Other links


One of my relatives sent an email to some of her other relatives (am I being vague enough) to say she really didn’t want photos of her to be posted on Facebook.

Once I was done laughing (since you can’t really stop anyone except by asking your relatives like she did but which won’t really help for the other 450,000 relatives, friends and/or acquaintances on FB), I emailed her back with some screen shots of how privacy works on FB and the (only 2) photos I know of her that exist on FB, just to give her an idea.

It is pretty Orwellian, but she uses Gmail (which I consider more Orwellian than FB) and suggested also check her Gmail settings and that I could send some other privacy website links, etc.

Later, I went back to FB, got sucked into the vortex and clicked on someone’s friend’s picture (hey – never hurts to look).

For whatever reason (OK I was checking him out) I looked through his photo albums (because I could). To further illustrate my point that what photos you see depends on what peoples’ privacy settings are, I emailed one of the photos I found.

Now I don’t even know this guy, but because he is a friend of a friend who has his photos marked as viewable by friends of friends I ‘get’ to see pix like this.

One relative replied, saying “Oh good god.  I’m guessing that’s NOT making you feel any better <insert requesting relative’s name here>… I know I’m a bit traumatized by it.”

THAT cracked me up.

But then the “requesting relative” sent back the following message: “now I can’t stop laughing.  what the flarg?!?”

FLARG?! Now I can’t stop laughing!!! Where does she get these words?!

So here’s the photo that inspired such reactions. I’d say this dude (the one on the left is whose photos I was looking at) is fully comfortable in his identity and quite not going to be interested in me!!

Advertisements

Click here for just-breaking information: Visiting family warps your brain, study says

Seriously?! They had to do a study to determine this?!

Have these people never met their relatives? Are they orphans? Do they live in their laboratories or are their families in far off countries or something?

Good lord, they could’ve just picked random people on the street and 98% of them could’ve told them this.

I just hope none of the government bailout money went towards this study.

Here I went and bought all those damn pink salmon toilet seats and I could’ve had this (multi-purpose) one instead.

Click on the photo to see the original post. The comments are almost better than the post.tss

I love Gizmodo…

txts

Those crazy kids…

From Gizmodo – click on image (or below) to see original post and bigger picture.

http://i.gizmodo.com/5125961/ballmers-wacky-text-messages

There’s always one: one child who’s a particularly ongoing “challenge” for h/h parent.

Not having children, I don’t have this problem, although the animals certainly qualify in their own ways. Unlike with children, however I can yell and curse and call them nasty names and they still just rub up looking for affection, without any apparent psychological damage.

Anyway, my friends and I have come up with some charming names for their children over the years:  Spawn of Satan, Child of Satan, Devil Child, child of GOD (with the emPHAsis on the “god” part to imply frustration and that the child is anything BUT).

But I was just catching up on one of my favorite blogs and found that someone (in the comments) calls h/h child Tylenol. Isn’t that perfect? Until they reach a certain age you could even call them that to their faces, which is the real beauty of it.

You can’t really say my friends’ kids nicknames to their face, other than “child of GOD,” which I might add my mother called all of us at one time or another. But we knew it wasn’t meant as a blessing…

But Tylenol is brilliant! It gets the whole heaven/hell thing out of the way and reduces the child to its pure essence.

A side note: My friends with “challenging” children were all raised catholic (I wonder if there’s a connection?!). Omar, do you know about the commenter’s religious upbringing?

Here’s a link to the post and its comments. The Tylenol reference is the 2nd to last one:  click here

Due to a couple hundred apparently bored people looking at a post from late February on icanhazcheezburger,* I not only had a record number of people referred to my site, but a record number of page views today.

It was so good that my total number of page views hit 6000 today, which I wasn’t expecting for a few more days!

Now for someone like the late-lamented-but-not-late omarphillips.net or a site like gizmodo.com, which receive about a bazillion hits a day, my numbers would be pitiful.

And don’t get me wrong – I was excited that blogher.com mentioned my post Heart attacks: part of the “economic stimulus package” but it didn’t generate nearly the traffic that cheez did.

And for me, a humble person in the flyover zone who talks to herself a lot, this is big. Unfortunately, the post they linked to was kind of lame-o without the background story.

To see that, click the above link, look for This just in: L’il F****er, and go to the link in it for the premature eulogy and (what I think is) a better entry than what they linked to (which is done automatically).

Or just click here and skip all that: Li’l F####er—a eulogy?

Given that my sister Grace, my friend Susan, my colleague Brett and an occasional uncle or two (Bob & Chris) are my “core audience,” getting to 6000 people in one year is pretty good. Today excepted, that means my core audience has (on average) each looked at my blog over 1200 times last year. Thanks you guys! Where do you find the time?

I’ve said before that the numbers aren’t as meaningful as providing people enjoyment, but we all know that’s bull*&^-: I want both.

*I don’t get it either…

Man Puts Entire Life Up for Auction

Woman Goes for Leg Operation, Gets New Anus Instead

Gender-Bending Barnacles Grow Huge Penises in Rough Waters

Next Page »