Our very pretty professor seems to be sick; I've handed in a note so that I don't have to talk today; and contracts 2 was cancelled for no obvious reason.
This is a GREAT monday!
Today in Civ Pro we are discussing how rule 15c of the federal rules of civil procedure allows people to evade the statute of limitations and amend complaints to add new parties and new complaints as long as they relate back to the original complaint.
Consider this in Hanna Barbara terms.
Suppose the Flintstones were suing Yogi Bear in Birdman Court for pickinik basket stealing (theft). Then, we find out (thanks to the combined teamwork of scooby-doo and johnny bravo) that Kaboobie from Shazzan was the actual thief. Blossom of the PowerPuff girls nabs Kaboobie on trumped up charges, and, while Kaboobie is in jail, the Flintstones amend their mistaken complaint transfering the complaint against Yogi to a complaint against Kaboobie.
However, two weeks before amending their complaint, the statute of limitations had passed. Rule 15c would require that Kaboobie should have known that the Flintstones would have filed the complaint against him, but they happened to make a mistake.
At this point Secret Squirrel, Ubble Ubble, and Baba Looey all got together, did a bunch of meth and crack, and killed everyone involved. It turns out that the Jetsons were distant descendants of the Flintstones (which shouldn't surprise anyone), so they ceased to exist. Hadji from Johnny Quest became outraged at the horror that had been perpetuated, both to the timeline and to his good buddy Kaboobie, and so he began a quest of his own to track down and murder Secret Squirrel, Ubble Ubble, and Baba Looey.
It was at this time that Huckleberry Hound arrived on the scene, told everyone to calm down, brought the dead people back to life, and then convinced everyone to "go gay."
In the end everyone was happy, including Yogi, who actually HAD stolen the pickinik basket, and not including the Jetsons, who were still doomed to never being born thanks to Huckleberry Hounds efforts and the fact that George could never catch a break.
The end.
...
What was I talking about?
Monday, February 19, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Law tests are not like life
It turns out, the kind of personality that excellently answers a law exam is not the kind of personality that I like. Allow me to set the scene. There we are, just about ready to go, when...
Carpool friend #1: Hey, random person (we'll call this random person Gretel), what did you think of Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe?
Gretel: Well... (insert 25 minute retrospective of the firm, kansas city firms, kansas city, going to school at an ivy league school, kc high schools, kc expectations that everyone knows what - specific to KC - juco and pembroke hill mean, the joys of living in denver, gretel's life from birth to that moment, and various classes held in common with Carpool Friend #1)
Carpool friend #1: Oh.
Gretel: Exactly... (insert another 12 minute diatribe on the difference between big firms, little firms, and firms of a size somewhere in between)
Carpool friend #1: Uh
Gretel: And then! (Insert a continuation of this diatribe, until...)
Carpool friend #2: I HAVE TO LEAVE NOW!!!
Yeah. So a rule, for all you HTGBWET fans: If a person asks you what you thought of something, you say, "It was pretty cool" or "It really sucked." If your response takes more than 18 words, you should probably go take a nap somewhere.
Carpool friend #1: Hey, random person (we'll call this random person Gretel), what did you think of Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe?
Gretel: Well... (insert 25 minute retrospective of the firm, kansas city firms, kansas city, going to school at an ivy league school, kc high schools, kc expectations that everyone knows what - specific to KC - juco and pembroke hill mean, the joys of living in denver, gretel's life from birth to that moment, and various classes held in common with Carpool Friend #1)
Carpool friend #1: Oh.
Gretel: Exactly... (insert another 12 minute diatribe on the difference between big firms, little firms, and firms of a size somewhere in between)
Carpool friend #1: Uh
Gretel: And then! (Insert a continuation of this diatribe, until...)
Carpool friend #2: I HAVE TO LEAVE NOW!!!
Yeah. So a rule, for all you HTGBWET fans: If a person asks you what you thought of something, you say, "It was pretty cool" or "It really sucked." If your response takes more than 18 words, you should probably go take a nap somewhere.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Physical Revocation
Wills may be revoked by physically destroying them using such methods as burning and tearing.
Other methods of Will revocation:
incinerating
vibrating to fragments
burying in the walls of Jericho
flushing
shaming it to an early death
laying a beat down on it in an exciting game of basketball or chess
leaving it in your jeans while you wash them
leaving it in your jeans while you take a crazy person shower
assumpsit
laying a really solid stink on it, so no one will want to approach
living in a lawless society
offending the will of Poseidon
and, finally, saying, "Talk to the hand."
Other methods of Will revocation:
incinerating
vibrating to fragments
burying in the walls of Jericho
flushing
shaming it to an early death
laying a beat down on it in an exciting game of basketball or chess
leaving it in your jeans while you wash them
leaving it in your jeans while you take a crazy person shower
assumpsit
laying a really solid stink on it, so no one will want to approach
living in a lawless society
offending the will of Poseidon
and, finally, saying, "Talk to the hand."
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
a list
As a law student, it is, of course, important to recognize that the rest of my life will consist of writing hundreds and hundreds of stilted, poorly worded, boring statements of veiled anger and rage. That said, I think it's time to consider the beginning of this trend.
This semester I will be writing:
a demand letter
two memos asking for or defending against summary judgment
two defenses for stupid parking tickets
a ten page paper on why I'm good at dissecting legal discussion for the sake of getting to say that I am a member of a law journal, because that is JJUUSSSSTTTT GREATTTTTT
120 blog posts
a second edition of my story
a defense of sex trips in asia
a revocation of my previous statement
bath salts
eggs
cheese
butter
a quart of milk
ascension into heaven
a song about singing
quantum physics
KU biases
or get your degree
This semester I will be writing:
a demand letter
two memos asking for or defending against summary judgment
two defenses for stupid parking tickets
a ten page paper on why I'm good at dissecting legal discussion for the sake of getting to say that I am a member of a law journal, because that is JJUUSSSSTTTT GREATTTTTT
120 blog posts
a second edition of my story
a defense of sex trips in asia
a revocation of my previous statement
bath salts
eggs
cheese
butter
a quart of milk
ascension into heaven
a song about singing
quantum physics
KU biases
or get your degree
Monday, February 12, 2007
Sexual Easements
In my continuing quest to develop a more legally minded blog, I present the following idea:
Let's say there's a nasty break-up in some sort of developing world in which women (or for you left-wingers out there, men) are considered property. Now let's say the dominant individual sells the servient individual, is it possible for the dominant individual to maintain a sexual easement and then SELL or testate that sexual easement to an uninvolved individual?
There are two methods in which I see this as being, at least conceptually, possible. The two rules of law we need to consider are Easement by Necessity and Easement by Implication. Let's consider each one.
Necessity:
1. Original unity of ownership:
I think we can all agree that at one time, in owning the servient individual, the dominant individual owned the sexual rights in addition to all other rights.
2. Necessity NOW, not a mere convenience
Here things get a little tricky. Unless we're talking some kind of "deepthroat" rule, or perhaps a lack of fertile men or women, it seems pretty unlikely that a necessity can be proven. And even in the second case, SOME other fertile individual of the opposite sex would destroy the necessity possibility. Othen v. Rosier. 226 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1950).
3. Necessity existed at the time of severence.
I figure this one is also tricky and depends on how poor the dominant individual was. If the dominant individual had only one husband or wife, then I don't see a problem claiming necessity at time of severance. That said, it's possible that the dominant individual still had other viable sexual options.
Implication
1. Unity of ownership
Still no problem.
2. Apparent and continuous quasi-easement
If the dominant individual maintained an open sexual relationship with the servient individual (maybe some threeway action? Sweet), and that open relationship was somehow sold to the next dominant individual, then this category may well be satisfied.
2.a.
It's worth pointing out that the new owner of the servient individual would have to KNOW about the open relationship, thereby eliminating the bona fide purchaser issue.
3. Necessity at the time of severance.
See above.
So there you go. My conclusion, based upon our limited set of facts, is that an Easement by Implication would be the new Dominant individual's best hope, as an Easement of sexual Necessity would be very difficult to prove, unless we lived in some sort of post-apocalyptic world.
Note: It is worth pointing out that easements of this time are only applicable to real property (i.e. land). Take that as you will.
Let's say there's a nasty break-up in some sort of developing world in which women (or for you left-wingers out there, men) are considered property. Now let's say the dominant individual sells the servient individual, is it possible for the dominant individual to maintain a sexual easement and then SELL or testate that sexual easement to an uninvolved individual?
There are two methods in which I see this as being, at least conceptually, possible. The two rules of law we need to consider are Easement by Necessity and Easement by Implication. Let's consider each one.
Necessity:
1. Original unity of ownership:
I think we can all agree that at one time, in owning the servient individual, the dominant individual owned the sexual rights in addition to all other rights.
2. Necessity NOW, not a mere convenience
Here things get a little tricky. Unless we're talking some kind of "deepthroat" rule, or perhaps a lack of fertile men or women, it seems pretty unlikely that a necessity can be proven. And even in the second case, SOME other fertile individual of the opposite sex would destroy the necessity possibility. Othen v. Rosier. 226 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1950).
3. Necessity existed at the time of severence.
I figure this one is also tricky and depends on how poor the dominant individual was. If the dominant individual had only one husband or wife, then I don't see a problem claiming necessity at time of severance. That said, it's possible that the dominant individual still had other viable sexual options.
Implication
1. Unity of ownership
Still no problem.
2. Apparent and continuous quasi-easement
If the dominant individual maintained an open sexual relationship with the servient individual (maybe some threeway action? Sweet), and that open relationship was somehow sold to the next dominant individual, then this category may well be satisfied.
2.a.
It's worth pointing out that the new owner of the servient individual would have to KNOW about the open relationship, thereby eliminating the bona fide purchaser issue.
3. Necessity at the time of severance.
See above.
So there you go. My conclusion, based upon our limited set of facts, is that an Easement by Implication would be the new Dominant individual's best hope, as an Easement of sexual Necessity would be very difficult to prove, unless we lived in some sort of post-apocalyptic world.
Note: It is worth pointing out that easements of this time are only applicable to real property (i.e. land). Take that as you will.
Common law application of the contracts II syllabus
A common law application of the Contracts II Syllabus
Sec 1-103: Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Syllabus, the principles of class and education, including the rules of conduct and the honor code relative to capacity to learn, professor and student, class participation, lying, cheating, not paying attention, checking email, gunning, internet shopping, pre-emptive attacks, or other class or nonclass action shall supplement this provision.
John Doe v Ware. 9 K.U.L.S. 37, 38 (Feb. 2007).
From these two rules we can learn that:
While syllabus Sec. 2-104 specifically states that participation is a part of our grade, if we clearly have no idea what's going on, the common law rule of letting the professor do our work for us takes effect.
Thank you common law.
Sec 1-103: Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Syllabus, the principles of class and education, including the rules of conduct and the honor code relative to capacity to learn, professor and student, class participation, lying, cheating, not paying attention, checking email, gunning, internet shopping, pre-emptive attacks, or other class or nonclass action shall supplement this provision.
John Doe v Ware. 9 K.U.L.S. 37, 38 (Feb. 2007).
Um. Right. I'll just answer my own question.
From these two rules we can learn that:
While syllabus Sec. 2-104 specifically states that participation is a part of our grade, if we clearly have no idea what's going on, the common law rule of letting the professor do our work for us takes effect.
Thank you common law.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Connections, Broadening, and Growth
So I just finished reading a blog post by someone else that was really boring and sucked in virtually every way that a few paragraphs of rambling prose can suck. It was so awful, that I figured ANYTHING I wrote down would be better and more awesome than the drivel that I have just been forced (by myself) to read.
That being said, here we are! Welcome to some drivel by NJ.
So I've reached that point in my new experience where I am starting to make connections. Let me clarify. When I start something completely new, I tend to suck at it. At one time, I thought this was because I was lazy (e.g. freshman year of high school, freshman year of college, my first year at Montana State), but the fact that my worst grades always seem to coincide with my first years in an entirely new environment lead me to believe that maybe something else is happen.
This thought occurred to me a few weeks ago. I figured I'd mention the oddity to my mom. The response I got was, at least a little, unexpected.
She has the same problems! And my mom may be a lot of things, but lazy sho' ain't one of'm. Ring another one up for nature, please (as opposed to nurture, that is)!
Anyway, let me return to what I was saying. I've reached that point in my experience in which I am starting to make connections. In class, the professor might state some facts and my brain tries to use previous learnings to guess at the applicable law. I instantly turn to contracts in property class. I contemplate professional responsibility in business associations. All those things I had a tenuous grasp on only a few months before (and, judging by my grades in December, only a few weeks before) are suddenly starting to spring to life.
It's an exciting feeling. So I have a question for everyone. Does anyone else recognize this experience? In your own lives, have you had a transitory period in which you went from a know-nothing to a know-it-all? Have you ever lamented that you only start to really figure out the fundamentals of a topic after you've conceptualized the big picture, yet you cannot conceptualize the big picture until you've figured out the fundamentals?
That's just a thought of mine.
And one more thing...
THE IPHONE!!!
Just kidding. Anyone else see one of those Apple press conferences? They just aren't as impressive as I feel led to believe.
Seriously, though, it's time for another HTGBWET, specifically number 287. Today's topic: Try not to cut corners.
The previous statement actually makes sense, if you give it a chance. Think of it like being a natural. Some people just sort of know. Some people just know that men and women are really pretty much the same. Some people know that everyone is nervous and uncomfortable. Some people know that irritable expressions on the faces of the opposite sex usually indicate that they are irritated with THEMSELVES. Some people know that everyone... EVERYONE... sees him or herself as the actor, rather than the character in the play that is life and love, and we all wish we knew the lines.
Some people, without ever even thinking about it, know that these things are true. Guys call them assholes. Women call them bitches. Really, it's all the same. These are the people who are born knowing.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that a person's faith lacks depth, until it has been through trials and tribulations, doubt and uncertainty. (Or maybe it was Buck Minster Fuller. I forget now.) The point is that these people will never have a problem getting a date, and that's really too bad, because these people will never need to grow and will always lack the depth that goes beyond the skin and beyond the suave.
Admittedly, some of us do need to grow, and we never do make it beyond the skin, but at least we're trying. At least an awareness exists.
And in that awareness, in that growth, in that gradual, broadening understanding do we become whole people.
That being said, here we are! Welcome to some drivel by NJ.
So I've reached that point in my new experience where I am starting to make connections. Let me clarify. When I start something completely new, I tend to suck at it. At one time, I thought this was because I was lazy (e.g. freshman year of high school, freshman year of college, my first year at Montana State), but the fact that my worst grades always seem to coincide with my first years in an entirely new environment lead me to believe that maybe something else is happen.
This thought occurred to me a few weeks ago. I figured I'd mention the oddity to my mom. The response I got was, at least a little, unexpected.
She has the same problems! And my mom may be a lot of things, but lazy sho' ain't one of'm. Ring another one up for nature, please (as opposed to nurture, that is)!
Anyway, let me return to what I was saying. I've reached that point in my experience in which I am starting to make connections. In class, the professor might state some facts and my brain tries to use previous learnings to guess at the applicable law. I instantly turn to contracts in property class. I contemplate professional responsibility in business associations. All those things I had a tenuous grasp on only a few months before (and, judging by my grades in December, only a few weeks before) are suddenly starting to spring to life.
It's an exciting feeling. So I have a question for everyone. Does anyone else recognize this experience? In your own lives, have you had a transitory period in which you went from a know-nothing to a know-it-all? Have you ever lamented that you only start to really figure out the fundamentals of a topic after you've conceptualized the big picture, yet you cannot conceptualize the big picture until you've figured out the fundamentals?
That's just a thought of mine.
And one more thing...
THE IPHONE!!!
Just kidding. Anyone else see one of those Apple press conferences? They just aren't as impressive as I feel led to believe.
Seriously, though, it's time for another HTGBWET, specifically number 287. Today's topic: Try not to cut corners.
The previous statement actually makes sense, if you give it a chance. Think of it like being a natural. Some people just sort of know. Some people just know that men and women are really pretty much the same. Some people know that everyone is nervous and uncomfortable. Some people know that irritable expressions on the faces of the opposite sex usually indicate that they are irritated with THEMSELVES. Some people know that everyone... EVERYONE... sees him or herself as the actor, rather than the character in the play that is life and love, and we all wish we knew the lines.
Some people, without ever even thinking about it, know that these things are true. Guys call them assholes. Women call them bitches. Really, it's all the same. These are the people who are born knowing.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that a person's faith lacks depth, until it has been through trials and tribulations, doubt and uncertainty. (Or maybe it was Buck Minster Fuller. I forget now.) The point is that these people will never have a problem getting a date, and that's really too bad, because these people will never need to grow and will always lack the depth that goes beyond the skin and beyond the suave.
Admittedly, some of us do need to grow, and we never do make it beyond the skin, but at least we're trying. At least an awareness exists.
And in that awareness, in that growth, in that gradual, broadening understanding do we become whole people.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
The Relaxed Master of Relaxation
Today I'm feeling down. I went to the law review info session and discovered that my already only OK GPA would be counted as even lower than it currently is for Law Review purposes, because my best grades were in upper level non-core classes.
Also, I only got like 3 and 1/2 hours of sleep last night, so I'm really coping with an awful lot of suck right now.
As such, I feel like it's about time for a new HTGBWET! Today's lesson (#845): Looking Relaxed.
Not a day goes by that another person doesn't say, "Wow, NJ, you certainly look relaxed!"
To this I usually reply in some non-committal way. Being a relaxed fellow, I don't feel the need to get all up on myself.
All that said, even I lack the true relaxed skills of a relaxed master of relaxation. That being said, for all my lack of skill, I have rested upon the slight hill; I have tamed the mighty tired, old dog; I have done what few men dream of doing, because they aren't that interested. And so I figured I'd relay my knowledge.
The trick to being truly relaxed - and using that relaxation in your dealings with the opposite sex - is to convince members of the opposite sex that you COULD be on the ball and, in fact, even are on the ball when it's really necessary, but for now you are content to just play it cool.
This means, of course, that you must be a physical representation of the impossible. You have to look both incredibly involved and incredibly bored AT THE SAME TIME!
How do I do this, you ask? Consider Matthew Mcconehey..... Um, or however you pronounce his name. McConnehy? Hang on....
Ok. It's McConaughey. Seriously, someone needs to tell that guy that he's never gonna make it with a name like that.
Anyway. He is a guy who is extremely physically fit. He is a guy who LOOKS like he must work out all the time and be constantly on the move, yet his eyes are always half-lidded and he talks... real... slow. Lahk... this.
The point is, he's managed the impossible. He's a guy who looks more relaxed than anyone I've ever seen (save one), yet, at the same time, he looks ready to go!
(Specially relaxed status goes to Owen Wilson. Even more than McConaughey, he is painfully relaxed; he just happens to look less ready to go.)
My point is this: there is something about the ridiculous contrast of these two things that attracts members of the opposite sex in prodigious quantities. My theory is that it has something to do w/ evolution. Back when we were all the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel, it was handy to be relaxed and yet totally awesome.
It may also have to do with ninjas, now that I think about it, but I could be wrong.
What was I saying? Oh yeah, so here is your new assignment, should you choose to accept it. Spend the next year or so getting totally in shape. Then work your ass off to get an awesome job and millions of dollars. Finally, make your eyes look heavy, always put your feet up when you sit down, and talk slow. You'll be well on your way to getting at least one or two total babes.
Also, I only got like 3 and 1/2 hours of sleep last night, so I'm really coping with an awful lot of suck right now.
As such, I feel like it's about time for a new HTGBWET! Today's lesson (#845): Looking Relaxed.
Not a day goes by that another person doesn't say, "Wow, NJ, you certainly look relaxed!"
To this I usually reply in some non-committal way. Being a relaxed fellow, I don't feel the need to get all up on myself.
All that said, even I lack the true relaxed skills of a relaxed master of relaxation. That being said, for all my lack of skill, I have rested upon the slight hill; I have tamed the mighty tired, old dog; I have done what few men dream of doing, because they aren't that interested. And so I figured I'd relay my knowledge.
The trick to being truly relaxed - and using that relaxation in your dealings with the opposite sex - is to convince members of the opposite sex that you COULD be on the ball and, in fact, even are on the ball when it's really necessary, but for now you are content to just play it cool.
This means, of course, that you must be a physical representation of the impossible. You have to look both incredibly involved and incredibly bored AT THE SAME TIME!
How do I do this, you ask? Consider Matthew Mcconehey..... Um, or however you pronounce his name. McConnehy? Hang on....
Ok. It's McConaughey. Seriously, someone needs to tell that guy that he's never gonna make it with a name like that.
Anyway. He is a guy who is extremely physically fit. He is a guy who LOOKS like he must work out all the time and be constantly on the move, yet his eyes are always half-lidded and he talks... real... slow. Lahk... this.
The point is, he's managed the impossible. He's a guy who looks more relaxed than anyone I've ever seen (save one), yet, at the same time, he looks ready to go!
(Specially relaxed status goes to Owen Wilson. Even more than McConaughey, he is painfully relaxed; he just happens to look less ready to go.)
My point is this: there is something about the ridiculous contrast of these two things that attracts members of the opposite sex in prodigious quantities. My theory is that it has something to do w/ evolution. Back when we were all the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel, it was handy to be relaxed and yet totally awesome.
It may also have to do with ninjas, now that I think about it, but I could be wrong.
What was I saying? Oh yeah, so here is your new assignment, should you choose to accept it. Spend the next year or so getting totally in shape. Then work your ass off to get an awesome job and millions of dollars. Finally, make your eyes look heavy, always put your feet up when you sit down, and talk slow. You'll be well on your way to getting at least one or two total babes.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
babies
Alright, so I'm sitting at home, fat, dumb, and happy, when a client comes in....
Just kidding. I am sitting at home, but I'm mostly just bored. I'm just writing to congratulate my fanfic friend on the baby and to offer preparatory congratulations to my uber-catholic friend. Good luck, both of you.
Just kidding. I am sitting at home, but I'm mostly just bored. I'm just writing to congratulate my fanfic friend on the baby and to offer preparatory congratulations to my uber-catholic friend. Good luck, both of you.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
for all intents and purposes
Alright, time for Grammar Times with Uncle N.J. Today's lesson: "intensive purposes."
Intensive purposes are purposes which are totally freaking intense. At virtually no time should the words "for all" precede "intensive purposes."
On the other hand, "intents and purposes" are two words that mean basically the same thing and which imply, when used in conjunction with "for all," that the succeeding independent clause covers most categories.
Thus, "for all intents and purposes, the man was dead," means that the man was essentially dead or would soon be dead as a practical matter.
"For all intensive purposes, the man was dead," would mean the man was dead for some sort of undefined intense purpose. In other words, except under VERY specific conditions, this phrase doesn't make any sense.
So please remember, for all intents and purposes, you will almost always use the phrase "for all intents and purposes" before "for all intensive purposes."
Intensive purposes are purposes which are totally freaking intense. At virtually no time should the words "for all" precede "intensive purposes."
On the other hand, "intents and purposes" are two words that mean basically the same thing and which imply, when used in conjunction with "for all," that the succeeding independent clause covers most categories.
Thus, "for all intents and purposes, the man was dead," means that the man was essentially dead or would soon be dead as a practical matter.
"For all intensive purposes, the man was dead," would mean the man was dead for some sort of undefined intense purpose. In other words, except under VERY specific conditions, this phrase doesn't make any sense.
So please remember, for all intents and purposes, you will almost always use the phrase "for all intents and purposes" before "for all intensive purposes."
Friday, January 19, 2007
Cliff Yablonski hates me?
So I've recently been informed that a picture of me was on this site.
http://www.somethingawful.com/cliff/ihateyou/page-267.htm
As far as I can tell, this means that some guy named Cliff hates me, and that he thinks I work at a place called the Burger Barn. Also, I am both fat and teenaged. Now, I acknowledge the fat part, but teenaged? Seriously, give me some credit.
Also, that is an AWESOME pic of Rob's old room.
The only question I have is, how did this Cliff fellow get this pic of me? Also, what is in my hand? I didn't actually drink in those days.
Crazy stuff. Anyway, enjoy.
http://www.somethingawful.com/cliff/ihateyou/page-267.htm
As far as I can tell, this means that some guy named Cliff hates me, and that he thinks I work at a place called the Burger Barn. Also, I am both fat and teenaged. Now, I acknowledge the fat part, but teenaged? Seriously, give me some credit.
Also, that is an AWESOME pic of Rob's old room.
The only question I have is, how did this Cliff fellow get this pic of me? Also, what is in my hand? I didn't actually drink in those days.
Crazy stuff. Anyway, enjoy.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
the Iphone and some missed anniversaries
Just thought I'd mention that I'd missed pointing out my 200th post and my one year blog anniversary. Sad. Anyway, back to blogging...
Recently I was reading a thread on how much people want to either kill Steve Jobs or have his Apple babies. More specifically they were discussing this new Iphone dealy. Here is my take:
I've got neither the love, nor the hatred for Apple and the Iphone that everyone else seems to, but I have to give them credit for one MAJOR contribution.
They told Cingular to SUCK IT!!
Honestly, folks, the look, the feel, none of it matters compared to the fact that Cingular had to completely re-do its infrastructure so that people could check their voicemail without going through THE LIST.
I've been a verizon subscriber for almost four years now. In that time, verizon has found 8000 ways to nickle and dime me. I own the vx8100 by LG. It has about 20 times more capabilities than I am actually able to use, because Verizon strong-armed LG. Love or hate Apple, they are the first hardware manufacturer I know of to force the network provider to innovate.
In a year and a half, the Iphone will be old news, simply because Jobs loves cyclical innovation (Ipod v1, v2, v3, mini, nano, photo, video, etc.). But the fact that Cingular changed? That lasts forever.
Recently I was reading a thread on how much people want to either kill Steve Jobs or have his Apple babies. More specifically they were discussing this new Iphone dealy. Here is my take:
I've got neither the love, nor the hatred for Apple and the Iphone that everyone else seems to, but I have to give them credit for one MAJOR contribution.
They told Cingular to SUCK IT!!
Honestly, folks, the look, the feel, none of it matters compared to the fact that Cingular had to completely re-do its infrastructure so that people could check their voicemail without going through THE LIST.
I've been a verizon subscriber for almost four years now. In that time, verizon has found 8000 ways to nickle and dime me. I own the vx8100 by LG. It has about 20 times more capabilities than I am actually able to use, because Verizon strong-armed LG. Love or hate Apple, they are the first hardware manufacturer I know of to force the network provider to innovate.
In a year and a half, the Iphone will be old news, simply because Jobs loves cyclical innovation (Ipod v1, v2, v3, mini, nano, photo, video, etc.). But the fact that Cingular changed? That lasts forever.
Monday, January 08, 2007
The Doldrums and more Mirror Emotion stuff
Alright. I've just about reached that point. I've done everything I can usefully do. I've gotten my grades back. School doesn't start for a while. I'm bored out of my mind. I've hit...
THE DOLDRUMS!
Yes, it is indeed a terrible time when a man has hit his doldrums. The crazy thing is that I don't exactly hate being bored and listless. It's that I remember how awesome it was NOT to be bored and wish I were back in that state.
I need a plan. I need something to do. I need to reinvigorate myself. Tomorrow, it's time to become mr. fix-it. Also, I need to clean my room. Also, I should do my laundry. While I am at my most happy being a doer of deeds, I can probably keep myself occupied as a performer of tasks. Anyone want to take any bets?
Addendum: Oh, in other news. G'luck, Brad, w/ your neighber.
Kay and Kristi:
Both of you make interesting points; however, I choose to respectfully argue back.
First, Kay, seriously, men start wars, do the asking out of the women, fight every chance they get, make the most ridiculous of preachers, etc. etc. I'm reasonably certain that men and women are AT LEAST equally emotional.
Second, Kristi, two different points. First, the maturity level thing is entirely possible. It even helps my belief that being drunk increases the likelihood of emotion reflecting. Second, I don't think it's a question of knowing in your head that a person "likes" you. I think it's a lot more specific and subtle than that.
I think it's a sort of gut reaction. And it's a gut reaction in the moment. It would not work, for example, if you had two weeks to think about it, and it wouldn't work if you found out while the guy (in these cases) was in another state.
Naturally, this is the hypothetical "you."
If you are making a real, honest-to-god decision, then we aren't talking about the same thing. Instead, think of it like a stop sign while driving. After your first week of driving, you don't think to yourself, "Oh, goodness gracious! A stop sign! Should I stop? Why yes! I believe I shall!"
No. You see a stop sign and you stop. In the same way, my theory goes, a person exhibits an emotion at you, and you exhibit the emotion back. Heck, it doesn't even have to be more than a couple seconds.
The trick after that moment is unrelated, at least in a psychological way. After that first moment, when you inexplicably find yourself making out with him, your brain goes into overdrive, thinking "What the hell am I doing? I must have had some reason for making out w/ this guy! I wouldn't ordinarily do this! I guess I like (?) this guy."
That's called cognitive dissonance, btw. Fun stuff.
Anyway, I'm not concerned with cognitive dissonance. I'm more interested in that 5 to 30 second window that starts the ball rolling. That brief period of time in which my theoretical emotional mirror is in full swing.
THE DOLDRUMS!
Yes, it is indeed a terrible time when a man has hit his doldrums. The crazy thing is that I don't exactly hate being bored and listless. It's that I remember how awesome it was NOT to be bored and wish I were back in that state.
I need a plan. I need something to do. I need to reinvigorate myself. Tomorrow, it's time to become mr. fix-it. Also, I need to clean my room. Also, I should do my laundry. While I am at my most happy being a doer of deeds, I can probably keep myself occupied as a performer of tasks. Anyone want to take any bets?
Addendum: Oh, in other news. G'luck, Brad, w/ your neighber.
Kay and Kristi:
Both of you make interesting points; however, I choose to respectfully argue back.
First, Kay, seriously, men start wars, do the asking out of the women, fight every chance they get, make the most ridiculous of preachers, etc. etc. I'm reasonably certain that men and women are AT LEAST equally emotional.
Second, Kristi, two different points. First, the maturity level thing is entirely possible. It even helps my belief that being drunk increases the likelihood of emotion reflecting. Second, I don't think it's a question of knowing in your head that a person "likes" you. I think it's a lot more specific and subtle than that.
I think it's a sort of gut reaction. And it's a gut reaction in the moment. It would not work, for example, if you had two weeks to think about it, and it wouldn't work if you found out while the guy (in these cases) was in another state.
Naturally, this is the hypothetical "you."
If you are making a real, honest-to-god decision, then we aren't talking about the same thing. Instead, think of it like a stop sign while driving. After your first week of driving, you don't think to yourself, "Oh, goodness gracious! A stop sign! Should I stop? Why yes! I believe I shall!"
No. You see a stop sign and you stop. In the same way, my theory goes, a person exhibits an emotion at you, and you exhibit the emotion back. Heck, it doesn't even have to be more than a couple seconds.
The trick after that moment is unrelated, at least in a psychological way. After that first moment, when you inexplicably find yourself making out with him, your brain goes into overdrive, thinking "What the hell am I doing? I must have had some reason for making out w/ this guy! I wouldn't ordinarily do this! I guess I like (?) this guy."
That's called cognitive dissonance, btw. Fun stuff.
Anyway, I'm not concerned with cognitive dissonance. I'm more interested in that 5 to 30 second window that starts the ball rolling. That brief period of time in which my theoretical emotional mirror is in full swing.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
brief in-joke
Hey, everyone, just thought it'd be fun to mention that it's after two. What mischief are YOU causing?
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Mirror Emotions
I think it's about time to get blogging again.
Have you ever noticed that many times people don't have a valid reason to be exhibiting an emotion? Instead, the emotion appears in response to the emotion of another. For example, a fight breaks out. One person starts out the fight genuinely angry. Another person joins into the fight, not because he or she is mad, but because they are responding to the anger of the first person.
I have a theory that an awful lot of relationships begin this way. Certainly, it is necessary to dance the dance as discussed in all of my various HTGBWETs, but I think that may be only half of the equation.
The other half has almost universally to do w/ guys. Perhaps it is a function of our culture, perhaps not, but guys are supposed to be the initiators of relationships. They are supposed to step up each level. They are the ones who are supposed to break the ice, ask for a date, move in for the kiss, suggest sex, make the proposal, etc.
Which means, assuming my theory holds, that the emotions of women are not always formed from rational decision making, but from a simple response to the emotions of men (which themselves are not rational, but probably based upon various glands that demand more and more sex).
Maybe this isn't the case in every relationship, but I'll be it isn't uncommon. I think the idea first struck me when I overheard a girl talking about the experience of either a first kiss or a marriage proposal (I can't remember which). Basically, she said that, until the moment, she didn't know what she would have done, but she was probably leaning towards saying no. But then, in that moment, all unexpectedly, she decides yes.
If my theory is true, I hate to think what that means for virtually all romantic relationships.
Here's another piece of evidence that provides at least marginal support for my theory. When are we most likely to respond to the emotions of others? Ans: When we are drunk and/or tired.
HELLO BARS!!!
HTGBWET #75: Do what you need to do. Dance the dance if it is at all necessary. Get a member of the opposite sex interested, then get them tipsy. THEN lean in for a kiss. I think you won't find a negative response.
Have you ever noticed that many times people don't have a valid reason to be exhibiting an emotion? Instead, the emotion appears in response to the emotion of another. For example, a fight breaks out. One person starts out the fight genuinely angry. Another person joins into the fight, not because he or she is mad, but because they are responding to the anger of the first person.
I have a theory that an awful lot of relationships begin this way. Certainly, it is necessary to dance the dance as discussed in all of my various HTGBWETs, but I think that may be only half of the equation.
The other half has almost universally to do w/ guys. Perhaps it is a function of our culture, perhaps not, but guys are supposed to be the initiators of relationships. They are supposed to step up each level. They are the ones who are supposed to break the ice, ask for a date, move in for the kiss, suggest sex, make the proposal, etc.
Which means, assuming my theory holds, that the emotions of women are not always formed from rational decision making, but from a simple response to the emotions of men (which themselves are not rational, but probably based upon various glands that demand more and more sex).
Maybe this isn't the case in every relationship, but I'll be it isn't uncommon. I think the idea first struck me when I overheard a girl talking about the experience of either a first kiss or a marriage proposal (I can't remember which). Basically, she said that, until the moment, she didn't know what she would have done, but she was probably leaning towards saying no. But then, in that moment, all unexpectedly, she decides yes.
If my theory is true, I hate to think what that means for virtually all romantic relationships.
Here's another piece of evidence that provides at least marginal support for my theory. When are we most likely to respond to the emotions of others? Ans: When we are drunk and/or tired.
HELLO BARS!!!
HTGBWET #75: Do what you need to do. Dance the dance if it is at all necessary. Get a member of the opposite sex interested, then get them tipsy. THEN lean in for a kiss. I think you won't find a negative response.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Politeness
Alright, so one thing that really bothers me is a lack of politeness. When I say something, I generally expect some kind of response. When someone says something to me, I'll at least try to acknowledge it.
Perhaps, more than anything else, this is the nature of the average Kansan. We might be hicks and cowboys and farmers and accountants and engineers and artists and lawyers and doctors and business executives and hippies, and we might all live in our little boxes, etc.
But the one thing that draws us all together is our insistence upon being polite to one another. We may hate each other, but God help the impolite man.
Anyway, that's my thought of the day. I may have more now that finals are over.
Perhaps, more than anything else, this is the nature of the average Kansan. We might be hicks and cowboys and farmers and accountants and engineers and artists and lawyers and doctors and business executives and hippies, and we might all live in our little boxes, etc.
But the one thing that draws us all together is our insistence upon being polite to one another. We may hate each other, but God help the impolite man.
Anyway, that's my thought of the day. I may have more now that finals are over.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Friday, November 17, 2006
The dreams of man
So I have a bit of a confession to make. I don't know if you guys knew this, but I'm a little bit introverted. I know, you raise your eyebrows in shock, but it's true. My natural state is sitting in a quiet room w/ a max of 3 other people, chatting.
I just wanted to start by saying that. Now on to my post.
I would guess most men have fantasies. They dream of being the heroic quarterback or running back. They imagine themselves taking the winning three pointer which seals the victory over Duke in the national championship game. They see themselves winning a million dollars and spending the rest of their lives roping cattle or sailing the Caribbean.
I have a fantasy like that. In my head I like to think of myself as a cowboy or a gunslinger of the modern age. I don't lead cows across the plains or ride a horse, though. I'm a different kind of cowboy. I work a well-paying job, maybe at a law firm, where I am the king of my domain. I take opposing law firms to school. I win most of my cases. I am self-sufficient and well respected.
But it doesn't end there. That's not even the important part of this dream. The important part is what happens afterwards.
In this fantasy life, I finish my day of work, earn my ridiculous pay check, and then head straight to MY bar. The local watering hole. That place you've read about in cheap novels. No one knows me there, save, perhaps, a waitress and a bartender or two, and I'm happy with that.
(Also, the bar is smoke free.)
So I sit at the bar in this dive and take in my surroudings. I don't have any real friends at this bar, but that's ok, because I don't need any real friends at this bar. That isn't what this thing is about.
I sit; I listen to and enjoy my surroundings; and I am totally content to be just me. I don't need to strike up a conversation. I don't need to look to those around me for solace. I am who I am. Bugger the rest of the world. If it needs me, it can damn well come to me.
And that's it. That's my dream. I sit, silent and alone, like a prominent point of rock, holding fast as the sea attacks.
There are probably better dreams out there. Who doesn't want to score the winning touchdown? What person would turn down saving the world from cancer?
There are a lot of things in life that I would like to do. Someday I'd like children. Getting married one day would not be out of the question. At some point, I'd like to have a lazy dog who spends most of his time giving me looks from the couch.
But those are all real life goals. None of those are the vision that I have, meekly begging to be let out of the back of my head. I want to be a cowboy. I want to be a gunslinger. I want to be a rock at the bar, content in myself and my surroundings.
I just wanted to start by saying that. Now on to my post.
I would guess most men have fantasies. They dream of being the heroic quarterback or running back. They imagine themselves taking the winning three pointer which seals the victory over Duke in the national championship game. They see themselves winning a million dollars and spending the rest of their lives roping cattle or sailing the Caribbean.
I have a fantasy like that. In my head I like to think of myself as a cowboy or a gunslinger of the modern age. I don't lead cows across the plains or ride a horse, though. I'm a different kind of cowboy. I work a well-paying job, maybe at a law firm, where I am the king of my domain. I take opposing law firms to school. I win most of my cases. I am self-sufficient and well respected.
But it doesn't end there. That's not even the important part of this dream. The important part is what happens afterwards.
In this fantasy life, I finish my day of work, earn my ridiculous pay check, and then head straight to MY bar. The local watering hole. That place you've read about in cheap novels. No one knows me there, save, perhaps, a waitress and a bartender or two, and I'm happy with that.
(Also, the bar is smoke free.)
So I sit at the bar in this dive and take in my surroudings. I don't have any real friends at this bar, but that's ok, because I don't need any real friends at this bar. That isn't what this thing is about.
I sit; I listen to and enjoy my surroundings; and I am totally content to be just me. I don't need to strike up a conversation. I don't need to look to those around me for solace. I am who I am. Bugger the rest of the world. If it needs me, it can damn well come to me.
And that's it. That's my dream. I sit, silent and alone, like a prominent point of rock, holding fast as the sea attacks.
There are probably better dreams out there. Who doesn't want to score the winning touchdown? What person would turn down saving the world from cancer?
There are a lot of things in life that I would like to do. Someday I'd like children. Getting married one day would not be out of the question. At some point, I'd like to have a lazy dog who spends most of his time giving me looks from the couch.
But those are all real life goals. None of those are the vision that I have, meekly begging to be let out of the back of my head. I want to be a cowboy. I want to be a gunslinger. I want to be a rock at the bar, content in myself and my surroundings.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
At KU, we're close
I predict that Joel will find this pic nearly as hilarious as a certain previous one.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Don't Try
In order for an individual to get a babe, it must appear that the individual truly is not trying. To that effect, what follows is a lost of a few positive measures by which you can tell just how hard you are not trying.
HTGBWET: #3 (that's right, today is a biggie): Don't try.
Here are some ways how....
The get-in/get-out strategy - in which you move w/in the social barrier, then quickly get out
And that's the word. (Thank you, Steven Colbert.)
HTGBWET: #3 (that's right, today is a biggie): Don't try.
Here are some ways how....
The get-in/get-out strategy - in which you move w/in the social barrier, then quickly get out
Always be the first one to end the conversation
Avoid regular conversation
Don't use the phone
Try not to look at pictures
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO "MEET UP"
The over-all point of this rule is, essentially, to do everything in your power to keep yourself from getting overly attached. Once a man or woman is attached to the, as of yet, unconquested, he or she can kiss that conquest goodbye. Don't believe how I met your mother. If you are interested, make sure they are too. Don't be a clod. Don't try...And that's the word. (Thank you, Steven Colbert.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
