As you might have seen on Golden's site, we are a bit distracted right now. We should find out the sex of the baby today. Oh yeah, and it's Valentine's Day. I am lucky Golden is the way she is because most women wouldn't put up with my attitude about this specific holiday. I'll probably post more on that later this week, though.
Check back to Golden's site later today for an update. I may mention it in notes as well, but I have been letting her post the baby stuff more because she is better at it.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
routine
When I was growing up my mom used to quote her grandfather to me when I put something down in the wrong place like a jacket on the floor or the TV remote in the fridge.
"A place for everything and everything in it's place."
Due to this environmental and genetic influence on my life I have grown to greatly appreciate routine, planning, and consistency. I have tried to apply this to every aspect of my life and I have generally succeeded. On my blog, though, I see where I haven't succeeded.
I have generally gotten into the routine where I post on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday. On Monday and Thursday I try to post shorter stuff so people can easily access the previous post. I often move the more mundane posts to Wednesday and Saturday because of the fewer weekdays that they will be at the top of the page. This works great for me so long as nothing messes with my routine.
Why have I not followed this structure for the past week? Mostly because I still haven't worked the schedule back into place after attending the funeral services last week and dealing with homework and taxes this weekend. Does this mean I have freed myself of the bondage of routine? Never!
A few more days and I will have this schedule back on track.
"A place for everything and everything in it's place."
Due to this environmental and genetic influence on my life I have grown to greatly appreciate routine, planning, and consistency. I have tried to apply this to every aspect of my life and I have generally succeeded. On my blog, though, I see where I haven't succeeded.
I have generally gotten into the routine where I post on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday. On Monday and Thursday I try to post shorter stuff so people can easily access the previous post. I often move the more mundane posts to Wednesday and Saturday because of the fewer weekdays that they will be at the top of the page. This works great for me so long as nothing messes with my routine.
Why have I not followed this structure for the past week? Mostly because I still haven't worked the schedule back into place after attending the funeral services last week and dealing with homework and taxes this weekend. Does this mean I have freed myself of the bondage of routine? Never!
A few more days and I will have this schedule back on track.
Friday, February 10, 2006
ice ice under pressure
duhh duh duhh duh duh duhh duhhh
duhh duh duhh duh duh duhh duhhh
When you hear the familiar bassline do you first think of Ice, Ice Baby or Under Pressure? If you think of Under Pressure do you think of the Queen rendition or the cover by My Chemical Romance?
I have a theory that there are few measures that are more telling about what age a person is than which song a person starts singing when they hear that bassline. For as sheltered as I was growing up, I still recognize it as Vanilla Ice's theme. If Golden or myself hear the bassline for any reason (even if it is for the song Under Pressure) we will start singing "Ice ice baby too cold too cold." I have noticed that people just a little older than myself tend to think more about Queen. I have to assume that someone much younger will only easily remember the recent cover by My Chemical Romance that has gotten a lot of radio playing time.
So which song do you think about and how does that correlate to your age?
duhh duh duhh duh duh duhh duhhh
When you hear the familiar bassline do you first think of Ice, Ice Baby or Under Pressure? If you think of Under Pressure do you think of the Queen rendition or the cover by My Chemical Romance?
I have a theory that there are few measures that are more telling about what age a person is than which song a person starts singing when they hear that bassline. For as sheltered as I was growing up, I still recognize it as Vanilla Ice's theme. If Golden or myself hear the bassline for any reason (even if it is for the song Under Pressure) we will start singing "Ice ice baby too cold too cold." I have noticed that people just a little older than myself tend to think more about Queen. I have to assume that someone much younger will only easily remember the recent cover by My Chemical Romance that has gotten a lot of radio playing time.
So which song do you think about and how does that correlate to your age?
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
speaker for the dead
Orson Scott Card introduced the concept of a "speaker for the dead" in his Ender series of books twenty years ago. The idea is that this "speaker" would investigate a person's life after his or her death and in a memorial service of sorts relay the absolute truth about how that person lived--good and bad. This would obviously cause distress to anyone who wanted to keep things in his or her family life hidden and was used in the series for the shock value that such a telling could provide.
As most people reading this blog know, Golden and I went to her grandfather's funeral this week. There were different things that I could comment on the proceedings that stuck out to me like the great volume of people who went to his viewing, the fact that the service was performed outdoors in February, or that family politics is always very intriguing to watch. What stuck out to me the most was that many people had a different portrait in their minds of this man than I did.
Through the past two days I have determined that you can tell a lot about how close a person was to the deceased by what good things they choose to say about him or her. In this case one of the most accurate that I heard was that he was a very giving person. He was very giving. He was also a very nice person to get to know. I didn't hear that one quite so much. Interestingly, it seemed to me that some people chose at random what good traits to apply to him, though, because some did not really apply. I am not saying that he was a bad person, but he was human and everyone is lacking in some positive traits.
I feel it is only fair to use myself as an example. If anyone uses any of the following to describe me after my death, I will have either changed greatly or that person will not have known the true me very well.
As most people reading this blog know, Golden and I went to her grandfather's funeral this week. There were different things that I could comment on the proceedings that stuck out to me like the great volume of people who went to his viewing, the fact that the service was performed outdoors in February, or that family politics is always very intriguing to watch. What stuck out to me the most was that many people had a different portrait in their minds of this man than I did.
Through the past two days I have determined that you can tell a lot about how close a person was to the deceased by what good things they choose to say about him or her. In this case one of the most accurate that I heard was that he was a very giving person. He was very giving. He was also a very nice person to get to know. I didn't hear that one quite so much. Interestingly, it seemed to me that some people chose at random what good traits to apply to him, though, because some did not really apply. I am not saying that he was a bad person, but he was human and everyone is lacking in some positive traits.
I feel it is only fair to use myself as an example. If anyone uses any of the following to describe me after my death, I will have either changed greatly or that person will not have known the true me very well.
- He was always selflessly giving
- He never said "I told you so"
- He never failed God
- He always had his priorities right
- He put others ahead of himself
Sunday, February 05, 2006
big five
First of all, it will probably be Tuesday night or Wednesday before I post again. Golden's grandfather passed away this weekend so we are going to Springfield to be with her family for a couple of days. For more on that go to Golden's site.
For the lack of a good segue, I have always seen myself as a little off-center from the norm and I think I now have proof. I am currently taking Organizational Behavior and had to take a test called the "Big Five." The idea is that this does a better job than Myers-Briggs at providing useful information to employers about how good an employee will do in a specific job. It has five measurements rather than four and it contains several submeasurements within the main five. Since this test is supposed to be pretty specific it took about 45 minutes for me to complete.
Apparently most people will score average on most measurements. Apparently I am not most people. I stayed completely out of the middle 60% on all measurements. Here is how I scored.
Extroversion: Low (20th percentile). This isn't a surprise. Actually it was higher than I expected. I usually like being an introvert anyway.
Agreeableness: High (81st percentile). This is a measure of how much you are willing to sacrifice your own happiness for others'. Too high and you're a doormat. I am nearly to level where I need to tattoo the word "Welcome" on my forehead.
Conscientiousness: High (91st percentile). This is a measure of how goal-oriented you are and how focused you will remain in completing your goals. Someone who is high in conscientiousness but low in agreeableness is a competitive jerk. Someone who is high in conscientiousness and high in agreeableness is a competitive jerk who disguises it really well.
Neuroticism: High (84th percentile). This relates to how easily stressed you are. Few will deny that I am a neurotic. More will question how I got something as low as the 84th percentile.
Openness to experience: Low (17th percentile). This measures how much you like change. Needless to say, I prefer cash.
For the lack of a good segue, I have always seen myself as a little off-center from the norm and I think I now have proof. I am currently taking Organizational Behavior and had to take a test called the "Big Five." The idea is that this does a better job than Myers-Briggs at providing useful information to employers about how good an employee will do in a specific job. It has five measurements rather than four and it contains several submeasurements within the main five. Since this test is supposed to be pretty specific it took about 45 minutes for me to complete.
Apparently most people will score average on most measurements. Apparently I am not most people. I stayed completely out of the middle 60% on all measurements. Here is how I scored.
Extroversion: Low (20th percentile). This isn't a surprise. Actually it was higher than I expected. I usually like being an introvert anyway.
Agreeableness: High (81st percentile). This is a measure of how much you are willing to sacrifice your own happiness for others'. Too high and you're a doormat. I am nearly to level where I need to tattoo the word "Welcome" on my forehead.
Conscientiousness: High (91st percentile). This is a measure of how goal-oriented you are and how focused you will remain in completing your goals. Someone who is high in conscientiousness but low in agreeableness is a competitive jerk. Someone who is high in conscientiousness and high in agreeableness is a competitive jerk who disguises it really well.
Neuroticism: High (84th percentile). This relates to how easily stressed you are. Few will deny that I am a neurotic. More will question how I got something as low as the 84th percentile.
Openness to experience: Low (17th percentile). This measures how much you like change. Needless to say, I prefer cash.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
why shakedust
A few people have asked why I go by shakedust, so here is the story.
When I was in high school I was in Bible quizzing for one year in a non-denominational league. In that year I determined that I was either not going to study at all or go all out. I eventually went all out. That meant that I went to more tournaments than I would have otherwise attended.
Most teams had names that simply described where they were from like Berien, or Quad Cities, or Pittsburgh, or Detroit. Some teams had cute names. Our church team was called the Outcasts based on some verse from Jeremiah. The team name Gardner Chapel would have sufficed, but at the time we thought a cheesy team name would be fun. I still think it was.
That year the league from Akron sent two very good teams to a tournament that I attended. One was called Return of the Magi and one was called Shake the Dust. The names were out of two separate passages in Matthew. In the main quizzing room the scoreboard could only hold so many letters so long team names were abbreviated. When I saw the Shake the Dust team playing in that room for some reason the condensed Shake Dust looked cool to me and it stuck in my memory.
Fast forward to my Freshman year in college about six months later. My roommate was setting up my first IM name for me. He asked what I would like to use. I literally came up with ideas for twenty straight minutes and everything that I liked was already taken. In an act of desperation I asked if shakedust was taken. It wasn't. I used it.
Now I frequently use shakedust as a username because it is almost never taken. In fact if it is taken when I try to use it, I usually assume that I must have already requested that username at that site before and go to the "Forgot your password" section of the site.
There you have it. The name originated out of practicality rather than something incredibly deep. At least "Off the Bridge" has some meaning.
When I was in high school I was in Bible quizzing for one year in a non-denominational league. In that year I determined that I was either not going to study at all or go all out. I eventually went all out. That meant that I went to more tournaments than I would have otherwise attended.
Most teams had names that simply described where they were from like Berien, or Quad Cities, or Pittsburgh, or Detroit. Some teams had cute names. Our church team was called the Outcasts based on some verse from Jeremiah. The team name Gardner Chapel would have sufficed, but at the time we thought a cheesy team name would be fun. I still think it was.
That year the league from Akron sent two very good teams to a tournament that I attended. One was called Return of the Magi and one was called Shake the Dust. The names were out of two separate passages in Matthew. In the main quizzing room the scoreboard could only hold so many letters so long team names were abbreviated. When I saw the Shake the Dust team playing in that room for some reason the condensed Shake Dust looked cool to me and it stuck in my memory.
Fast forward to my Freshman year in college about six months later. My roommate was setting up my first IM name for me. He asked what I would like to use. I literally came up with ideas for twenty straight minutes and everything that I liked was already taken. In an act of desperation I asked if shakedust was taken. It wasn't. I used it.
Now I frequently use shakedust as a username because it is almost never taken. In fact if it is taken when I try to use it, I usually assume that I must have already requested that username at that site before and go to the "Forgot your password" section of the site.
There you have it. The name originated out of practicality rather than something incredibly deep. At least "Off the Bridge" has some meaning.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
hi, my name is dust...
What's your name?
Where do you work?
Have you lived in the area a while?
Do you have a family?
In my life I have noticed two types of people when dealing with small talk. One type of person excels once the typical initial small talk topics are exhausted and one doesn't. I know there are in actuality more than two types of people in the world, but for my purposes today there are only two. In my experience I have actually been both types of people, and probably the first more than the last, so I hope this doesn't come across as terrifically biased.
The first type of person is the type who wants to talk about only his or her main five or six topics. If you are unable to talk to this person about one of those topics the conversation will not last longer than three minutes. This is definitely something I battle with. I have topics that I want to discuss and I will often force the issue on people who could care less. Lately, all I have talked about is school. Soon all I will talk about is the baby. Who is looking forward to that?
The second type of person can show genuine interest in what just about anyone has to say either because that person is either incredibly well-rounded or because that person cares that others don't feel left out. I continually aspire to be this type of person. This is especially the case when I catch myself ranting about a pet topic for an extended period of time. I try to know a little bit about everything so that I can talk to just about anyone on one of their pet topics for at least five minutes, but in most cases I can't always go much further.
I have noticed that one way around the problem of knowing pet topics is allowing the other person to talk about themselves. Everyone likes talking about himself or herself. When I do that I have a habit of interrupting the other person when I decide that it's time to talk about me. I don't think there are many people who aren't thinking about what they are going to say about themselves while they are listening to someone else give a virtual autobiography.
The problem I have is that I get the most satisfaction now when I talk about what I want to talk about, but I feel better about myself later when I have talked to someone about what they wanted to talk about. Even when I am selfish I can't win.
Where do you work?
Have you lived in the area a while?
Do you have a family?
In my life I have noticed two types of people when dealing with small talk. One type of person excels once the typical initial small talk topics are exhausted and one doesn't. I know there are in actuality more than two types of people in the world, but for my purposes today there are only two. In my experience I have actually been both types of people, and probably the first more than the last, so I hope this doesn't come across as terrifically biased.
The first type of person is the type who wants to talk about only his or her main five or six topics. If you are unable to talk to this person about one of those topics the conversation will not last longer than three minutes. This is definitely something I battle with. I have topics that I want to discuss and I will often force the issue on people who could care less. Lately, all I have talked about is school. Soon all I will talk about is the baby. Who is looking forward to that?
The second type of person can show genuine interest in what just about anyone has to say either because that person is either incredibly well-rounded or because that person cares that others don't feel left out. I continually aspire to be this type of person. This is especially the case when I catch myself ranting about a pet topic for an extended period of time. I try to know a little bit about everything so that I can talk to just about anyone on one of their pet topics for at least five minutes, but in most cases I can't always go much further.
I have noticed that one way around the problem of knowing pet topics is allowing the other person to talk about themselves. Everyone likes talking about himself or herself. When I do that I have a habit of interrupting the other person when I decide that it's time to talk about me. I don't think there are many people who aren't thinking about what they are going to say about themselves while they are listening to someone else give a virtual autobiography.
The problem I have is that I get the most satisfaction now when I talk about what I want to talk about, but I feel better about myself later when I have talked to someone about what they wanted to talk about. Even when I am selfish I can't win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
