subscribe
about this blog
carnivals
The Accretionary Wedge
Linnaeus' Legacy
Berry Go Round
cepawrimo
CetiosauriscusOrnithopoda
comments
archive
ego massage
wishlist
networks
blog
A palaeontology student living in West London funding my own part-time PhD because it's cheaper than going full-time.
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
What, Three Posts In One Day?
posted by Julia @ 7:39 PM
|
Ah, but you see, when I got home this evening I had a letter. It was a worrying letter, being rather thin and sent from an academic institution. Anyone who's ever applied for grad school will know that most universities can't resist shoving something extra in the envelope when they make you an offer, but a single sheet of paper is usually a rejection.
But not this time. It was my provisional offer letter (to be confirmed by official letter from the Registrary) for my PhD! By the looks of things I'll be starting my PhD on 23 April this year, but I'm sure that will be confirmed later.
And you know what? When I go to SVP this year, underneath my name (still Julia Heathcote for palaeontology purposes) I will have "Birkbeck College, University of London". It took three years, but by golly I've done it. I am now in no worse a state than I was before I went to St Louis, academically, and probably better for it.
It really takes the edge off all the crap I went through at Wash U. And it'll be nice to go to the cinema and hand over a nice bright shiny Birkbeck ID card, rather than the Wash U card that foolishly has no expiry date on it.
My family are delighted! It hasn't totally sunk in yet, but I'm off to put on my "Palaeontology students make better lovers" t-shirt, and that might bring it home.
So Proud Of My Little Brother
posted by Julia @ 5:22 PM
|
Not only has Ben sacrificed vital funding-application-writing hours to sort out the "catastrofuck" that was my website (specifically the website-blog interface), but I've just been on his website and he's put one of his songs on there for our listening pleasure. Talented little bugger isn't he? I'm a very proud big sister. And I owe him a big bottle of Jameson's for his l33t web skillz...
How Many States Have You Visited?
posted by Julia @ 1:39 PM
|
To date, I've notched up 28 states in the USA (although this includes DC). I haven't spent the night in all of them (it's not overly easy to do so on the interstate going through Delaware), but I have at least had a coffee and a doughnut in each (and given the amount of coffee I've drunk I probably break even on fluid content in each state).
There are some glaring omissions. My dad and his friends will be appalled that I have not yet been to Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine. Kansas is an island of non-visitation, although it was not for lack of trying. The Deep South is virgin territory for me, although Paul my husband did a big old road trip from Chapel Hill, NC, to New Orleans, LA, in 2000. And he's been to Florida. Twice.
But my biggest regret is that I have not yet been to Montana. We were no more than 10-20 miles away from it whilst on honeymoon, but we simply did not have the time to do the state justice. I remember looking north from Yellowstone and feeling an incredible pull to the wilderness ahead of me, but we had to save it for another time.
So what's next? Well, the other 23! SVP is going to be in Cleveland in 2008, and I'm debating whether to go west or east round the lakes. West would allow us to do Michigan, east would mean Paul could see Niagara Falls for the first time. One day we are determined to drive from San Francisco to Los Angeles. And of course, Montana. The irony of flying thousands of miles to see Glacier National Park before the glaciers melt forever is not lost on me. Any low-carbon suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Friday, 23 February 2007
More Answers
posted by Julia @ 10:55 PM
|
Jesse/Tiffani (come on, which is it?) has responded (again without the courage of their convictions to publicly comment):
You should never presume anything and since I never said that my attitude about rape curtailed to women in short skirts with spiked drinks. Once again, I never doubted your claim, all I did was ask a question reguarding your statement and your blog. Perhaps you and I have been in the same boat at some point, but my response to your blog had nothing to do with rape, it was all about assault. I just can't understand how you felt that you could not say no to an entourage of alcoholic drinks, in my eyes, either you are going to drink, or you are not. Although I believe that you have somehow taken my e-mail with alot more discontent. i did not want you to think that I was putting you downn or trying to put holes through any of your story. Perhaps, because it is hard to judge emotion through text, you have misunderstood.
No, you are the one who has misunderstood. I never said that your attitude was specifically to do with rape - I merely used it as an analogy to show the difference between engaging in a behaviour consensually and being forced into doing something which you do not want to do and feel uncomfortable doing. You may think that any person could resist, but you were not subject to the psychological manipulation that Smith put me and others through. If you had happened to tell me, before I left the UK for St Louis, that he would make me do things I did not want to do, I would not have believed you - I would have been sure that I could have resisted.
But you have deeply, deeply offended me - you have accused me either of being weak, or of lying in my statement to Student Life. You may say that you are not "putting [me] down or trying to put holes through any of [my] story" but essentially you are saying that what I said in Student Life and what I said in my blog do not tie up, and therefore one of them must be a lie. And this is just one more accusation of lying that I have endured since 2004.
To give you another analogy (in the hope that this rams my point home), a depressed person can be happy sometimes. You may see a contradiction between someone who on the one hand chose to drink in a controlled situation and on the other hand was coerced into engaging in behaviour with which they were not comfortable in a situation which they felt they could not escape, but I assure you there is no contradiction - the difference is a matter of consent.
If you can honestly say that if you (as presumably a teetotaller) would have calmly refused all alcoholic drinks, no matter how persuasive, manipulative or intimidating he was towards you, that you would have left the bar (in a city you didn't know) and gone back to a hotel (to which you didn't know the directions), and you would not have been attacked for this reason, then you are a better man/woman than I am and I applaud your strength of character. If, however, you think that this would in any way have protected you from the ensuing assault, then you do not know Josh Smith.
Answering Jesse/Tiffani
posted by Julia @ 9:03 PM
|
What a delightful e-mail I've received (through the fill-in-able form on the front page rather than risking publication via the blog comments form). "Jesse" has been very careful to only leave his/her first name and an anonymous e-mail, but what they didn't bank on was that the form relies on a genuine Outlook-based account from which to send the e-mail. I doubt Tiffani of Waldorf, MD, will be thrilled at the prospect of her e-mail account being used in vain. Oh dear Jesse...
Anyway, here was Jesse's post to me (to maintain the spirit of the thing I've left all the spelling mistakes in):
I have one question reguarding this post, if you don't mind me being upfront and completely honest. I have followed the "alleged" assualt issue with some speculation, and I was just curious as to how you could say in this blog that you had a good time, danced on the bar and happily drank the free shots offered to you by the bartender for doing so, and on the other hand (and I quote) "Heathcote said that Smith pressured her to imbibe multipul alcoholic drinks in a way she felt she could not refuse" (Student Life Volume 128 No. 19) Now excuse me for being blunt, but you are a grown woman, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to force a grown up to drink, against her will. I will not take sides on the matter, I would just like to find some truth in both sides of the story. I have heard you talk about the events that occured during your stay here in the states, and most of it is about how this man ruined your life, hopes, and dreams but here I read differently, the story in this blog does not match up with the story and interveiws I have read. Please don't think that I am putting you down, or doubting your story, because you have made plenty of valid points, I'm just a curious observer. In reguard to your post "It's True..."
I am a married woman. I like to have sex with my husband. I like to have sex a lot with my husband. That is my decision, on my terms, with the man I want to have sex with. If I were to be raped, that is not my decision, nor is it on my terms, nor is it with the man I want to have sex with. If I have not given my consent, if I am pressured into it, or if I do not feel I can say no, then that is an unacceptable situation. In the same way, I like to drink alcohol. I drink the alcohol I like, on my own terms, at my own pace. If I am made to drink a type of alcohol I do not like, if I am pressured into it, if I am put into a situation where I do not feel I can say no, then that again is an unacceptable situation.
I presume, Jesse, that you are one of those people who assume that any woman wearing a skirt shorter than knee-length is asking to be raped, that any woman who has her drink spiked is a loose hussy because she shouldn't have been out drinking in a bar. It is attitudes like yours, Jesse, which made the complaint process so difficult. And if you bother to read the rest of my blog, rather than the bits that suit you, you'll see that I make a big point of questioning your ignorant and bigoted attitude to the assault and rape of women - Josh Smith Redux.
Josh Smith is a violent, sociopathic, mysogynistic cunt. And people like you allow him and others like him to get away with victimising women (grown or otherwise) unchecked.
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Just Fancy That!
posted by Julia @ 9:13 PM
|
Harry "to be sent to Iraq":
Blair announces Iraq troops cut:
Blair announces Iraq troops cut:
Coincidence? Gosh, it wouldn't look very good for Blair's "legacy" if the third in line to the throne was killed by insurgents would it? Or worse, "friendly fire"... Let us hope for as few deaths as possible until the eventual withdrawal of troops.
I'm A Mandarin!
posted by Julia @ 6:48 PM
|
I don't often do these, but this I liked. However silly and contrived these surveys are, the answer paragraph describes exactly how I feel about life, the universe and everything. Yes it's a one-size-fits-all sort of thing, and most of the friends I have who've done the quiz have come out as "Talent" (so maybe my friends all actually think I'm a bit of a dick...), but nice one to whoever wrote it for being able to describe my philosophy more succinctly than I ever could.
You're an intellectual, and you've worked hard to get where you are now. You're a strong believer in education, and you think many of the world's problems could be solved if people were more informed and more rational. You have no tolerance for sloppy or lazy thinking. It frustrates you when people who are ignorant or dishonest rise to positions of power. You believe that people can make a difference in the world, and you're determined to try.Talent: 38% Lifer: 36% Mandarin: 64%
Take the Talent, Lifer, or Mandarin quiz.
Friday, 16 February 2007
How Irresponsible Can You Get?
posted by Julia @ 1:17 PM
|
I'm on my lunch break, I need a low-intellect paper to pass the time, I can't be bothered to buy the Evening Standard and the Londonpaper is filthy (literally, I have black inky hands after handling it), so I'm reading the London Lite.
I'm appalled to read "Fly clubber class for an all-nighter: Hit Europe after work Friday, dance until dawn - and you won't even have to pay for a hotel" by Martha De Lacey, on page 12-13 (sorry, no online version, not that the text gives away much more than the headline). How bloody irresponsible, as we are being urged not to fly (among other things) in a last desperate attempt to save our planet from dying (seriously not an exaggeration), to encourage City professionals to fly to Antwerp purely for the sake of clubbing.
On the grand scheme of things, this article is nothing compared to the editorial line of the entire Associated Newspapers group (and yes, I know they're one of my former employer's biggest clients, and no I don't give a monkey's). ANL sit politically just to the right of Oswald Moseley.
So shame, shame, shame Martha De Lacey. It's a pity you couldn't even be bothered to offset your flight (not that offsetting makes it okay, but at least it might have reduced the kicking you've just given the Earth). Your actions were irresponsible and showed a lack of appreciation for the world you live in.
Thursday, 15 February 2007
I'm Not Happy
posted by Julia @ 7:31 PM
|
Had some shitty news on the Wash U front. Well, no, not really "news" as such, but "turn of events" maybe. I know I can't really talk about it publicly, at least not yet. It's just a realisation, shall we say, that something I assumed had been done (in fact, something I was told had been done) has not been done.
I feel a bit low tonight. Teddy sometimes gets like this - just mopes around looking mournful. I'm mostly doing that. Can't be bothered to cook, so thank goodness for fish pies. I thought I really was getting over it all but today I was reminded of what an unpleasant and unfair situation it all was.
That is all.
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
A Lovely Birthday
posted by Julia @ 1:59 PM
|
As far as birthdays go, this one was pretty good. I am now the proud owner of a Nikon Coolpix L6 digicam plus accessories. I'm hoping it'll be a nice bright sunny weekend so I can get out and learn how to use it.
I took in a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts to share with my co-workers. None of them had ever had them before, but I am pleased to report that they are all addicted now. I had a few cards, including one from my boss - even though he was on holiday at the time. Then I was treated to lunch at Shelley's by my fantastic husband. One very strong margarita later I rolled back to work. Then one of my workmates took me for a drink after work before Paul and I headed home. He cooked me steak (very rare), cheesy mash and beans, followed by chocolate cake and all washed down with a bottle of mosel.
I don't tell Paul this very often (it would go to his head), but he really is the most amazing husband in the world. We don't have very much money - we literally cannot afford another mouth to feed, human or animal. We have a one-bedroom flat, albeit a reasonably large one, and we can't afford a mortgage anywhere within about 40 miles of London. Neither of us is doing what we both really want to do (our PhDs full-time and fully-funded). But he loves me to bits, whatever happens, and he thinks I'm the most beautiful woman in the world, even when I'm wearing my fat pants and my favourite oversized Rams sweatshirt. How much better to be poor but in love than to have the nice house and the flash car but to be turning into strangers.
So does it really get any better than this?
Monday, 12 February 2007
Darwin And Dinosaurs
posted by Julia @ 10:46 AM
|
Happy Darwin Day to scientists all over the world. For the uninitiated, Darwin Day celebrates the birthday of Charles Darwin, the British naturalist, and the publication of his book "On The Origin Of Species". His is the theory from which all evolutionary science stems. He is the theme of the first lecture in Macroevolution, to be swiftly followed by Ernst Mayr and George Gaylord Simpson. I hope the various celebrations in academic institutions will give a boost to all evolutionary scientists struggling to prevent intelligent design from being taught in school science classes. I will probably have more to say about that in a later blog entry.
Saturday night saw the screen premiere of "Primeval", the new "blockbuster" ITV drama series. As a member of the GfK TV panel I was able to see a preview of the first episode a couple of months ago. I loved "Walking With Dinosaurs". I was quite taken with the concept of "Prehistoric Park", although I will forever be rooting for something big and toothy to eat Nigel Marven and I can't understand the point of "rescuing" creatures from just before they go extinct - surely specimens from when they were strongest and most widespread would be better than the weakened stragglers at the demise of a species? I suppose I'm picking holes (they used a freakin' time machine so scientific accuracy is clearly not their main aim).
I happen to think "Primeval" is an okay storyline (time machine notwithstanding). The animals are fairly well-animated. But I'm fairly sure (didn't bother watching it again on Saturday so I'm going on what I can remember from the preview) some of the creatures were referred to as dinosaurs, and the palaeontologist did nothing to correct this fact. There is a list of the animals seen so far - Coelurosauravus (a pterosaur - NOT a dinosaur), Scutosaurus (a pareiasaur - NOT a dinosaur, think the current theory is that its closest living relatives are turtles but don't quote me on that) and a generic gorgonopsid (very scary mammal-like reptile). Looking down the list of future species, the first actual dinosaur we get to is Hesperornis, followed by Dodo (but they spelt Hesperornis incorrectly). And they will, no doubt, be referred to simply as birds.
The newspapers have perpetuated the myth, referring in their reviews to all the big scary dinosaurs. I weep for the misinformation of the masses. Dinosaurs comprise only a very small proportion of prehistoric life. Dinosaurs are generally defined as all the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Triceratops and modern birds, although I have read mutterings on the Dinosaur Mailing List in favour of revising the definition to the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Megalosaurus and Iguanodon. So what does this mean? It means pterosaurs (the flying reptiles) are NOT dinosaurs. It means plesiosaurs (Loch Ness Monster-types) and ichthyosaurs (the ones that look like dolphins) are NOT dinosaurs. It means crocodiles and lizards are NOT dinosaurs. It means that mammoths are NOT dinosaurs.
This is not difficult stuff. Children are cleverer than we give them credit for, and they work it out. Kids love classifying things - they are the greatest amateur taxonomists around. Don't tell them everything is a dinosaur. At best they'll work it out and then just be annoyed that you lied to them. At worst they'll grow up to be as ignorant as you are.
Example - Jade on America's Next Top Model (Paul and I are addicted - it's embarrassing!):
Shooting with an elephant reminds me of ancient dinosaurs. Because they are in the dinosaur family.
Whaaaaat? The dinosaur/not-dinosaur distinction (or lack of it in the world) is a pet hate of mine. A few weeks ago I took a friend's son to the Natural History Museum. It was his birthday treat. He's a very clever kid - he worked out that the bit of dinosaur bone I gave him was probably from a Triceratops and that delighted him, although Velociraptor is still his favourite. Halfway round the main dinosaurs exhibit, we stopped for a rest. In front of him were big screens on which pictures of various animals flashed up, and in front a set of voting buttons which visitors were invited to press depending on whether they thought the animal was a dinosaur or not. My friend's son got every single one correct, although we did have a conversation about why I think the feature needs to be updated so the answer for Archaeopteryx is "yes" rather than "no"...
So if my friend's very bright eleven-year-old son has been able to teach himself all about palaeontology from reading books, why is it so difficult for reasonably intelligent adults (all the journalists I know, who would NEVER call a pareiasaur a dinosaur, have university degrees) to look it all up in a book likewise? Can we have more palaeontological accuracy please? Without this, how can we expect to have increased scientific literacy all round?
Sunday, 11 February 2007
A Request
posted by Julia @ 7:41 PM
|
I'm getting quite a few comments now, and most of them have been very pleasant and supportive. I like to encourage discussion in my comments form, and it's nice to be able to acknowledge people by name.
Since moving the blog over onto Blogger, I have many more tools open to me. I now have Statcounter statistics so I can see how people are searching for me, what terms they're using when they find me, how they move through my website and even how their RSS feeds are set up. It's brilliant! The one disadvantage is that the IP addresses are no longer associated with the individual comments.
Rest assured, if someone posts an abusive or libellous comment Blogger WILL be able to tell me who it is, and I WILL be able to contact their ISP. But at the moment it's not really that aspect that I'm concerned about.
I've had a couple of anonymous but really touching comments about my recent PhD problems. It would have been nice to be able to thank the people who posted the comments by name. So could I make a plea with you all to either use your Gmail/Blogger login when you post a comment, or to select the Other option? You don't need to put in a URL, but a name would be nice. I can't disable the option, but I'd like to ask you not to use Anonymous unless you have a really good reason for not wanting to be identified. I can't think of any good reasons.
Unless you're Dick Cheney and you want to agree with me about my anti-Bush rants...
Saturday, 10 February 2007
Must Get This Out Of My System
posted by Julia @ 7:06 PM
|
I joined Facebook the other day. I thought it would be good to get back in touch with old university friends, plus Sarah said it was highly addictive and I'm always looking for the next online fix. In practice, most of the people who are on there from Cambridge are the ones who were a bit too cool to talk to me, so I suspect they'll be a bit too cool to talk to me now.
But one thing I've found is that I'm actually embarrassed to talk to old uni friends and classmates, because I've achieved nothing. I was at a party last week and spoke to a palaeontology PhD student (who sponged three nights in our hotel room at a conference in 2004 and never thanked or paid me for it but that's beside the point). The moment I said I was a personal assistant her eyes glazed over and she walked off. So I'm feeling pretty insignificant right now.
It took £1000s for me to move back from the USA and start again. I can't go full-time as a PhD student because I simply have too much debt. I can't survive on a studentship. I've suffered the knock-on effects of quitting the PhD. Two days after I got back I made an appointment to see my bank manager to get my UK finances back on track and sort out a plan for the next few years. My bank manager told me that as I hadn't graduated from my course in the USA, my student overdraft was no longer valid and I was going to be expected to pay back the £1000 or so I owed immediately. This was despite the fact that I had graduated from both Cambridge and London two years and one year previously. It won't surprise you to know that the bank concerned was HSBC.
Twice I was stopped at US Immigration. Because I had left the course, my visa was cancelled. According to Wash U, there is only one "positive" reason for cancelling a visa, and that is voluntary withdrawal (what I did). All the other reasons are "negative", and are recorded as such on SEVIS. So immigration officers saw my cancelled visa and assumed I'd done something bad. I was nearly refused entry. I spent an hour in the other room in the Immigration hall, absolutely terrified. I don't see how withdrawing from a programme can affect one's ability to enter the country again. For that matter, how does failing the course (another valid reason for having a visa cancelled) affect it? Not everyone who leaves a US course before obtaining the degree has committed a criminal or immigration offence. Probably hardly anyone in fact.
So now, seasoned traveller that I am, I get really nervous when I get to US Immigration. I am terrified of being refused entry. I don't go just on holiday - three out of the past four trips have been conferences. So if I were denied entry I would be unable to present at the conference, which would affect my academic reputation.
It seems that I'm punished for quitting, even though that was the only feasible option for me. And because I'm punished I feel like a failure. I am not entitled to alumna status with Wash U because I didn't graduate. So I am denied the opportunity to keep up with friends and classmates. But on the plus side at least there's one academic institution not asking me for money.
I can't shake this feeling of failure. And it's worse because the PhD application process is going. So it's a sort of Schrodinger's Cat situation. Up until the moment the box is opened the optimist can convince themselves that the cat is still alive. Up until I get the decision letter from Birkbeck I can convince myself that I will get the place. But the pessimist, the realist in me, says the cat is probably dead.
I'm prepared for further failure, but I don't know what I'm going to do if it happens. Still, I must get this awful self-doubt out of my system before I go for drinks with Sarah on Monday. A grown woman crying into a glass of pinot grigio is seldom an attractive sight.
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
Letter Bombs
posted by Julia @ 11:45 AM
|
Not sure how widely this has been reported outside of London, but yesterday a letter bomb exploded at the Capita building in Victoria (about a mile from where I work). This morning another one exploded at the Vantis office in Wokingham, which is just west of London. The two companies are unrelated.
I will leave the police and the politicians to speculate on who is responsible for the attacks. The newspapers are saying this is more the MO of the anti-animal-testing gangs and the IRA than Al-Qaeda. It may even be just a disgruntled employee.
But we were discussing this at work just now. If a letter bomb is designed to cause injury to the addressee, then it seriously won't work! I do not know of any senior manager who opens his or her own post anymore. I have been a PA for nearly three years and I opened all my managers' post. I open Alex's today. The director general of a trade association is unlikely to be the subject of a letter bomb campaign, but nevertheless if someone had a grudge against him and decided the way to go about it was to send him a letter bomb, it would be muggins here who got hurt. Most managers aren't even in the same room as their PAs when the post is opened. I know mine isn't.
I've joked that maybe I should ask for a pay rise as I could do with the danger money.
Monday, 5 February 2007
How Come...
posted by Julia @ 12:16 PM
|
...People only ever comment on my non-scientific blog posts? Come on people - I try to inject some seriousness into the blog from time to time (mindful of the fact that the website houses my CV and research interests)! I don't think I'm using excessively complex language.
It Seems I Did Not Just Hear That
posted by Julia @ 10:38 AM
|
I was wrong. As some nice bloggers (and some not-so-nice ones) have pointed out, it is almost certain that the spectators were chanting "Moooooose" and not booing Muhsin Muhammad. I am glad to have been proven wrong.
What is interesting is that so many other bloggers picked up on this. Many of us, from the US, Israel, UK and Ireland to name a few, thought the crowd were booing. It was not obvious to a lot of people. I did chuckle at S-TownMike's quote on Chris's "My Quiet Life" blog though:
You can bet with egos that football players have, Muhammed would be raising all kinds of hell if he were getting booed
I'm also quite amazed to see that we made it into Wikipedia. The discussion is interesting. I'm sure all of us who queried the "booing" on the internet last night would not have written our blog entries if the Wikipedia entry had said something along the lines of:
Fans of Muhsin Muhammad chant his nickname "Moose" when he comes onto the field, catches a first-down pass or scores a touchdown. Because of the long vowel sound it can sometimes sound like booing, but this is not the case.
I'm all in favour of more information on Wikipedia. We were all uninformed. I won't say ignorant because that implies that we didn't bother to investigate before we opened our mouths. But everyone I chatted to via blog comments last night had already checked it out.
Anyway, I am told by my husband that it was an absolutely cracking game. I had to go to bed at half-time, but he works for a US law firm so I'm fairly confident he has sympathetic bosses!
Sunday, 4 February 2007
Did I Just Hear That?
posted by Julia @ 11:32 PM
|
I'm watching Superbowl XLI at the moment. I won't watch all of it - maybe the first quarter. Damn time zones and working on Monday.
But did I just hear the crowd cheer for three of the players present at the toss, and then boo the Bears' wide receiver Muhsin Muhammad? The commentators for ITV didn't mention it at all, but Paul and I heard it, and just stared open-mouthed at each other.
I want to be very generous to the largely white American crowd, and I want to have misheard it all, or for the booing purely to be because Muhammad did something unpleasant earlier in the season (I don't know what - he appears to be a thoroughly nice guy).
But I have a horrible feeling that there are a lot of idiots at the game who decided to boo him because his name "sounds a bit Arabic". I can't find anything about Muhammad's faith on his Bears bio page. How sad if it has come to this - that top sportsmen are being heckled for no other reason than that they have a Muslim name.
I am reminded of a friend of a friend, who was stopped post-9/11 by US Immigration and questioned for two hours because his surname was "Talebian". One letter different to "Taleban".
*Edit* - Muhammad has just scored a touchdown and the crowd has booed him again! Will someone please tell me why?
*Edit again* - So it seems the crowd is shouting "Mooose", a nickname for him. Thank goodness for that.
For Sarah and Lucy
posted by Julia @ 5:22 PM
Joe Nichols - Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off
Add to My Profile | More Videos
|
Here's the video to the song "Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off" by Joe Nichols.
Joe Nichols - Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Saturday, 3 February 2007
"You're Married? Oh I'm So Sorry To Hear That..."
posted by Julia @ 6:50 PM
|
I went out with two of my best friends last night in Clapham. My girlfriends are stunningly gorgeous, so there was no shortage of male attention. But what a load of wankers the men were. One toff told me that my marriage had been a "bad move". Another tried chatting me up on the tube home and when I told him that I got married six months ago he said "Congratulations" as though he was offering his condolences on the death of my dog. I don't consider myself to be especially pretty, so my removal from the singleton pool should not have been such a devastating loss to mankind. And I could happily have slapped the guy who said it was a bad move for me to get married! Hey mate, don't pass judgement on my love life when you evidently have none.
I had a wonderful time with my girlies, but I was so glad to come home to my big, strong, handsome, unpretentious husband. The single men in London, if the inhabitants of Clapham Common are anything to go by, are completely unfanciable, arrogant prats, and the gene pool is somewhat stagnant. However, if you are a single man in London, aged between 25 and 32, and you can string sufficient words together to protest this (or at least to tell me why there are so many idiots in SW4), get in touch. I have some single girlfriends.
Right, we're off to a cheese and wine party, like a proper married couple. The Stilton has been sitting in our fridge for 48 hours begging to be eaten.