Saturday, April 26, 2008

Various & Sundry Stuff

(the following blog post is somewhat of a partial-snark-dump, just fyi - no offense intended toward anyone who is particularly snark-sensitive)

On my desktop I have a notepad file that says "blog draft". This is where all my thoughts go in first-rough format, to save for later when I can work them out in full. Right now I have (apart from this one, which is being live-composed in this file) a couple of other posts only partially done, and several various & sundry post-ettes. Lately, there are some things going on in CarlaWorld that have left me somewhat distracted/scatterbrained/unable to focus on too much at once - so I have numerous things in mind that really don't warrant a full post of their own. So I'll let you in on some blog drafts that are pretty short. Maybe once I get rid of these I can make room for something more substantial.

Its Only Words

I saw an ad today online that just got all over my last nerve. The ad wanted you to click it to enter for a chance to "hang" with a pop tart celeb. w00t, hanging with pop tarts.

Now, lest I come across as a slang-snob, which of course I am not, I want to just say that some slang strikes me as so stupid, it's astounding that people who use it are not arrested. Back in the day (someone's day, I'm sure) the Bee Gees (whom I loved, along with John Denver, James Taylor, Chicago and Fleetwood Mac and make no apologies for it) had a song with a lyric that said "it's only words, and words are all I have, to take your heart away". Well, words are are all we have to really drive a point home in this world of electronic communication. But... some of the words we use are so... um... DUMB, that it's just embarassing, what we've done to the English language. Hang, for example. Short for "hang out with", meaning spend time with visiting. Apparently saying "spend time with, visiting" is far too complicated and/or uncool, so it turned into "hang out with" then degenerated into "hang". I can't begin to imagine just how dumb our slang will be 20 years from now. And for the record, I'm not immune to any of this, I use slang too and often catch myself and think "wow, I sound like a moron". Pfft & gack. See?

Now Tell Me Who Are YOU

If you write a book, are you a writer?
If you bake a cake, are you a baker?
If you race a car, are you a race car driver?
If you take photographs, are you a photographer?
If you lie, are you a liar?

Trick questions? You be the judge.


At the Time

Last week I was watching a rented dvd and saw a preview for a sequel to The Lost Boys. Yes, I liked the movie for several reasons. 1.) Kiefer (oh please, like EVERYONE didn't have a crush on him?? [except for Kim who can't stand him]) 2. The name of the city they lived in: Santa Carla and 3.) Kiefer. I could have done without "the two Coreys" but hey, it was 1987 and the 80's came standard with the two Coreys. Now since we've already backed this truck up here... this movie came out in the hey day of mullets, jheri curls & parachute pants, and everyone had them - from little kids to old men. Creepy? Sure, but so was Footloose with Kevin Bacon - but not at the time. While the 80s were a serious BAD TRIP even for those completely drug free, there were things going on at the time that a lot of us liked then, that we wouldn't support or endorse now.

From time to time I'll remember a movie I liked back then, or a song and I'm always tempted to say 'I loved that movie!" or whatever it was. Then I have to catch myself and say "at the time". I realize that if I were to watch the Lost Boys now, I'd probably have to turn it off - for various reasons, including poor Kiefer's mullet. Chalk this up to lessons in learning how to catch myself before I just endorse something from "at the time" that I might not exactly endorse now.

Subjective Snarkasm

Over at Frank's blog, he said this: "You can turn the snark setting down maybe one notch if you aren't a genius with the snark". He was referring to how to be a better blogger. Well, I know exactly what he meant by that, because I know folks that are just so good at snark that you hear them and think "hey, I wish I had thought of that" (then you make a t-shirt out of it) - and then at the same time - I know people who stink at snark, and you really wish they'd stop trying so hard. Here's the thing though: one man's snark is another man's "you're SO mean!" is another man's "grow up you juvenile deliquent". It's all so completely subjective, isn't it?

One person might get it and laugh, another person SO doesn't get it and gets paranoid you're talking about them (and makes a big deal of it, insisting on it, and laying on some kind of wacky guilt trip that even you begin to believe), and still another person looks down his or her indignant, superior nose at you as if you've just walked into the room with TP stuck on your shoe (and I didn't mean TeamPyro). So... what do you do?

Simple, you be yourself. Blog the way you blog, and don't worry too much about it. If you love the Lord, and you're a Christian who happens to blog, your readers will know it. The paranoid & indignant will eventually get tired of you and go away. It all works out pretty well, sooner or later.

Christian Bloggers - The Sequel

Over at the Band of Bloggers site, Timmy Brister says he wants to create a Christian blogger directory - to encourage accountability and exhort fellow Christian bloggers. Now, it's entirely possible I'm just slow, or have a lack of vision, or something, but I really don't get it. It seems to me like it's a reinvention of the wheel, since virtually every Christian blogger already does this. Reinventions are not always bad, so maybe there's some good in this afterall. Or maybe... not? Who knows, you can go read it for yourself.

It doesn't escape me that I wrote a book called Guarding the Trust, and Timmy's vision is "This gospel trust is something that should be cared for on the horizontal plane through reciprocating and responsible relationships as well". I don't disagree with him at all on this point, I just question the wisdom of having a "directory" where some are listed, and some are not. I see potential issues of "status" and "non-status" that don't currently exist the way we each have our own accountability measures in place (spouses, pastors, close friends, etc.) on our own blogs. In other words, if Joe Blogger is listed in this Gospel Trust directory and Bob Blogger isn't, because he doesn't see a need for it on the larger scale, will Bob be seen as a less than dedicated Christian blogger, for it? The answer is: YES, he will, and we all know it. It's just the way people think, whether good or bad. Joe Blogger will have a perceived "you're in" stamp of approval that someone else not listed, will not have. That issue does not currently exist the way individual blogs are set up, and this is a very good thing, because honestly, I think we're too divided as it is. (If anyone starts singing Kumbaya or requests a group hug, I'll have to ban you forever).

I am prepared to admit I could be completely wrong about this and that I'm willing to be corrected. In fact, I hope I am wrong, it would be better.

Well, that's about it for my half-baked thoughts. I do have a new "Who Am I?" riddle ready for Monday morning, so put on your thinking caps and get ready for that. It'll be fun, and you get to use your sanctified imagination.


Great Christian t-shirts and gift ideas for the whole family