags that are visible even through the sex haze and should not be ignored!
(*** T-Notes: The opening paragraph to this post isn't all too bad. I'm sure they're out there somewhere but I think being out to dinner with someone in general who is blatantly rude to the server is a jerk-face. It's a little more than a red flag for the simple reason that if someone treats a complete stranger like an asshole than how do they treat the people they're supposed to care about? I would also never credit someone who clearly writes what he thinks ladies want to hear versus what he actually thinks. I guarantee Micheal Snayerson doesn't mind paying for dinner on the first date, HOWEVER, I think we can all agree that it's nice to go out with someone who doesn't expect to be paid for. ***)
1. He Knows Women Everywhere You Go Oh, and they know him! It’s good to date a social guy, but too much of a good thing isn’t a good thing at all.
(*** T-Notes: There are a lot of things that can be said about this one. As a woman who knows and is friends with a lot of people of the opposing gender, this point isn't fair. I once dated a guy who knew a lot of women, we had the odd tiff here and there where he would accuse me of being jealous of him talking to so many women whenever we went out. The fact of the matter is that he got along better with women than he did with other guys. If I had originally posted this one it would have been more to the idea that if you're with someone who knows a lot of people of the opposite sex and whenever they see these people your partner acts like you don't exist, you may have a problem. There is nothing wrong with being social as long as it isn't hurting the people you care for. ***)
2. Doesn’t Dress Up For Dates. You are beautiful, special, important and it just took you an hour to slap on some make up and coordinate a cute outfit. If you’re willing to walk around in pumps so high you could dunk a basketball, the least he can do is put on a nice shirt. If he’s not trying to impress you too, you’re wasting your time.
(*** T-Notes: Who really goes on 'dates' anymore? And furthermore, where are you going on your night out? Are you going to the local pub for a night of live music? If so that hour you spent 'coordinating an outfit' and those gigantic heels you're going to wear are kind of retarded. Part of being with someone is being okay with how each other looks right after the gym or first thing in the morning after a bender. From experience I could wear a black eyeliner for a night out and a brown one during the day. The response from my guy? "Oh... I can't see it... there's no difference." Besides, if you spend all of your time trying to look fantastic when you are going somewhere nice it won't be anything new. If he looks presentable and comfortable for dates consider yourself lucky! At least you know that he likes you enough and is comfortable enough around you to not look completely out of his element. ***)
3. Never Picks Up On Your Calls Or Only Texts You First of all, texts are the bane of the modern dating experience. If he’s afraid to let you reach out and touch him via technology, i.e. the phone, he’s already avoiding the easiest way to communicate with you. Lame!
(*** T-Notes: This is probably one of the most common misunderstandings. If most of the time he texts you rather than calls you he could genuinely be very busy. Maybe he's in an important business meeting risking termination by texting you while his boss drones on about surpluses... could happen. It's highly unfortunate that the female species is conditioned to think "if he doesn't take my calls he hates me/is cheating on me/thinks I'm psychotic". Although don't get me wrong I'm sure there are people on both sides of the gender fence that could stand to back off in this area. ***)
4. Friends and Family Disapprove Whether the people close to you hate him or the people close to him hate you, it’s bad. After all, how are you going to go places together or worse yet, what’s the point of having a partner if you’re forced to go to things alone due to personality differences? Listen to the people who love you. You’ve already picked them to be in your life, you can find someone else who will slip right in.
(*** T-Notes: Have you made an effort to figure out why his friends/family don't like you? It could simply be that they're afraid you could be a permanent fixture in their lives (which shouldn't be taken personally, it's largely fear on their part). In these situations people should understand that there is always a bigger person. You need to be that bigger person if you want your relationship to work out. You and your partner need to discuss the options you have. Not just "his family hates me so I'm going to dump him"... don't be retarded. Your family and friends, as much as they can be assets, don't have the full view of what it's like from your description alone. And besides, the bigger person would never gang up on their partner with they're friends. ***)
5. He Insists On Something You Don’t Like Whether it’s anal sex or a flea bag restaurant, if it’s not his birthday, he doesn’t always get his way. If he really cared about you and your opinion you would be able to do things you both enjoy. But if he’s consistently choosing to be a selfish jerk, you should too and dump his egocentric butt.
(*** T-Notes: So if he insists on something you don't like he's an egocentric jerk? Didn't you say right from the beginning, "it’s all about understanding and complimenting each other’s strengths and weakness"? So understand this: compromise. 'Nuff said. ... unless it's the Stratty Theater versus Famous Players. That's not even the same sport. ***)
6. You Only Take Bad Pictures Together The camera is a scientific device that never lies. It gives you a close up look at your chemistry, even if it’s a crowd shot. So, if you don’t look good together for some reason, albeit superficial, it’s a warning sign.
(*** T-Notes: The camera is not a scientific device. The fact of the matter is some people are just naturally more photogenic than others. If either of you looks just horrible in pictures that doesn't mean your relationship is doomed to failure. It means you suck at posing for pictures. If you take #6 literally you might as well ask the magic 8-ball if you're going to get married... and don't forget to listen to it... after all, it's magic right? ***)
So that's it. I've wanted to do a post on this kind of thing for while and now I can die happy.
Someone has to stick up for the guys of the world.
I just realized we didn't actually talk about sex... So here it is: Watch yourself sometime.. the faces you make can be hilarious.
*PEACE*
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
So I Beat A Mouse At Go Fish...
Normally I wouldn't actively push a specific political party. I have a very political mind and tend to pick and choose what I like and don't like about the various platforms available to me.
Oddly enough, I heard this 'rumour' through my parents first. Since I've lived with my parents for my entire life I basically expressed a brief outrage and went about my business...
That was until I got an email from the NDP with the subject line: "Help Stop the Text Message Cash-grab".
This made me stop because this was the exact thing my parents had mentioned to me.
I thought I had no money before... but now Wireless Service Providers, Bell and Telus are trying to charge the average cell phone user for RECEIVING text messages as well as sending them. This isn't just text messages from people you know; this is texts from spammers and other unwanted texts.
So if you're like me and you have your cell on MSN and/or Facebook you will have to eliminate those nifty services if you don't want to be charged for them.
What are your thoughts??
You can sign the petition on the NDP webpage here.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Because Bitches Be Crazy...
I haven't posted in awhile. I've been making the transition to shift work and it kinda sucks not having a whole lot of time to do fuck all. Even when I work the day shift I get off at 3pm and think "sweet! now I have 5.5 whole hours before I have to go to sleep again! W00T!".
Seriously though, even though I haven't posted in awhile there are other people who are rather reliable for these sort of things. In this particular scenario it's our friend Binks providing dulcet commentary on the really stupid crap that goes on in our work on a daily basis. A particular post came to mind (actually the first of his posts I ever commented on) when I was catching up on one of my favourite YouTube vlogs, The Philip DeFranco Show (episodes of said show can be found to the side under the cleverly titled heading "ThisTube: Broadcast Stuff".
The post I'm referring to chronicles the most recent happenings in the Lori Drew file:
Essentially, Lori Drew's daughter had a rocky friendship with a neighbour girl named Megan Meier; both girls were 14 years old at the time. Drew's daughter and Megan had had a verbal altercation and Drew's daughter told her mother that Megan was saying really horrible things about her to anyone who would listen.
Now here's the kicker:
Rather than act like a mature and responsible adult and simply pick up the phone and speak with Megan's parents about the matter, she chose to respond the way a typical pre-adolescent would respond.
She created a fake MySpace account and posed as boy named Josh Evans. "Josh" treated Megan with respect and dignity for awhile in an effort to gain Megan's trust (Drew claimed it was because she wanted to see for herself if Megan was truly saying mean things about her daughter). So Megan and Josh began "dating", but after awhile Josh's attitude toward Megan changed and he began saying really horrible things to her and telling her that he no longer wanted anything to do with her because she is mean to her friends. This internet bullying continued under Megan Meier committed suicide by hanging.
I totally agree with her parents in this situation. Lori Drew conspired with her daughter and woman who worked for her in an effort to make Megan feel terrible and contributed to this girls eventual suicide. Megan suffered from depression and ADD which has been the primary argument explaining Megan's extreme behaviour.
I don't think Megan's mental condition is an excuse. The fact of the matter is that a grown woman acted horrendously immaturely and contributed to the death of a young innocent girl. Whether Megan had or had not been saying mean things about her daughter is irrelevant at this point because that is what young teenage girls do.
Girls between the ages of 13-16 will go behind your back and systematically destroy every relationship you've ever had if given a reason regardless of how ridiculous. This is where the parents are supposed to step in and get involved in their children's lives and say "look guys, I understand that you've been having some problems with each other but you have to understand that the reason you're angry at each other is not that big and isn't worth risking your friendship" then everybody hugs and makes up and thats the end until boys enter the picture and it starts all over.
Lori Drew's actions make me sick. She acted like a 13 year old herself! She's supposed to be the role model for her daughter!? Christ...
And get this... when Mr. Meier (Megan's Father) approached Drew for some answers he became so distraught at her confession that he broke her pool table and she tried to sue for damages... I don't think anything further needs to be said about that one.
Recently, this story has taken a turn.
There is no law anywhere against bullying someone on the internet even if it leads to a suicide or other harmful act to oneself or others. So instead, Lori Drew has been indicted (not the same as convicted) for using MySpace fraudulently in an effort to harm or harass others. "Drew and her co-conspirators violated MySpace's terms of service, which require registrants to provide truthful registration information and refrain from soliciting personal information from anyone under 18 or using information obtained from MySpace services to harass or harm other people, among other terms."
Megan Meier will never see the light of day again or really get justice for her death because it was by her own hands that she died, even in spite of the fact that the horrible things said to her and posted over the internet for all to see likely contributed to this tragedy.
This interpretation of U.S. law prohibits the creation of any online account under a name that is other than that of the creator/user. This could set a very scary precedent and will likely spread to Canada in short order. Many people will by affected by this law because many create accounts under aliases for legitimate purposes.
The solution as I see it is to not sign yourself or another person up for anything that could come back to bite you in the ass (a.k.a. if you would be ashamed of your grandmother/potential employer seeing it, or you would look down on your child doing/saying it than don't do it yourself... it's a common sense/practice what you preach thing)
But that's it... a bit of a piss off when you think about it...
*Peace*
Seriously though, even though I haven't posted in awhile there are other people who are rather reliable for these sort of things. In this particular scenario it's our friend Binks providing dulcet commentary on the really stupid crap that goes on in our work on a daily basis. A particular post came to mind (actually the first of his posts I ever commented on) when I was catching up on one of my favourite YouTube vlogs, The Philip DeFranco Show (episodes of said show can be found to the side under the cleverly titled heading "ThisTube: Broadcast Stuff".
The post I'm referring to chronicles the most recent happenings in the Lori Drew file:
Essentially, Lori Drew's daughter had a rocky friendship with a neighbour girl named Megan Meier; both girls were 14 years old at the time. Drew's daughter and Megan had had a verbal altercation and Drew's daughter told her mother that Megan was saying really horrible things about her to anyone who would listen.
Now here's the kicker:
Rather than act like a mature and responsible adult and simply pick up the phone and speak with Megan's parents about the matter, she chose to respond the way a typical pre-adolescent would respond.
She created a fake MySpace account and posed as boy named Josh Evans. "Josh" treated Megan with respect and dignity for awhile in an effort to gain Megan's trust (Drew claimed it was because she wanted to see for herself if Megan was truly saying mean things about her daughter). So Megan and Josh began "dating", but after awhile Josh's attitude toward Megan changed and he began saying really horrible things to her and telling her that he no longer wanted anything to do with her because she is mean to her friends. This internet bullying continued under Megan Meier committed suicide by hanging.
I totally agree with her parents in this situation. Lori Drew conspired with her daughter and woman who worked for her in an effort to make Megan feel terrible and contributed to this girls eventual suicide. Megan suffered from depression and ADD which has been the primary argument explaining Megan's extreme behaviour.
I don't think Megan's mental condition is an excuse. The fact of the matter is that a grown woman acted horrendously immaturely and contributed to the death of a young innocent girl. Whether Megan had or had not been saying mean things about her daughter is irrelevant at this point because that is what young teenage girls do.
Girls between the ages of 13-16 will go behind your back and systematically destroy every relationship you've ever had if given a reason regardless of how ridiculous. This is where the parents are supposed to step in and get involved in their children's lives and say "look guys, I understand that you've been having some problems with each other but you have to understand that the reason you're angry at each other is not that big and isn't worth risking your friendship" then everybody hugs and makes up and thats the end until boys enter the picture and it starts all over.
Lori Drew's actions make me sick. She acted like a 13 year old herself! She's supposed to be the role model for her daughter!? Christ...
And get this... when Mr. Meier (Megan's Father) approached Drew for some answers he became so distraught at her confession that he broke her pool table and she tried to sue for damages... I don't think anything further needs to be said about that one.
Recently, this story has taken a turn.
There is no law anywhere against bullying someone on the internet even if it leads to a suicide or other harmful act to oneself or others. So instead, Lori Drew has been indicted (not the same as convicted) for using MySpace fraudulently in an effort to harm or harass others. "Drew and her co-conspirators violated MySpace's terms of service, which require registrants to provide truthful registration information and refrain from soliciting personal information from anyone under 18 or using information obtained from MySpace services to harass or harm other people, among other terms."
Megan Meier will never see the light of day again or really get justice for her death because it was by her own hands that she died, even in spite of the fact that the horrible things said to her and posted over the internet for all to see likely contributed to this tragedy.
This interpretation of U.S. law prohibits the creation of any online account under a name that is other than that of the creator/user. This could set a very scary precedent and will likely spread to Canada in short order. Many people will by affected by this law because many create accounts under aliases for legitimate purposes.
The solution as I see it is to not sign yourself or another person up for anything that could come back to bite you in the ass (a.k.a. if you would be ashamed of your grandmother/potential employer seeing it, or you would look down on your child doing/saying it than don't do it yourself... it's a common sense/practice what you preach thing)
But that's it... a bit of a piss off when you think about it...
*Peace*
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Seriously.. Who Throws A Shoe?!
You can all rest easy now. The Blogroll is back up.
And in keeping with never stopping when you're on a 'state-the-obvious' streak, I am now back in Stratford for the summer. I have mixed feelings about this. I'm not a fan of the moving process nor am I big on the thought of being stuck here all summer but I keep telling myself, "it's only 4 months, it's only 4 months...".
Of course being back in Stratford isn't going to stop me from telling another fantastic Waterloo story. This one also takes place at work and is almost too ridiculous.
So it was my last day on the job for the summer and I had to work the Sunday 11am-730pm shift. I wasn't thrilled about it and I became even more unimpressed when I showed up that day and was told that I would be working the breakfast/lunch shift with a girl nobody can stand (for the sake of anonymity we'll call her 'pushy bitch').
I have had words with this girl on a few separate occasions and always about the same issue. Pushy Bitch likes to think that even though she's only worked there for 5 months that she can can do every job better than all the other employees combined. I have taken her aside and said "look. I know you're trying to help out but you really need to back off and do your own work". She gets worked up over really retarded things and is ALWAYS eating something. I don't think I have ever looked over and seen her without food in her hand. Her superiority complex really pisses me off whenever I have to deal with her.
So I was told I'd have to work the omelette station with her for about 4 hours of my shift and I wasn't happy but I figured it would probably be busy and I wouldn't have to worry about her. About an hour into the shift I'm standing over on my side mumbling about shitty frying pans (my boss is convinced that HomeSense frying pans from the housewares department at Zellers are just as effective and provide the same longevity as restaurant quality cookware. The pans we currently have are maybe 2 months old and the non-stick coating is already coming off resulting in us having to clean burnt egg off the bottom of them every other order. Since it's a busy station it becomes a pain in the ass after awhile).
I'm doing my job, cursing the pans under my breath and minding my own business when Pushy Bitch comes over and says 'let me do it' and tries to step in front of me and take over my job. Meanwhile, she is cooking nothing on her side and we have at least 20 people waiting in line. Then I reacted. I put my hand out and moved her back to her side.
That was when she tweaked...
PB: YOU PUSHED ME!!
Me: No I didn't, I moved you back to your own side
PB: No! You pushed me! It's the same thing!
Me: No it's not, they have varying degrees of force. Not the same thing.
At this point she disappears briefly and I knowingly assume that she has gone to the boss to tell him about our confrontation.
Only moments later I'm summoned to the depths of the boss-mans lair with my supervisor to explain the situation. I'm pretty pissed at this point.
Boss-man: Tell me what happened.
Me: She tried to take over my station and I reacted, I didn't hurt her.
Boss-man: She tells me that you attacked her, and I shouldn't have to tell you that you never lay a hand on anyone around here. You should know that that kind of behavior is grounds for immediate termination.
Me: I understand. However, I would like to clarify that had she stayed on her own side none of this would have happened. She is blowing this way out of proportion and that isn't how it happened.
*I explain what happened while inserting evidence from events leading up to this incident*
Boss-man: Well you're a smart girl so I'm going to give you a verbal warning and hopefully she'll be content with that and won't want to file a written complaint.
After I heard that I almost wanted to laugh. It wasn't bad enough that this girl is only a year younger than me and 'ran to mom' when she was pissed that someone finally put her in her place but now she was being given the option to send me before the all dreaded food services tribunal? I've never felt so 'reality TV' in my life.
I made up my mind at that point that if I was going to be called to defend myself in an effort to save my part-time job that I was going to quit. I have never lashed out at anyone, ever, physically in anger. This incident was no exception. I define a 'push' (in this context #15) as being moved with enough physical force by another animate being that you either stumble or end up on your ass. However, I also apparently attacked her which was an accusation made ex parte. I define an attack as a physical or verbal assault that causes injury.
This girl did not stumble and I did not use any force against her causing her injury. Therefore I find this whole thing to be childish and a rape of my intelligence. (Speaking of childish I would also like to mention that for the rest of our shift together every time we had to pass each other she would flinch or move cautiously around me as though I was going to lunge at her with something sharp or life altering).
Up until this point I have not heard anything related to tribunals or termination so I'm assuming that it's over.
I'm not sure if they can fire me months after the fact, although it might be something worth looking into in the event they think they'll try to be clever.
She ranks a close second to the other completely-upset-about-the-way-her-life-turned-out-so-she-takes-it-out-on-her-employees person I've ever worked with/for.
Irony sucks.
That is all...
And in keeping with never stopping when you're on a 'state-the-obvious' streak, I am now back in Stratford for the summer. I have mixed feelings about this. I'm not a fan of the moving process nor am I big on the thought of being stuck here all summer but I keep telling myself, "it's only 4 months, it's only 4 months...".
Of course being back in Stratford isn't going to stop me from telling another fantastic Waterloo story. This one also takes place at work and is almost too ridiculous.
So it was my last day on the job for the summer and I had to work the Sunday 11am-730pm shift. I wasn't thrilled about it and I became even more unimpressed when I showed up that day and was told that I would be working the breakfast/lunch shift with a girl nobody can stand (for the sake of anonymity we'll call her 'pushy bitch').
I have had words with this girl on a few separate occasions and always about the same issue. Pushy Bitch likes to think that even though she's only worked there for 5 months that she can can do every job better than all the other employees combined. I have taken her aside and said "look. I know you're trying to help out but you really need to back off and do your own work". She gets worked up over really retarded things and is ALWAYS eating something. I don't think I have ever looked over and seen her without food in her hand. Her superiority complex really pisses me off whenever I have to deal with her.
So I was told I'd have to work the omelette station with her for about 4 hours of my shift and I wasn't happy but I figured it would probably be busy and I wouldn't have to worry about her. About an hour into the shift I'm standing over on my side mumbling about shitty frying pans (my boss is convinced that HomeSense frying pans from the housewares department at Zellers are just as effective and provide the same longevity as restaurant quality cookware. The pans we currently have are maybe 2 months old and the non-stick coating is already coming off resulting in us having to clean burnt egg off the bottom of them every other order. Since it's a busy station it becomes a pain in the ass after awhile).
I'm doing my job, cursing the pans under my breath and minding my own business when Pushy Bitch comes over and says 'let me do it' and tries to step in front of me and take over my job. Meanwhile, she is cooking nothing on her side and we have at least 20 people waiting in line. Then I reacted. I put my hand out and moved her back to her side.
That was when she tweaked...
PB: YOU PUSHED ME!!
Me: No I didn't, I moved you back to your own side
PB: No! You pushed me! It's the same thing!
Me: No it's not, they have varying degrees of force. Not the same thing.
At this point she disappears briefly and I knowingly assume that she has gone to the boss to tell him about our confrontation.
Only moments later I'm summoned to the depths of the boss-mans lair with my supervisor to explain the situation. I'm pretty pissed at this point.
Boss-man: Tell me what happened.
Me: She tried to take over my station and I reacted, I didn't hurt her.
Boss-man: She tells me that you attacked her, and I shouldn't have to tell you that you never lay a hand on anyone around here. You should know that that kind of behavior is grounds for immediate termination.
Me: I understand. However, I would like to clarify that had she stayed on her own side none of this would have happened. She is blowing this way out of proportion and that isn't how it happened.
*I explain what happened while inserting evidence from events leading up to this incident*
Boss-man: Well you're a smart girl so I'm going to give you a verbal warning and hopefully she'll be content with that and won't want to file a written complaint.
After I heard that I almost wanted to laugh. It wasn't bad enough that this girl is only a year younger than me and 'ran to mom' when she was pissed that someone finally put her in her place but now she was being given the option to send me before the all dreaded food services tribunal? I've never felt so 'reality TV' in my life.
I made up my mind at that point that if I was going to be called to defend myself in an effort to save my part-time job that I was going to quit. I have never lashed out at anyone, ever, physically in anger. This incident was no exception. I define a 'push' (in this context #15) as being moved with enough physical force by another animate being that you either stumble or end up on your ass. However, I also apparently attacked her which was an accusation made ex parte. I define an attack as a physical or verbal assault that causes injury.
This girl did not stumble and I did not use any force against her causing her injury. Therefore I find this whole thing to be childish and a rape of my intelligence. (Speaking of childish I would also like to mention that for the rest of our shift together every time we had to pass each other she would flinch or move cautiously around me as though I was going to lunge at her with something sharp or life altering).
Up until this point I have not heard anything related to tribunals or termination so I'm assuming that it's over.
I'm not sure if they can fire me months after the fact, although it might be something worth looking into in the event they think they'll try to be clever.
She ranks a close second to the other completely-upset-about-the-way-her-life-turned-out-so-she-takes-it-out-on-her-employees person I've ever worked with/for.
Irony sucks.
That is all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atom Feed (xml)