Today, while I was trying to explain that the most important safety is between your ears, a nearby woman exclaimed that she didn't want to hear any of that crap, because she'd had a husband who shot himself in the hand, and he knew about guns. It took 9 surgeries to get his hand fixed, and no matter how safe you are, you need as many safeties as you can get.
I held my tongue, though I wanted to ask her whether he pulled the trigger with the muzzle pointed toward something he wasn't willing to destroy. I knew the answer, of course, and she would not have been pleased to provide it.
How many safety devices would it take to keep that gun from going off? Just one--keeping the finger off the trigger. No grip safety, trigger safety, or manual safety work to prevent misuse.
Sure, buy a gun with several safeties. It won't hurt anything, and you might just feel better. Or buy one without so many extras. It'll work, too. Just remember to point it safely, keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, etc.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Libertarianism
I don't know why it still surprises me to be met with disdain just about every time I call myself a libertarian. If it weren't for our insistence on sticking with two parties, it might not carry such a stigma, since it's largely comprised of principles almost everyone would like applied to themselves.
Of course, the Republicans think of Libertarians as lost votes, and Democrats see libertarianism as conservatism. Conservatives dislike ideas like drug legalization, and liberals dislike free capitalism.
Oddly, though, I've heard people claim such bizarre things as libertarianism being anti-freedom, which confuses me. Often, people don't understand libertarianism. Here's a very simplistic rundown:
People should be free to do as they wish, so long as they do not hurt others.
People should be allowed to amass as much wealth as they'd like, and they should be allowed to trade it freely.
If someone uses force or threat of force to take from others (be it life, liberty, or property that is being taken), responding with force is justifiable. Otherwise, it is not.
Yeah, I know it's far from thorough, but I'm often made fun of for my somewhat verbose explanations, so I'm going to leave it at that for now. Besides, most of my possible readers are probably familiar with libertarianism.
Of course, the Republicans think of Libertarians as lost votes, and Democrats see libertarianism as conservatism. Conservatives dislike ideas like drug legalization, and liberals dislike free capitalism.
Oddly, though, I've heard people claim such bizarre things as libertarianism being anti-freedom, which confuses me. Often, people don't understand libertarianism. Here's a very simplistic rundown:
People should be free to do as they wish, so long as they do not hurt others.
People should be allowed to amass as much wealth as they'd like, and they should be allowed to trade it freely.
If someone uses force or threat of force to take from others (be it life, liberty, or property that is being taken), responding with force is justifiable. Otherwise, it is not.
Yeah, I know it's far from thorough, but I'm often made fun of for my somewhat verbose explanations, so I'm going to leave it at that for now. Besides, most of my possible readers are probably familiar with libertarianism.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
A trade?
A coworker has offered me an interesting trade recently--he has a Smith and Wesson MP15 with a detatchable carry handle for my FN Five-Seven. On the one hand, I don't have an AR, but the Five-Seven is harder to replace. The values are approximately the same, and it's really a fair trade. I have been considering an AR, but I haven't considered getting rid of the FN.
It WOULD cut down on the number of calibers I keep on hand, but it would also rid me of an amazing little gun that I do enjoy and would like to have in a SHTF situation.
The funny thing is that the coworker just bought the S&W, hasn't fired it, and could theoretically have purchased an FN instead.
I'm not going to make the trade, though I'll admit I was tempted.
It WOULD cut down on the number of calibers I keep on hand, but it would also rid me of an amazing little gun that I do enjoy and would like to have in a SHTF situation.
The funny thing is that the coworker just bought the S&W, hasn't fired it, and could theoretically have purchased an FN instead.
I'm not going to make the trade, though I'll admit I was tempted.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Bar fights
While there's a lot that I do not (and will never) fully understand about people, one thing in particular has been bothering me of late. Why do people seem to want to get into bar fights?
Lately, I've been trying to get out more, and I've been spending time at a kind of divish karaoke bar. They have a pool table, and I spend a bit of time figuring out how to play pool (the geometry is easy enough--it's the actual performance aspect I just can't get down). Seems there are some people who want to fight over their turn in line or something that goes down during a non-betting game. Even those things are almost understandable, when compared to the people who want to fight over a pool cue pointed at them or something they saw while not playing.
Bar fights are stupid for a number of reasons--you may not be welcome in the bar afterward; arrest chances increase in a bar; you never know who'll pull what; you can't always be sure who'll be on which side; while your reflexes are almost certainly impaired, not everyone has had as much as you (or, sometimes, any). There are other reasons, but bar fights are pretty stupid, at least around here.
Also, shattering a glass over someone's head may seem like a good idea, but you will end up cutting yourself and being charged with aggravated assault. Pick something more defensive, if available, and you'll do a lot better.
In any case, please don't fight in my bar. It ruins my good time. Thanks.
Lately, I've been trying to get out more, and I've been spending time at a kind of divish karaoke bar. They have a pool table, and I spend a bit of time figuring out how to play pool (the geometry is easy enough--it's the actual performance aspect I just can't get down). Seems there are some people who want to fight over their turn in line or something that goes down during a non-betting game. Even those things are almost understandable, when compared to the people who want to fight over a pool cue pointed at them or something they saw while not playing.
Bar fights are stupid for a number of reasons--you may not be welcome in the bar afterward; arrest chances increase in a bar; you never know who'll pull what; you can't always be sure who'll be on which side; while your reflexes are almost certainly impaired, not everyone has had as much as you (or, sometimes, any). There are other reasons, but bar fights are pretty stupid, at least around here.
Also, shattering a glass over someone's head may seem like a good idea, but you will end up cutting yourself and being charged with aggravated assault. Pick something more defensive, if available, and you'll do a lot better.
In any case, please don't fight in my bar. It ruins my good time. Thanks.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
A goal of writing for 2009
Yeah, it's been a long time since I've posted. This year, I'm going to try to write at least:
1 blog post per week
1 attempted poem per week
1 page of fiction each month
1 letter or electronic letter (no, short, pointed emails won't count) per month.
Yeah, I'm aware that I'm making a promise I haven't even come close to last year, and I know that a Christmas season of retail (again) and a computer that decided it's done really don't count as reasonable excuses, but we'll see if I can keep this up at least for a while. And I am counting this post as part of what is technically last week, so I'll have a real post this upcoming week, as well.
1 blog post per week
1 attempted poem per week
1 page of fiction each month
1 letter or electronic letter (no, short, pointed emails won't count) per month.
Yeah, I'm aware that I'm making a promise I haven't even come close to last year, and I know that a Christmas season of retail (again) and a computer that decided it's done really don't count as reasonable excuses, but we'll see if I can keep this up at least for a while. And I am counting this post as part of what is technically last week, so I'll have a real post this upcoming week, as well.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Blogging will remain sparse...
At work, they've decided to offer the "opportunity" for overtime. Translation: "We'll pay you overtime, just as long as you bail our asses out of the tight spot we've created by not hiring enough people." A stubborn, childish part of me wants to tell them to go screw themselves and refuse to work extra time. Another part of me, though, needs the money because the pay is terrible.
My boss has also decided that the behind-the-scenes work that keeps things going is not important enough for the overtime. He told me that the overtime should be spent working directly with the customers, not helping with the things that keep the feds from shutting us down. Now, I am well aware that poor customer reviews will hurt us, but they can't shut us down.
And those of us getting tired of working for peanuts aren't being offered a raise, just this temporary overtime. If only we weren't hurting financially, we might be able to refuse the extra time on principle. Then, they might actually see what we're worth.
But I doubt it.
In short, sorry I haven't been blogging. It'll stay sparse until we get a few more people hired again. Assuming we don't continue hemorrhaging employees at the pace we have been.
My boss has also decided that the behind-the-scenes work that keeps things going is not important enough for the overtime. He told me that the overtime should be spent working directly with the customers, not helping with the things that keep the feds from shutting us down. Now, I am well aware that poor customer reviews will hurt us, but they can't shut us down.
And those of us getting tired of working for peanuts aren't being offered a raise, just this temporary overtime. If only we weren't hurting financially, we might be able to refuse the extra time on principle. Then, they might actually see what we're worth.
But I doubt it.
In short, sorry I haven't been blogging. It'll stay sparse until we get a few more people hired again. Assuming we don't continue hemorrhaging employees at the pace we have been.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Self-censorship
Recently, I've been thinking about the possibility that potential employers might find the things I've written and judge me by them. This is a very real possibility, especially considering the possibility I'll soon be applying to the Teach for America program. Now, the things that they'll find with my last name attached are mostly political articles, some Facebook stuff, and a couple things from high school athletics. And the things that have my full first name aren't even attached to me, mostly. I'm not horribly concerned, but the thought of censoring myself for the sake of a career sickens me a bit.
Of course, many career choices bother me, as well. I don't like a job that has no variety, nor one that seems futile. I dislike the idea of going to work for someone else every day, never getting ahead, never doing anything the way I want to. I like freedom, change, and meaning, and those sometimes seem so rare that combining them seems impossible. In a way, the reason I dislike self-censorship is because I know it only leads to doing things for someone else, in their way, every futile day.
Over at xkcd, there's a pretty good commentary on the subject of self-censorship, and I think it'll do better than I would for saying everything else I'd like to say on the subject:
Of course, many career choices bother me, as well. I don't like a job that has no variety, nor one that seems futile. I dislike the idea of going to work for someone else every day, never getting ahead, never doing anything the way I want to. I like freedom, change, and meaning, and those sometimes seem so rare that combining them seems impossible. In a way, the reason I dislike self-censorship is because I know it only leads to doing things for someone else, in their way, every futile day.
Over at xkcd, there's a pretty good commentary on the subject of self-censorship, and I think it'll do better than I would for saying everything else I'd like to say on the subject:
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Linguistic entropy
Please, for the good of future generations, do not allow encourage the decline of the English language. Broaden your vocabulary, don't succumb to texting abbreviations, and learn to use semicolons correctly.
You may wonder why I would suddenly rant about the ever-deteriorating state of the common vernacular. Well, the laws of entropy should not apply to language. It is not a closed system. Also, a collapse of language is a collapse of intellect. If you can no longer communicate ideas, you can no longer test them, and you end up with fewer and fewer valid hypotheses.
Of course, those are the distal causes. What, you ask, is the proximal cause? (Okay, so you may have used the term "immediate" or the phrase "this time," but that's just splitting hairs.)
At work, I recently had to explain what I meant when I used the term "infeasible" (not the first word I've had to define, just the most recent). I thought it was funny to define it as "not feasible." I then tried using "viable" in my definition, and finally had to sum it up as "not readily possible or practical." This particular college student told me that I was only causing myself problems when I use "big words." I told her that she shouldn't mind expanding her vocabulary. She seems vocally opposed to such a practice, which baffles me.
People are actively choosing to regress, be it in the consistently lacking spelling and grammar on these vast interwebs, the texting madness, or deciding to actively oppose expanded vocabulary. We are pushing ourselves toward Orwellian Newspeak. Of course, I'm guessing that Newspeak doesn't factor all that prominently into the Cliffnotes, and that's most of the Orwell reading of these opponents of intelligent discourse.
To put it into the terminology we seem to be heading toward, this is double-plus ungood.
You may wonder why I would suddenly rant about the ever-deteriorating state of the common vernacular. Well, the laws of entropy should not apply to language. It is not a closed system. Also, a collapse of language is a collapse of intellect. If you can no longer communicate ideas, you can no longer test them, and you end up with fewer and fewer valid hypotheses.
Of course, those are the distal causes. What, you ask, is the proximal cause? (Okay, so you may have used the term "immediate" or the phrase "this time," but that's just splitting hairs.)
At work, I recently had to explain what I meant when I used the term "infeasible" (not the first word I've had to define, just the most recent). I thought it was funny to define it as "not feasible." I then tried using "viable" in my definition, and finally had to sum it up as "not readily possible or practical." This particular college student told me that I was only causing myself problems when I use "big words." I told her that she shouldn't mind expanding her vocabulary. She seems vocally opposed to such a practice, which baffles me.
People are actively choosing to regress, be it in the consistently lacking spelling and grammar on these vast interwebs, the texting madness, or deciding to actively oppose expanded vocabulary. We are pushing ourselves toward Orwellian Newspeak. Of course, I'm guessing that Newspeak doesn't factor all that prominently into the Cliffnotes, and that's most of the Orwell reading of these opponents of intelligent discourse.
To put it into the terminology we seem to be heading toward, this is double-plus ungood.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Stem cell ads
Gregoire's newest ad points out that Rossi is against embryonic stem cell research. A man with Parkinson's tells us his hope lies with embryonic stem cell research, and he couldn't vote for someone against it.
Of course, no one mentions adult stem cells or the progress made with them. Nobody mentions how uncontrollable the embryonic stem cells have been thus far. But, then, why would they? It's not about help, but political gain. Has Gregoire done anything to promote stem cell research? Will Rossi ban it? No, it's a non-issue. But it's an issue you can get people excited about.
I guess it's just easier. And it may be more effective than talk about balancing budgets. After all, people seem to forget whose pockets the government's money comes from.
Of course, no one mentions adult stem cells or the progress made with them. Nobody mentions how uncontrollable the embryonic stem cells have been thus far. But, then, why would they? It's not about help, but political gain. Has Gregoire done anything to promote stem cell research? Will Rossi ban it? No, it's a non-issue. But it's an issue you can get people excited about.
I guess it's just easier. And it may be more effective than talk about balancing budgets. After all, people seem to forget whose pockets the government's money comes from.
Tangible investments
On the radio today, they started talking about investing in a turbulent time. One of them pointed out that those wishing to invest in gold should get the actual gold, rather than certificates. The other two were astounded by this. They didn't know why anyone would want to invest in gold, though they did recognize that paper promises could be rendered meaningless. They wanted to know about buying gold bars and the sort of people who buy gold.
Investing in tangibles is a safe route, for the most part. Gold and silver have value that isn't linked to the performance of any particular economy. They tend to go up in value, rather than losing value to inflation. Governments can't just print more gold or silver. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you should convert your savings to gold bars. No, investing in some gold coins gives you some wealth that'll still be there if the dollar (or other currency of your choice) bottoms out.
The only way gold will be worthless is if we end up in a situation where survival is the only priority. Gold, at that point, will be heavy metal that has little use. Hopefully, though, you have some investments that are of more use. Guns, ammo, tools, food, and other supplies with inherent utility are going to be the only things with value in a survival-based society. But once things calm down, gold will almost invariably be a standard of wealth again. And, hey, if you had enough of the necessities, you probably got some gold for almost nothing during the bad times.
Yep, tangibles are nice.
Investing in tangibles is a safe route, for the most part. Gold and silver have value that isn't linked to the performance of any particular economy. They tend to go up in value, rather than losing value to inflation. Governments can't just print more gold or silver. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you should convert your savings to gold bars. No, investing in some gold coins gives you some wealth that'll still be there if the dollar (or other currency of your choice) bottoms out.
The only way gold will be worthless is if we end up in a situation where survival is the only priority. Gold, at that point, will be heavy metal that has little use. Hopefully, though, you have some investments that are of more use. Guns, ammo, tools, food, and other supplies with inherent utility are going to be the only things with value in a survival-based society. But once things calm down, gold will almost invariably be a standard of wealth again. And, hey, if you had enough of the necessities, you probably got some gold for almost nothing during the bad times.
Yep, tangibles are nice.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Election options...
Well, I've been thinking about the options in this election. McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate makes him almost palatable as a candidate. Obama and Biden, of course, are not an option for me, and I can't stomach Barr, even with Paul on the ticket.
I've heard people encouraging Libertarian votes simply for national recognition, but I don't think I can vote Barr. I've even heard rumors of a write-in campaign for Galt. Yes, John Galt, the fictional character who led Rand's strike of the mind.
Still others are choosing not to vote to protest the lousy choices. Of course, that'll be considered voter apathy when everything's tallied, and it won't make any sort of actual statement. At least the John Galt write-ins will be seen, if only by those tallying votes. If enough votes are cast, those who know who John Galt is will at least hear that some people made a statement. Whoever is elected, though, will still be elected.
Sure, things look pretty bleak, but you have to decide whether to speak to that or attempt to choose the lesser of two evils. Hell, if we had a good write-in campaign for Cthulhu, we might be able to show just how evil the lesser evil seems, or at least how ridiculous it is that we feel forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
I can't tell you how to vote, nor am I willing to tell you how I'm voting. You vote how you think you should, and I'll vote how I think I should. Or something like that.
I've heard people encouraging Libertarian votes simply for national recognition, but I don't think I can vote Barr. I've even heard rumors of a write-in campaign for Galt. Yes, John Galt, the fictional character who led Rand's strike of the mind.
Still others are choosing not to vote to protest the lousy choices. Of course, that'll be considered voter apathy when everything's tallied, and it won't make any sort of actual statement. At least the John Galt write-ins will be seen, if only by those tallying votes. If enough votes are cast, those who know who John Galt is will at least hear that some people made a statement. Whoever is elected, though, will still be elected.
Sure, things look pretty bleak, but you have to decide whether to speak to that or attempt to choose the lesser of two evils. Hell, if we had a good write-in campaign for Cthulhu, we might be able to show just how evil the lesser evil seems, or at least how ridiculous it is that we feel forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
I can't tell you how to vote, nor am I willing to tell you how I'm voting. You vote how you think you should, and I'll vote how I think I should. Or something like that.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Denial
I had an odd experience with a customer's answers on a 4473 today.
A fellow employee came to me and asked for some help, since he had a customer who'd answered some questions in a way that would prevent the sale. As I got to the customer, he was filling out the state pistol application, so I turned to the 4473. I immediately stopped the man, who was a bit confused. I told him that we would be forced to deny the sale.
He asked me why, explaining that he must not have kept up with gun laws as of late. I pointed out the first disqualifying answer: he said he had been convicted of a felony. He said that he understood it, and he had been convicted. I asked whether he'd had his record expunged. He said he was now eligible, but hadn't gotten around to it yet.
Well, I explained to him that it would be in his best interests to get his record expunged, and I moved on to the next problem.
I pointed out that he'd claimed that he had been adjudicated mentally defective, and I said that it might also go away if it was related. He said that it was separate, but it was against his will. I told him that being committed against his will is something that I couldn't really tell him how to remove from his record. I suggested he check with the courthouse.
Finally, I arrived at his third and final disqualifying answer. I asked whether the domestic violence may have been related to either of the other problems, but he said that it was even older. I suggested he try to get that expunged as well.
He then asked why these were disqualifying him from purchasing a black powder revolver. I explained that our state no longer differentiates between cartridge handgun and powder handgun. He told me that his relative was also a felon and hunted black powder. I explained that our particular company was playing it safe and applying the fairly recent change in handgun law to long guns, as well, and some places might not. I encouraged him to check with a game warden and find out his options.
He may've gone to buy a bow. He was probably the nicest person ever about his denial, and was extremely grateful for my patient explanations, which astounded me.
Of course, if I had it my way, anyone allowed to interact with the public without a custodian present should be allowed the rights afforded everyone, especially given that those rights are preexisting.
A fellow employee came to me and asked for some help, since he had a customer who'd answered some questions in a way that would prevent the sale. As I got to the customer, he was filling out the state pistol application, so I turned to the 4473. I immediately stopped the man, who was a bit confused. I told him that we would be forced to deny the sale.
He asked me why, explaining that he must not have kept up with gun laws as of late. I pointed out the first disqualifying answer: he said he had been convicted of a felony. He said that he understood it, and he had been convicted. I asked whether he'd had his record expunged. He said he was now eligible, but hadn't gotten around to it yet.
Well, I explained to him that it would be in his best interests to get his record expunged, and I moved on to the next problem.
I pointed out that he'd claimed that he had been adjudicated mentally defective, and I said that it might also go away if it was related. He said that it was separate, but it was against his will. I told him that being committed against his will is something that I couldn't really tell him how to remove from his record. I suggested he check with the courthouse.
Finally, I arrived at his third and final disqualifying answer. I asked whether the domestic violence may have been related to either of the other problems, but he said that it was even older. I suggested he try to get that expunged as well.
He then asked why these were disqualifying him from purchasing a black powder revolver. I explained that our state no longer differentiates between cartridge handgun and powder handgun. He told me that his relative was also a felon and hunted black powder. I explained that our particular company was playing it safe and applying the fairly recent change in handgun law to long guns, as well, and some places might not. I encouraged him to check with a game warden and find out his options.
He may've gone to buy a bow. He was probably the nicest person ever about his denial, and was extremely grateful for my patient explanations, which astounded me.
Of course, if I had it my way, anyone allowed to interact with the public without a custodian present should be allowed the rights afforded everyone, especially given that those rights are preexisting.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11
A few of my customers were surprised to realize that today was 9/11. It's been seven years, and we no longer hear as many reminders, which is natural. How many people remember the anniversary of Pearl Harbor's bombing? As time passes, memories fade.
But seven years is a far cry from ancient history. People can easily recall, if reminded, the images of the billowing smoke, the people jumping, and the collapse of the towers. People can easily recall the anger they felt that some terrorists with box cutters were able to wreak such destruction.
The anger and hurt may not be as fresh, but the memories can awaken them. The main problem is finding a clear target for that rage. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, there were clear sides. The Germans and Japanese were our enemies. This attack left us with terrorists as our enemies. Terrorism has no city, no country, no convenient target. It's hard to keep people angry at a nebulous group such as "terrorists."
Now, I don't pretend to have a solution. Terrorism is a difficult target. I just ask that people try to remember what was done. And remember that we don't want it to happen again.
But seven years is a far cry from ancient history. People can easily recall, if reminded, the images of the billowing smoke, the people jumping, and the collapse of the towers. People can easily recall the anger they felt that some terrorists with box cutters were able to wreak such destruction.
The anger and hurt may not be as fresh, but the memories can awaken them. The main problem is finding a clear target for that rage. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, there were clear sides. The Germans and Japanese were our enemies. This attack left us with terrorists as our enemies. Terrorism has no city, no country, no convenient target. It's hard to keep people angry at a nebulous group such as "terrorists."
Now, I don't pretend to have a solution. Terrorism is a difficult target. I just ask that people try to remember what was done. And remember that we don't want it to happen again.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Mechanical Bull Stalker
Per Hammer's suggestion, I figure I'd better tell the mechanical bull stalker story in its entirety.
For a period of time, I was a regular at a bar that had a mechanical bull a couple nights a week. The drinks were priced fairly and the bar staff learned who I was and my drinks: Long Island, Killer Kool-Aid, Absolut double screwdriver, and then we go from there. But this isn't really overly relevant.
The bar had ladies night every Friday, which included the bull, a DJ, and free cover for the ladies. Well, I started realizing that some of the girls liked to root for me when I rode the bull, and it made for a decent conversation start. (For those who might not have guessed, I'm not really all that good with the ladies, so I need all the help I can get.) After enough alcohol, it didn't even hurt all that badly. (Yeah, I know...it's not a real bull by any means, but the guy running the thing can really make that thing go if he wants to, and it can hurt.)
Well, one Friday, the DJ held a bull-riding contest. Everyone who wanted to participate gave the DJ their names, and the bull was to be turned to full speed immediately. The goal, of course, was eight seconds, but no one was expected to meet that lofty goal in this bar.
Considering the DJ knew me and he normally played hip-hop, I asked him to play something country for my ride. Of course, he made a big announcement about how he was playing it per my request and that I was the regular bullrider in the bunch. This, of course, increased expectations.
I lasted about two seconds, which was disappointing, but still longer than anyone else. The DJ declared me the winner and I won a free drink. Now, I was probably a little beyond the point that I needed another drink, but I'm not gonna pass up another double screwdriver. I'm up at the bar getting said drink, when a girl who's starting to look a little attractive walks up to order. While I still had enough of my wits about me to know that she wasn't fantastic when she walked in, so I didn't really flirt or anything. I just warned her not to impale her hand on the receipt nail, which she found really amusing.
Well, I continued to hang out for awhile, but decide that I'd better go before it gets too close to closing time. The hand-impale girl and her friends happened to leave at the same time, and I heard her yell, "Good night, Drew!" Thrown off-guard, I responded "Well, I guess I'm at a disadvantage, since you know my name, and I don't know yours." She introduced herself as Brenda, mentioned that she got my name from the bullriding and told me that she'd probably be back and asked if I would be. Since it was obvious I was a regular, I didn't deny it.
I figured that I might see her there again, but I wasn't overly worried. Well, one day I hopped onto MySpace and had a new friend request. From Brenda. She had learned my FIRST name from the bullriding contest, gone onto MySpace, and looked for people based on the bar. Considering I think I was in a different zip code than the bar, I've wondered quite a bit how large a geographic area she had checked.
More disturbing, though, might've been the fact that she had no friends on MySpace. It appeared that she had made the account just to find me...
Now, I had been forcibly acquainted with internet stalking before, so you'd think I would've learned not to have too much info on MySpace. She found my AOL Instant Messenger screenname, though, and managed to be on whenever I was. Now, I try not to be too blunt sometimes, so I would talk to her, but avoid going to her place or meeting her anywhere.
One day, she told me that she'd been divorced and asked whether that would be a problem. Well, I tried to explain to her that I had no problem with anything she'd done, since it did not affect me at all. I tried to explain that we were not, in fact, starting any sort of relationship, but she was having none of that. Finally, I started avoiding her.
Before I started ignoring her, her MySpace had gained a friend or two. They disappeared. THen most of the pictures. Then the profile. And I never heard from her again.
I believe that she was my final internet stalker, and that's been alright. But I don't think I changed my habits online.
Yep. I don't learn and I attract the strangest sorts of people.
For a period of time, I was a regular at a bar that had a mechanical bull a couple nights a week. The drinks were priced fairly and the bar staff learned who I was and my drinks: Long Island, Killer Kool-Aid, Absolut double screwdriver, and then we go from there. But this isn't really overly relevant.
The bar had ladies night every Friday, which included the bull, a DJ, and free cover for the ladies. Well, I started realizing that some of the girls liked to root for me when I rode the bull, and it made for a decent conversation start. (For those who might not have guessed, I'm not really all that good with the ladies, so I need all the help I can get.) After enough alcohol, it didn't even hurt all that badly. (Yeah, I know...it's not a real bull by any means, but the guy running the thing can really make that thing go if he wants to, and it can hurt.)
Well, one Friday, the DJ held a bull-riding contest. Everyone who wanted to participate gave the DJ their names, and the bull was to be turned to full speed immediately. The goal, of course, was eight seconds, but no one was expected to meet that lofty goal in this bar.
Considering the DJ knew me and he normally played hip-hop, I asked him to play something country for my ride. Of course, he made a big announcement about how he was playing it per my request and that I was the regular bullrider in the bunch. This, of course, increased expectations.
I lasted about two seconds, which was disappointing, but still longer than anyone else. The DJ declared me the winner and I won a free drink. Now, I was probably a little beyond the point that I needed another drink, but I'm not gonna pass up another double screwdriver. I'm up at the bar getting said drink, when a girl who's starting to look a little attractive walks up to order. While I still had enough of my wits about me to know that she wasn't fantastic when she walked in, so I didn't really flirt or anything. I just warned her not to impale her hand on the receipt nail, which she found really amusing.
Well, I continued to hang out for awhile, but decide that I'd better go before it gets too close to closing time. The hand-impale girl and her friends happened to leave at the same time, and I heard her yell, "Good night, Drew!" Thrown off-guard, I responded "Well, I guess I'm at a disadvantage, since you know my name, and I don't know yours." She introduced herself as Brenda, mentioned that she got my name from the bullriding and told me that she'd probably be back and asked if I would be. Since it was obvious I was a regular, I didn't deny it.
I figured that I might see her there again, but I wasn't overly worried. Well, one day I hopped onto MySpace and had a new friend request. From Brenda. She had learned my FIRST name from the bullriding contest, gone onto MySpace, and looked for people based on the bar. Considering I think I was in a different zip code than the bar, I've wondered quite a bit how large a geographic area she had checked.
More disturbing, though, might've been the fact that she had no friends on MySpace. It appeared that she had made the account just to find me...
Now, I had been forcibly acquainted with internet stalking before, so you'd think I would've learned not to have too much info on MySpace. She found my AOL Instant Messenger screenname, though, and managed to be on whenever I was. Now, I try not to be too blunt sometimes, so I would talk to her, but avoid going to her place or meeting her anywhere.
One day, she told me that she'd been divorced and asked whether that would be a problem. Well, I tried to explain to her that I had no problem with anything she'd done, since it did not affect me at all. I tried to explain that we were not, in fact, starting any sort of relationship, but she was having none of that. Finally, I started avoiding her.
Before I started ignoring her, her MySpace had gained a friend or two. They disappeared. THen most of the pictures. Then the profile. And I never heard from her again.
I believe that she was my final internet stalker, and that's been alright. But I don't think I changed my habits online.
Yep. I don't learn and I attract the strangest sorts of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
