Friday, May 31, 2013

Apparently Thursdays no longer exist in my world.

I actually didn't realize that yesterday was Thursday.  I thought it was Saturday.  Yes, I do sometimes get that scatterbrained!  The next post "Bedknobs, Broomsticks, and How Many Bookshelves?" will be up this weekend.  If anyone else is a book hoarder/serial nerd organizer, you might be able to relate...

*Edit*- So I thought I would be done with the next post, but it seems that it'll take another day or two.  Keep an eye out for it around mid-week. You see, I got distracted, because I am currently on a mission to...

Image from Hyperbole and a Half, who is awesome.
If you read that post, you'll see why my mission is probably doomed to fail. 
But a girl can dream, right?

Saturday, May 25, 2013

A Dose of Skepticism (Can be a Coping Skill).

I debated whether to split this up into two parts but in the end decided against it, so this will be a lengthy post.  I hope everyone enjoys it enough to stick around!

Many of you, like me, will first come across scientific research findings in popular media.  I really don't like the hype that studies can get simply because they are about controversial, socially relevant, or otherwise important issues.  Then there's the way that researchers/media will, for publicity's sake, draw spectacular conclusions based on insubstantial evidence or using biased arguments.  Then there's how people take those conclusions and get ever more angry with one another as logical fallacies and peudoscience* supply the front for a perfect storm of anger, blame, smugness, egomania and all-around emotional chaos.
Pictured: Everyone on the internet.

Here are some more conspicuous problems that I would like to point out:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Two things seem related, so one has to be caused by the other, doesn't it?  Well... no.  One might cause the other, but some other variable might actually be the cause of either or both.  It's why it is so difficult to say things like "video games cause real-life violence."  They might, or already violent people might gravitate toward certain video games.  Or they might be one factor among many.  Or they might not be a factor at all, but so many people play video games that it's unlikely to find a truly violent person who doesn't.  I'm not saying any of those are correct, but they're all possibilities.  Be critical if you see an article that doesn't at least account for those possibilities.

In certain circumstances, confusing correlation with causation can go beyond conveying misleading information and create harmful perceptions.   Think about it this way: a headline reads "People Under 6'5" More Intelligent."  The article says that on a certain graduate-level math exam, researchers found that exam takers over 6'5" didn't do as well as those under 6'5".  We can conclude that it must be all that extra height, can't we? It was researched, so it must have at least a grain of truth to it, right? ... And now a stereotype exists that taller people are unintelligent.  It was so easy to leave out or downplay the part where those over 6'5" who participated in the study were more likely to be on a professional sports team and have left college early.

The study also concluded that Einstein would be more likely 
to do well on the test than the general public.

Quotable does not mean unquestionable.

People love to quote others, especially if the quote comes from someone famous or influential.  It doesn't matter if the people they quote are/were actually kind or good or right or making any sense, because what they really love is quoting others who agree with them.  Yes, many quotes are hilarious or interesting or thought-provoking and deserve recognition, and some state facts or are almost universally acknowledged to be true, like a man in possession of great fortune being in want of a wife. However, your favorite public figure saying something doesn't make it true.

And according to the internet, these two men said everything.

Having a higher degree doesn't make someone right all the time.  Having done extensive research in a certain field doesn't bestow All The Knowledge.  Being well-known does not grant someone wisdom.  I am half convinced that if Benjamin Franklin had said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy while drinking under the bright noonday olive green sky," people would be looking at you funny and calmly quoting Benjamin Franklin as you pointed to the sky screaming, "It's blue!  Blue, I tell you!"

I have an opinion, and studies will prove that I'm right.

Quoting only people who agree with an opinion is part of a larger issue known as the confirmation bias.    This occurs when researchers look for and use only data that supports their hypotheses.  Let's say that Jamie believes that dark-haired short women with small waists are most attractive.  Jamie googles "short dark hair small waist perfect" and finds tons of studies saying... you guessed it... that a short, dark-haired woman with a small waist is the "ideal" woman.  Jamie cites those studies and then gives friends and family a Y/N questionnaire that asks, "Do you think dark-haired women are attractive?" "Do you think women with small waists are attractive?" "Do you think shorter women are attractive?" Jamie sees that over half of participants answer Y, and suddenly we have:

(Now I'm finally free to put down women who don't meet my standards, because science.)

... Only it's not good science.  Looking up preferred characteristics in conjunction with the word "perfect" skewed results in favor of Jamie's opinion from the start.  Then the questionnaire won't allow people to say whether they find other qualities more personally appealing.  Jamie also gave the questionnaire to a group of people who are more likely to hold similar opinions.  These are only a few of the problems.  While most research isn't this blatantly biased, the confirmation bias certainly exists.  That it's usually well-disguised only makes it more problematic.

Statistics and numbers can be manipulated.

Hark, a quote!  The one I referenced briefly in the post Intolerance Isn't Awesome, "There are three kinds of lies:  lies, d***ed lies, and statistics," was popularized by Mark Twain.  I'm going to show why I think this quote is relevant, even if it is perhaps hyperbolic.  First, I don't believe all statistics are really lies.  "Statistically significant" in research is important.  But it needs to be taken in context, because numbers can be used like this:

"I don't eat vegetables, because statistically many American women who eat vegetables aren't expected to live past age 80."
Would those be the same women who statistically aren't expected to live past 80 anyway?

Apple Juice: Made with 100% real fruit juice.  

It might be the juice of freshly picked apples with and nothing else, or it might be "100% real" juice from three different fruits and added sugar.

People who drink lemonade 12%** more likely to die in summer months.
People who drink lemonade might be outside more during summer and nearer to water sources, where they would naturally be more likely to drown than those who stay inside.  Death by Lemonade would be a misnomer unless the deaths were due to citrus allergies or choking on seeds.

Lemons don't kill people.  
Kindergartners trying to make an extra $5 on weekends in July kill people.

Remember that it matters who does the research and who pays for it as well.  A large painting company probably won't publish research that says fumes from their paint have caused a significant number of illnesses.

They'll spin you right 'round, baby. 

There are news channels and publications with obvious political leanings and agendas, and they can put "spin" on stories like nobody's business. Sometimes they're even forthright about it.  Unfortunately, most of the time reporters don't come out and say, "We are trying to get you to think in a particular way about this," but do just that.  If you ever see facts "floating" in articles that seem jarring in the flow of the writing, or if you don't see citations, or if you notice that a strangely high number of comments agree with what seem like extreme conclusions, proceed with caution.  In the media, not giving all the facts or giving some facts out of context isn't the same as lying... it's journalism. I don't see this kind of insidious reporting disappearing any time soon, so I believe that people need to be able to recognize it.

We <3 straw men and ad hominem attacks.

"How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?"
"Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?"
-The Wizard of Oz***

Mary says "I think we should raise the legal BAC to 0.09."

Dave can disagree with that statement if he wants.  He can talk about what a BAC of 0.09 does to a person physiologically.  He can discuss the probability of accidents occurring with a BAC of 0.09 or below.  What he does instead is say:

Wrong. Having no consequences for driving impaired will make people do it more often, and then it the roads will naturally become more dangerous.

This is a straw man argument.  It makes the other person's opinion open to or easier to attack by distorting it.  It builds up a straw man- a sort of scapegoat opinion- in order to burn it down.  Mary didn't say that there shouldn't be consequences for impaired driving or that the road wouldn't become more dangerous without those consequences.  All Mary said was that she thinks there ought to be a change in the legal definition of "drunk."  Dave is more interested in getting others on his side.  If Mary points this out, though, there is always the possibility of this occurring:

Why should people care what some stupid ugly troll thinks?

Ouch.  ... Wait.  Aside from "attractive" being subjective.... how are Mary's looks relevant?  And does using the label "troll" make her a troll?  (A: They aren't, and no).  This is an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem (lit. "to the man argument").  It means avoiding the issue at hand and going straight for personal insults and character attacks to discredit someone.  Politics is infamous for these "smear campaigns."  Let's not talk about how to fix a problem or why a particular plan won't work.   Let's focus on the fact that the other guy is wealthy, or poor, or black, or white, or wears glasses, or is a loud breather, or has one foot larger than the other.  And then let's make it seem like that matters.  Instead of appealing to intelligence, logic, or common sense, we'll darn well appeal to peoples' prejudices.  It's easier and still effective.****


So when looking at new information, question what you read.  Do the legwork to see if there is more information out there.  Look at citations.  See whether research has been replicated; repetition seems boring, but it lends a lot more credibility.  Don't assume that numbers don't lie.  And if you're easily lured in by headlines or can't look away from the virtual train wrecks that are Public Comment Sections, keep the above in mind.  They've helped me stay afloat in a sea of professional manipulators, and I hope they can help you.

*Note: If you read Intolerance Isn't Awesome (link in post), you will realize that by "pseudoscience" I'm NOT referencing religion in any way, shape or form.  I do not equate fake science and faith.
**Yes, I pulled this number out of my magic hat.  I was looking for a rabbit, but I suppose you take what you can get.
***Help, I can't stop the quotes!  Depending on context, this could actually be an ad hominem attack by Scarecrow if he used that line in a debate...
****This is a call to everyone who uses ad hominem attacks or goes along with ones the media perpetuates (let's be honest; we all do it at times): Argumentum ad hominem is the lazy way out.  It is an indication that you don't have a better argument.  If you feel superior afterward, all it means is that you feel good about putting others down, not that you really are superior.  Think about what that says about smear tactics.  They- I'm going to use "they" for anyone who uses smear tactics- get you to fall for inferior arguments by appealing to that little part of your brain that says, "Of course I'm better than he is/she is/they are. That's a given."  They believe that you aren't savvy enough to think any further than that.  And if you go along with them, you're going along with those who either don't want to or can't come up with a good argument.  Do they sound like people you can trust?  Respect?  Admire?  

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Thesaurus Thursday: "Expository."

This Thursday's word is "expository," an adjective meaning serving to set forth, expound or explain.  It is often used to describe a particular descriptive writing style.

I'm not sure that further expository discourse would help in this case.

For her history class, she wrote an expository essay on the difference between socialism and communism.

The next post "A Dose of Skepticism (Can be a Coping Skill)" will be up in the next few days!

Friday, May 17, 2013

Thesaurus Thursday: "Contusion"/Bras!

(I know it's Friday, but the post was done yesterday :-) )

Another week is almost over, so welcome to the second Thesaurus Thursday: Bra Edition.  After remembering how much fun it was to write the first one, I have decided to do another.  Be prepared to see the occasional Bra Edition in the future!  Because the first had a lot of basic fitting information, I would like to share more personal experiences with bras and more specific fit issues.

Today's word is "contusion," a noun that means blemish or bruise.

If you notice angry red contusions that do not fade quickly around your ribcage, on your breasts, or on your shoulders when taking off a bra, you might be wearing the wrong size.

"They didn't tell you at the animal shelter?
It's a complimentary service.  I save boobs, one bad bra at a time."

It is normal to get marks on skin from fitted clothing.  Jeans, socks, underwear, tights; all of them can leave marks.  It's no different with bras.  But when you have bright red, painful, itchy, or deeply indented marks and chafing, you could easily be wearing the wrong size.  I say "could be" because sometimes it is possible to simply not know what the heck is going on; you'll be perfectly comfortable and supported in your bra then suddenly freak out when you take it off.

I have a faint shadow-scar around my ribcage.  At first, I thought it was from wearing my bras too tight.  Then Mr. Nerd said he has noticed it since high school, when I wore 34 bands that barely touched my skin.  Seriously, what gives?  After experimenting with various band and cup size combinations, I found that no matter what size I wore, I got marks that didn't fade for hours. I noticed that I would get marks from socks that didn't fade for hours as well, and I knew my socks fit OK!  I could sit down on an soft uneven surface and get up five minutes later with my legs looking like road maps and a weird bruise on the back of my thighs.  I knew that some doctors thought I was anemic in the past and had been surprised when tests came back negative/normal. So I've just resigned myself to getting marks that many would point to and go, "You need a different size!" despite being very comfortable in the sizes I choose and uncomfortable in other sizes.  And how a bra feels does matter.


All of that said, there are fit issues that can cause a bra to leave bruises or more pronounced marks than one would normally get.  These include:

Too much weight supported by the shoulder straps.  If the band isn't doing roughly 80% of the work, the straps likely dig in to your shoulders.  For some people, there's no way to stop the straps from digging in a bit, because 20% can still be a lot to handle.  A too-loose band can cause the straps to dig in more than is necessary, though.  Consider going down a band size.  Don't forget to go up a cup if you wish to keep the same cup volume!

Incorrect band size.  If there is a red line going all the way around your body parallel to the floor that doesn't disappear after a short time, especially if you feel deeper ribcage pain and notice discomfort bending or twisting, consider going up a band size/down a cup accordingly.  Check to make sure your cup is large enough first.  A too-large band and too-small cup can mimic wearing a band that is too small.  A band that is too large can also cause chafing as it moves around on your body.  You can usually spot this if there is chafing while the band is riding up in the back.

Too wide/too narrow underwires/incorrect shape for your breasts.  If you end up with marks in places like beyond the edge of your breast tissue toward your back or marks on some of the tissue while other parts of your breasts are fully encased by the cups, this could be the culprit.  Try on various sizes first to make sure that you are in the right size.  If no size in a certain bra seems to fit, check out this article by Venusian*Glow on whether you need narrow or wide underwires and see if it applies to you.

A lot of people who need narrow underwires will purchase 
Freya and avoid Panache, for example.
(Top: Panache Tango Balconette.  Bottom: Freya Rio Balconette)

Wide/high center gore and/or wires that come up high under the arms.  A high center gore can dig into your sternum.  If you're like me and have breasts that don't quite fully separate at the top, a high or wide gore can cause pain by poking the tissue.  High underwires at the sides that poke the armpits are a problem for many petite women, but they can also create issues for any woman with high-set breasts.  Sometimes you can find alterations to fix these; By Baby's Rules gives a great tutorial on how to narrow a center gore and lower stabbing wires.  At other times it is best just to find a different style of bra that suits your shape, like choosing a plunge over a balconette if you need a very low gore.

Other.  I include an "other" category because some people have physical conditions (like anemia) that make them bruise easily.  Dehydration can even cause clothing to leave imprints that fade less quickly.  If you suspect dehydration is an issue and just drinking more water doesn't help much, you can put moisturizing products directly on the marks to help.  I like cocoa butter, but I've heard great things about other moisturizers.  Remember that all people's skin is different, and there is always the possibility of allergic reactions to cosmetic products, so read labels and find one that works for you.

©Antonio Petronzio/Cosmo
And because this is a text-heavy post, 
here is another gratuitous picture of puppies with a bra.

While I am probably in the minority getting very noticeable, longer-lasting marks on my skin from a well-fitted bra, I can tell when one is a poor fit by the marks it starts to leave that are different than usual.  When I'm wearing a cup size that is too large, I get itchier red marks nearer my back.  If I wear a band that is too small, I start to get purple-y marks on my sides and feel pinching when I bend over or extend my arms.  If wires are too wide, my breasts are pulled to the sides, and I get the marks of a too-large cup but still get quad-boob in front.

To conclude, if you are wearing a bra that feels good and fits well, and still get marks like me, don't sweat it too much.  That is, if you find the benefits of wearing a bra and getting the marks outweigh the benefits of not wearing a bra.  If you don't feel comfortable with it, there's no shame in wearing soft cups or going braless.  And if you truly hate it, but you really feel most comfortable in underwired bras, I would suggest considering a dermatologist (or other health professional if you prefer alternative/homeopathic medicine).

Stay comfortable and supported, my friends!

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Intolerance Isn't Awesome.

Some of you might have seen posts I share from the page "Science is Awesome" on Facebook.  Many of their posts are entertaining and interesting.

Like the best protest sign anywhere, ever.

However, there is an awful tendency on their posts for people to intelligence-shame and mock Christians and religious people in general.  As many of you have probably realized if you read through previous blog entries, including one posted earlier this year about the TV show Bones, I have no problem with people who choose not to believe in God.  Over the years, I have developed an intensely personal and life-and-love-affirming interpretation of the Bible, but I don't mind if an individual has a different interpretation or even has decided, "Hey, I don't think I like the Bible much."  I don't take it as an affront if someone is a non-believer or believer in a different faith.

What I do take issue with is a page called "Science is Awesome " actively encouraging knee-jerk reactions and judgment over rational, calm scientific debate.  People spout statistics* without citing sources or get their information from a single source and don't acknowledge that bias.  They don't distinguish between opinion and fact.  (Some of them would probably just have to pipe up here and go "Yes, you're right!  The religious crazy people do those things!"... Sure, some do.  But I'm seeing it from both sides, and actually far, far more on this page from the people who claim to despise religion's "aversion to science.")  Some are compelled to bring up religion on completely innocuous pictures of cakes, animals, trees, you name it.

"Speaking of cookies, do you know how cheap eggs are at Costco?  
They jack up the prices at groceries.  It's the economy.  It's all (president)'s fault."

Don't be That Guy ^.

Some of you might not know that starting a blog was completely out of character for me.  Sharing my thoughts had never before been one of my aspirations.  In the past, I've actually wanted to be devoid of opinions so that I never had to disagree with anyone, ever.  I was a serial people-pleaser.  When I thought that someone was offended by something I said or did, I felt anxious and guilty.  But while reading through some of the less snarky and more reasonable posts on "Science is Awesome," I had a revelation:

I love science, and I love Jesus.  I majored in psychology (some debate whether it is a "hard" or "soft" science, but no one will ever convince me that physiological psych wasn't a "hard" science course), minored in chemistry, and fell in love with a math and physics nerd.  My beliefs and opinions about science and religion have worth and merit.  They've been carefully considered and thought through.  I don't have to care what other people think of them.  If other people don't agree with them, 


But people need to realize that you can be accepting of others' opinions and values while holding your own.  Being tolerant doesn't mean being wishy-washy and without convictions.  Just as you don't have to meet everyone's definition of physical perfection, you don't have to meet everyone's definition of emotional and/or intellectual perfection.  

Would I love to get along with everyone?  Of course.  Is that possible?  Of course not.  That doesn't mean I won't try my darndest to be kind and respectful, but, well,

I happen to think that disagreeing without backing it up is unscientific.  I believe that name calling and intolerance clouds judgment and inhibits quality interactions and so has no place in a supposedly scientific community.**  Besides being rude, it accomplishes nothing.  Let's do some observational research (I imagine a "true" experiment would reach the same conclusions, but observation is what we have to work with): how many times have you seen someone change his/her thought process or behavior because another person called him/her an ignorant [insert curse word here]? If a comment was made without thinking, perhaps, but otherwise, most likely never.  I'm not saying don't bother thinking people can change.  I am suggesting that there might be a better way to present an argument than with the subtlety, tact, and pleasantness of a foghorn.

Science is indeed awesome.  Calling entire groups of people dumb?  Treating science like an exclusive club?  Alienating people from a fascinating discipline by treating other human beings who don't agree with everything you believe like dirt?

Not awesome.

*Often truly worse than lies and d*** lies.
**I do think that there are some things that it is understandable to be upset about without "backing up" an opinion, of course.  Murder, rape, lying, physical and emotional abuse, sexism, racism, ableism, bigotry... I don't think being horrified by those is wrong.  I don't think calling someone out on those is wrong.  Fighting hate with hate, though, is still unlikely to help.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Do You Bow Before the Queen of Blades? Or Cringe?

The entire backstory for the StarCraft games would take up too much of this post, so if you are interested, you can read it here.

Disclaimer: As I have mentioned, I'm not a gamer myself.  I watch Mr. Nerd play.  I watched him finish StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and the Heart of the Swarm campaign, and he also got me hooked on multi-player StarCraft replays.  The truth is I have no coordination and lack the quick reflexes to have any desire to play myself ( it bad that I don't start things unless I know I can eventually become good at them?).  Yet I still enjoy watching others, and I have thoroughly enjoyed watching StarCraft II.  But if you're a die-hard fan and player, don't be too harsh with me.  This is just one woman's opinion based on what she has learned and seen.


I have noticed that Sarah Kerrigan, aka the Queen of Blades, is ranked highly as a character by fans and critics.  But I must say that I am baffled by her.  I'm not sure whether to like or dislike her character.   Where better to explore that further than here on the blog?

Kerrigan vidsnap.

What I like:

Well, she has psychic powers.  So that's pretty awesome.

She is a strong female character, but by no means is she perfect.  I really, really dislike "all-powerful" characters without weaknesses, because I find them too unbelievable.*  Her story line, which is helped out by various StarCraft novelizations, has her accidentally killing her mother and damaging her father's brain before being recruited for the Ghost (commando and assassin) training program as a child.  That is a heck of a lot to live with, but live with it she does.  She even resists psychological torture in the program, to the point that they have to implant a neurological device to limit her powers and make her biddable for the Confederacy.  I don't think a lot of kids could withstand that. The device is taken out eventually, but that story sets up her character well: a woman with a moral compass that occasionally flashes to the surface but has been twisted and warped until she is easily used as a tool in others' destruction.

I think that makes it more terrifying when she becomes the Queen of Blades. She seems to enjoy finally having an outlet and then going after someone who she believes deserves to be killed (when she goes after Mengsk the second time she is infested).  She is an effective tactician as a Terran and uses that along with ruthlessness and manipulation when she is infested.  But she makes mistakes and cannot anticipate every move made by her opponents.  I suppose that would be obvious, otherwise there would be no real point to the games, but I still like that she acts genuinely surprised at times.  She also provides others in the game (and the player) with an enemy that they sometimes fear, sometimes loathe, sometimes respect, sometimes pity.  She is multidimensional, like a real person.  I also like that she doesn't make excuses for her actions as the Queen of Blades when she becomes human again.  Anyone who starts playing the blame-game gets on my nerves immediately.

The Queen of Blades.

What I don't like:

Obviously, I don't like that she murders millions of Terrans, Zerg and Protoss.  There is that.

I'm not a huge fan of the "government-made killing machine" used in multimedia.  I disliked it with River Tam in Firefly, too, however awesome her fighting skills and crazy observations.  I realize StarCraft came first; I'm just pointing out that this is a general preference.  I suppose this was resolved when I learned that the neuro-adjuster was taken out, because as stated, I like to see more conflicted characters, because I don't enjoy feeling as if I'm watching a robot.  Still, that was a turn-off for me.

I also didn't like the relationship between Kerrigan and Jim Raynor.  I realize that is a major part of the story, but it feels... forced to me, somehow.  It is almost as if Kerrigan falls for Jim just because he is the first person ever to show sympathy for her.  It seems like a very unequal, stereotypical relationship, with her depending on him and him acting as the savior.  She actually tells him that she "doesn't need saving" at one point, but this is proved false time and again.  It's annoying and doesn't seem to fit with the rest of her character.  She even asks Jim- when she is human- to basically put her down if her darker qualities ever made her lose control.  So he becomes very intent on killing her when she turns into the Queen of Blades, at least until he finds out that she can be changed back.  Note that I am not trying to give a commentary on euthanasia here at all: it just struck me as a pet/owner relationship throughout rather than a relationship between two people.  I almost preferred their interactions with Kerrigan as the Queen of Blades.  I really hated it when she heard that Jim had been killed and reinfested herself for revenge purposes.  Kerrigan: we know that you're intelligent, and it didn't occur to you that this might have been a lie?

That's really all there is to say.

Finally, what's up with the Zerg thong?  I realize that women in video games are often caricatures with exaggerated and emphasized "feminine" features.  I can even almost understand the skintight human armor  if we're going for "fits like a second skin" for maximum maneuverability, cloaking, etc. (although why it also has to have some sort of pseudo-thong-wedgie in the back is beyond me).  I also understand that she's not fully Zerg.  But heels and a thong for an infested Terran... really?

Nerd trivia: Sarah Kerrigan was voiced by Tricia Helfer in Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm.  Tricia played the Cylon operative Number Six in Battlestar Galactica (2004).

*Dear Bones, this is why Pelant is merely tiresome now.  I get the feeling that you believe he is a character that viewers love to hate.   I think- and as far as I can tell from the heap of reviews I've read, others agree- this isn't true; he's just a character that viewers want gone before they have to boycott an otherwise good show.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Thesaurus Thursday: "Defenestration."

Today's word is "defenestration," or the act of throwing someone or something out of a window. Although I rather like Urban Dictionary's first definition.

Any alarm clock that runs fast is subject to defenestration early in the morning; I once found a bird building a nest around one where it had landed on a first-story windowsill.  

I would defenestrate all alarm clocks from the top story if I could.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Please Enjoy the Music While Your Party is Reached.

I am currently in the middle of writing a post about a video game character, and it is taking some time to get my thoughts sorted out.

In light of my post on how much I dislike the never ending technology debates (Apple vs. Samsung in particular), I thought I would share this new commercial. (Please note that I am not promoting or advertising Microsoft; I just thought the commercial idea was clever!)

The Absurd Curvy Nerd

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Thesaurus Thursday: "Dumbledore."

No, not Albus Percival Wulfric Brian.

"Dumbledore" is an old-fashioned word for bumblebee!  (Also, did you know that the stars Bellatrix and Sirius are respectively known as the "female warrior" and the "dog star"?

We were worried that the dog would get stung by a dumbledore, because there was a loud buzzing coming from the large bed of daffodils in the yard near her favorite resting place.

"Busy as a dumbledore" doesn't have the same ring to it, though.