johncoxon: (Default)
From [livejournal.com profile] brithistorian, a piece of writing by Rosemarie Urquico:

Date a girl who reads. Date a girl who spends her money on books instead of clothes. She has problems with closet space because she has too many books. Date a girl who has a list of books she wants to read, who has had a library card since she was twelve.

Find a girl who reads. You’ll know that she does because she will always have an unread book in her bag. She’s the one lovingly looking over the shelves in the bookstore, the one who quietly cries out when she finds the book she wants. You see the weird chick sniffing the pages of an old book in a second hand book shop? That’s the reader. They can never resist smelling the pages, especially when they are yellow.

She’s the girl reading while waiting in that coffee shop down the street. If you take a peek at her mug, the non-dairy creamer is floating on top because she’s kind of engrossed already. Lost in a world of the author’s making. Sit down. She might give you a glare, as most girls who read do not like to be interrupted. Ask her if she likes the book.

Buy her another cup of coffee.

Let her know what you really think of Murakami. See if she got through the first chapter of Fellowship. Understand that if she says she understood James Joyce’s Ulysses she’s just saying that to sound intelligent. Ask her if she loves Alice or she would like to be Alice.

It’s easy to date a girl who reads. Give her books for her birthday, for Christmas and for anniversaries. Give her the gift of words, in poetry, in song. Give her Neruda, Pound, Sexton, Cummings. Let her know that you understand that words are love. Understand that she knows the difference between books and reality but by god, she’s going to try to make her life a little like her favorite book. It will never be your fault if she does.

She has to give it a shot somehow.

Lie to her. If she understands syntax, she will understand your need to lie. Behind words are other things: motivation, value, nuance, dialogue. It will not be the end of the world.

Fail her. Because a girl who reads knows that failure always leads up to the climax. Because girls who understand that all things will come to end. That you can always write a sequel. That you can begin again and again and still be the hero. That life is meant to have a villain or two.

Why be frightened of everything that you are not? Girls who read understand that people, like characters, develop. Except in the Twilight series.

If you find a girl who reads, keep her close. When you find her up at 2 AM clutching a book to her chest and weeping, make her a cup of tea and hold her. You may lose her for a couple of hours but she will always come back to you. She’ll talk as if the characters in the book are real, because for a while, they always are.

You will propose on a hot air balloon. Or during a rock concert. Or very casually next time she’s sick. Over Skype.

You will smile so hard you will wonder why your heart hasn’t burst and bled out all over your chest yet. You will write the story of your lives, have kids with strange names and even stranger tastes. She will introduce your children to the Cat in the Hat and Aslan, maybe in the same day. You will walk the winters of your old age together and she will recite Keats under her breath while you shake the snow off your boots.

Date a girl who reads because you deserve it. You deserve a girl who can give you the most colorful life imaginable. If you can only give her monotony, and stale hours and half-baked proposals, then you’re better off alone. If you want the world and the worlds beyond it, date a girl who reads.

Or better yet, date a girl who writes.
johncoxon: (Default)
From [livejournal.com profile] brithistorian, a piece of writing by Rosemarie Urquico:

Date a girl who reads. Date a girl who spends her money on books instead of clothes. She has problems with closet space because she has too many books. Date a girl who has a list of books she wants to read, who has had a library card since she was twelve.

Find a girl who reads. You’ll know that she does because she will always have an unread book in her bag. She’s the one lovingly looking over the shelves in the bookstore, the one who quietly cries out when she finds the book she wants. You see the weird chick sniffing the pages of an old book in a second hand book shop? That’s the reader. They can never resist smelling the pages, especially when they are yellow.

She’s the girl reading while waiting in that coffee shop down the street. If you take a peek at her mug, the non-dairy creamer is floating on top because she’s kind of engrossed already. Lost in a world of the author’s making. Sit down. She might give you a glare, as most girls who read do not like to be interrupted. Ask her if she likes the book.

Buy her another cup of coffee.

Let her know what you really think of Murakami. See if she got through the first chapter of Fellowship. Understand that if she says she understood James Joyce’s Ulysses she’s just saying that to sound intelligent. Ask her if she loves Alice or she would like to be Alice.

It’s easy to date a girl who reads. Give her books for her birthday, for Christmas and for anniversaries. Give her the gift of words, in poetry, in song. Give her Neruda, Pound, Sexton, Cummings. Let her know that you understand that words are love. Understand that she knows the difference between books and reality but by god, she’s going to try to make her life a little like her favorite book. It will never be your fault if she does.

She has to give it a shot somehow.

Lie to her. If she understands syntax, she will understand your need to lie. Behind words are other things: motivation, value, nuance, dialogue. It will not be the end of the world.

Fail her. Because a girl who reads knows that failure always leads up to the climax. Because girls who understand that all things will come to end. That you can always write a sequel. That you can begin again and again and still be the hero. That life is meant to have a villain or two.

Why be frightened of everything that you are not? Girls who read understand that people, like characters, develop. Except in the Twilight series.

If you find a girl who reads, keep her close. When you find her up at 2 AM clutching a book to her chest and weeping, make her a cup of tea and hold her. You may lose her for a couple of hours but she will always come back to you. She’ll talk as if the characters in the book are real, because for a while, they always are.

You will propose on a hot air balloon. Or during a rock concert. Or very casually next time she’s sick. Over Skype.

You will smile so hard you will wonder why your heart hasn’t burst and bled out all over your chest yet. You will write the story of your lives, have kids with strange names and even stranger tastes. She will introduce your children to the Cat in the Hat and Aslan, maybe in the same day. You will walk the winters of your old age together and she will recite Keats under her breath while you shake the snow off your boots.

Date a girl who reads because you deserve it. You deserve a girl who can give you the most colorful life imaginable. If you can only give her monotony, and stale hours and half-baked proposals, then you’re better off alone. If you want the world and the worlds beyond it, date a girl who reads.

Or better yet, date a girl who writes.
johncoxon: (Default)
From [livejournal.com profile] brithistorian, a piece of writing by Rosemarie Urquico:

Date a girl who reads. Date a girl who spends her money on books instead of clothes. She has problems with closet space because she has too many books. Date a girl who has a list of books she wants to read, who has had a library card since she was twelve.

Find a girl who reads. You’ll know that she does because she will always have an unread book in her bag. She’s the one lovingly looking over the shelves in the bookstore, the one who quietly cries out when she finds the book she wants. You see the weird chick sniffing the pages of an old book in a second hand book shop? That’s the reader. They can never resist smelling the pages, especially when they are yellow.

She’s the girl reading while waiting in that coffee shop down the street. If you take a peek at her mug, the non-dairy creamer is floating on top because she’s kind of engrossed already. Lost in a world of the author’s making. Sit down. She might give you a glare, as most girls who read do not like to be interrupted. Ask her if she likes the book.

Buy her another cup of coffee.

Let her know what you really think of Murakami. See if she got through the first chapter of Fellowship. Understand that if she says she understood James Joyce’s Ulysses she’s just saying that to sound intelligent. Ask her if she loves Alice or she would like to be Alice.

It’s easy to date a girl who reads. Give her books for her birthday, for Christmas and for anniversaries. Give her the gift of words, in poetry, in song. Give her Neruda, Pound, Sexton, Cummings. Let her know that you understand that words are love. Understand that she knows the difference between books and reality but by god, she’s going to try to make her life a little like her favorite book. It will never be your fault if she does.

She has to give it a shot somehow.

Lie to her. If she understands syntax, she will understand your need to lie. Behind words are other things: motivation, value, nuance, dialogue. It will not be the end of the world.

Fail her. Because a girl who reads knows that failure always leads up to the climax. Because girls who understand that all things will come to end. That you can always write a sequel. That you can begin again and again and still be the hero. That life is meant to have a villain or two.

Why be frightened of everything that you are not? Girls who read understand that people, like characters, develop. Except in the Twilight series.

If you find a girl who reads, keep her close. When you find her up at 2 AM clutching a book to her chest and weeping, make her a cup of tea and hold her. You may lose her for a couple of hours but she will always come back to you. She’ll talk as if the characters in the book are real, because for a while, they always are.

You will propose on a hot air balloon. Or during a rock concert. Or very casually next time she’s sick. Over Skype.

You will smile so hard you will wonder why your heart hasn’t burst and bled out all over your chest yet. You will write the story of your lives, have kids with strange names and even stranger tastes. She will introduce your children to the Cat in the Hat and Aslan, maybe in the same day. You will walk the winters of your old age together and she will recite Keats under her breath while you shake the snow off your boots.

Date a girl who reads because you deserve it. You deserve a girl who can give you the most colorful life imaginable. If you can only give her monotony, and stale hours and half-baked proposals, then you’re better off alone. If you want the world and the worlds beyond it, date a girl who reads.

Or better yet, date a girl who writes.
johncoxon: (Default)
I was reading Elizabeth Moon's Serrano Legacy and then she goes and posts this. I'm enjoying the book so I shall carry on (I paid for it and I want to see what happens) but that blog post really isn't even close to acceptable.

Why is the world so fucked up?

(Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] the_magician for directing me to this.)
johncoxon: (Default)
I was reading Elizabeth Moon's Serrano Legacy and then she goes and posts this. I'm enjoying the book so I shall carry on (I paid for it and I want to see what happens) but that blog post really isn't even close to acceptable.

Why is the world so fucked up?

(Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] the_magician for directing me to this.)
johncoxon: (Default)
I was reading Elizabeth Moon's Serrano Legacy and then she goes and posts this. I'm enjoying the book so I shall carry on (I paid for it and I want to see what happens) but that blog post really isn't even close to acceptable.

Why is the world so fucked up?

(Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] the_magician for directing me to this.)
johncoxon: (London Underground)

Today I had to catch a train from Leicester to Peterborough. I am sitting on this train as I type this entry. Several things have majorly pissed me off about this fact and I am going to rant now.

Rant ahoy! )

Given that on top of all this three trains on the board were cancelled or delayed, and that it takes thirty minutes longer by train than by car, and it is tempting to stop thinking in the terms of the environmentally aware soul and start thinking, "seats are more comfortable in the car". Also, you can sing along loudly to your CDs. God bless the A47!

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

On Apple

Jun. 10th, 2010 01:33 pm
johncoxon: (Default)
So, some thoughts about Apple's recent activities and news, with a dollop of uninformed opinion.

Apple recently updated their policy on advertisements, and the following is, apparently, a quotation from their new policy: "[The ability to show ads on iOS 4] is provided to an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads (for example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent)."

Although this is bit of a dick move, and there's no denying that, it's also no surprise to anyone at all (or at least, it shouldn't be). Google opened the war against the iPhone with Android and have continued along that path with gusto. That's completely fine, and I have absolutely no problem with Google doing what Google need to do to survive and make a profit as a corporate entity. Having said that, Apple are also a corporate entity and as such, they're going to do their best to outmanoevure their big opponents. They think they can make more money with this new policy so they'll carry on (and will undoubtedly attract attention from regulators!).

The main thing that worries me is that developers will stop using ads and start charging more for their apps as opposed to switching to other ad providers, which would suck for the users who own and use iOS. Having said that, Apple is letting app developers use third-party ads. The gist appears to be that if you're a company that just does advertising, and you're not owned by a competitor to Apple (for instance, Google) you're just fine. For instance, Greystripe, an advertising company that is in partnership with Adobe, is saying that they think they'll be allowed to advertise.

All in all, Apple's decision is not going to be the end of non-iAd advertising on iOS, and so I don't think it will have a massive effect on the average iPhone user. Having said that, if it does, I hope that His Holy Steve will go back on this and allow AdMob back onto the platform. In other news, I would also like him to stop censoring iPhone apps and iron all the T-shirts currently in my washing machine (and that last request is the most likely to happen, at a wild guess).

Moving on. What is all this I'm hearing about video calling not being awesome and shiny?! Yes, I get it, video calls have been possible for the last however many years. But do I know a single person my age who has actually used that functionality? No. Hell, do I know a single person who's used the functionality who doesn't run their own server and code in three different computer languages? I'm struggling to think of any. Will Apple's decision to make this one of the big new features in iPhone 4 make it a lot more popular? Well, if anything is going to provide that momentum, it's going to be this, I think. If Apple makes this work, then Google may well include 3G video calling in Android 2.3 to one-up Apple, and that would be the final approval the tech needs, I think.

Of course, Apple are exaggerating massively when they claim that it's a revolutionary feature. As far as I can tell Apple haven't announced anything revolutionary for about three years now (the initial iPhone launch, and the launch of Mac OS X Leopard at a push). Everything has been an evolution of something else (Snow Leopard an evolution of Leopard, the iPad an evolution of the iPhone and iOS 4 an evolution of iPhone OS 3).

And lastly, I have no idea what's going on with Pulse, the iPad RSS reader that was removed from the App Store after a complaint from the New York Times that it was using their content by pulling their RSS feed in the default settings. It was removed, and then it was gone, and now it's back again. I can't work out whether it was removed and then reinstated by Apple, or whether the app's creators were notified and submitted a version of the app that didn't pull that feed automatically (I've read different accounts on different blogs!). I can see where Apple were coming from with their initial reaction but it still highlights definite problems with the current way Apple are doing things. I hope that Steve gets his act together before it's too late.

On Apple

Jun. 10th, 2010 01:33 pm
johncoxon: (Default)
So, some thoughts about Apple's recent activities and news, with a dollop of uninformed opinion.

Apple recently updated their policy on advertisements, and the following is, apparently, a quotation from their new policy: "[The ability to show ads on iOS 4] is provided to an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads (for example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent)."

Although this is bit of a dick move, and there's no denying that, it's also no surprise to anyone at all (or at least, it shouldn't be). Google opened the war against the iPhone with Android and have continued along that path with gusto. That's completely fine, and I have absolutely no problem with Google doing what Google need to do to survive and make a profit as a corporate entity. Having said that, Apple are also a corporate entity and as such, they're going to do their best to outmanoevure their big opponents. They think they can make more money with this new policy so they'll carry on (and will undoubtedly attract attention from regulators!).

The main thing that worries me is that developers will stop using ads and start charging more for their apps as opposed to switching to other ad providers, which would suck for the users who own and use iOS. Having said that, Apple is letting app developers use third-party ads. The gist appears to be that if you're a company that just does advertising, and you're not owned by a competitor to Apple (for instance, Google) you're just fine. For instance, Greystripe, an advertising company that is in partnership with Adobe, is saying that they think they'll be allowed to advertise.

All in all, Apple's decision is not going to be the end of non-iAd advertising on iOS, and so I don't think it will have a massive effect on the average iPhone user. Having said that, if it does, I hope that His Holy Steve will go back on this and allow AdMob back onto the platform. In other news, I would also like him to stop censoring iPhone apps and iron all the T-shirts currently in my washing machine (and that last request is the most likely to happen, at a wild guess).

Moving on. What is all this I'm hearing about video calling not being awesome and shiny?! Yes, I get it, video calls have been possible for the last however many years. But do I know a single person my age who has actually used that functionality? No. Hell, do I know a single person who's used the functionality who doesn't run their own server and code in three different computer languages? I'm struggling to think of any. Will Apple's decision to make this one of the big new features in iPhone 4 make it a lot more popular? Well, if anything is going to provide that momentum, it's going to be this, I think. If Apple makes this work, then Google may well include 3G video calling in Android 2.3 to one-up Apple, and that would be the final approval the tech needs, I think.

Of course, Apple are exaggerating massively when they claim that it's a revolutionary feature. As far as I can tell Apple haven't announced anything revolutionary for about three years now (the initial iPhone launch, and the launch of Mac OS X Leopard at a push). Everything has been an evolution of something else (Snow Leopard an evolution of Leopard, the iPad an evolution of the iPhone and iOS 4 an evolution of iPhone OS 3).

And lastly, I have no idea what's going on with Pulse, the iPad RSS reader that was removed from the App Store after a complaint from the New York Times that it was using their content by pulling their RSS feed in the default settings. It was removed, and then it was gone, and now it's back again. I can't work out whether it was removed and then reinstated by Apple, or whether the app's creators were notified and submitted a version of the app that didn't pull that feed automatically (I've read different accounts on different blogs!). I can see where Apple were coming from with their initial reaction but it still highlights definite problems with the current way Apple are doing things. I hope that Steve gets his act together before it's too late.

On Apple

Jun. 10th, 2010 01:33 pm
johncoxon: (Default)
So, some thoughts about Apple's recent activities and news, with a dollop of uninformed opinion.

Apple recently updated their policy on advertisements, and the following is, apparently, a quotation from their new policy: "[The ability to show ads on iOS 4] is provided to an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads (for example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent)."

Although this is bit of a dick move, and there's no denying that, it's also no surprise to anyone at all (or at least, it shouldn't be). Google opened the war against the iPhone with Android and have continued along that path with gusto. That's completely fine, and I have absolutely no problem with Google doing what Google need to do to survive and make a profit as a corporate entity. Having said that, Apple are also a corporate entity and as such, they're going to do their best to outmanoevure their big opponents. They think they can make more money with this new policy so they'll carry on (and will undoubtedly attract attention from regulators!).

The main thing that worries me is that developers will stop using ads and start charging more for their apps as opposed to switching to other ad providers, which would suck for the users who own and use iOS. Having said that, Apple is letting app developers use third-party ads. The gist appears to be that if you're a company that just does advertising, and you're not owned by a competitor to Apple (for instance, Google) you're just fine. For instance, Greystripe, an advertising company that is in partnership with Adobe, is saying that they think they'll be allowed to advertise.

All in all, Apple's decision is not going to be the end of non-iAd advertising on iOS, and so I don't think it will have a massive effect on the average iPhone user. Having said that, if it does, I hope that His Holy Steve will go back on this and allow AdMob back onto the platform. In other news, I would also like him to stop censoring iPhone apps and iron all the T-shirts currently in my washing machine (and that last request is the most likely to happen, at a wild guess).

Moving on. What is all this I'm hearing about video calling not being awesome and shiny?! Yes, I get it, video calls have been possible for the last however many years. But do I know a single person my age who has actually used that functionality? No. Hell, do I know a single person who's used the functionality who doesn't run their own server and code in three different computer languages? I'm struggling to think of any. Will Apple's decision to make this one of the big new features in iPhone 4 make it a lot more popular? Well, if anything is going to provide that momentum, it's going to be this, I think. If Apple makes this work, then Google may well include 3G video calling in Android 2.3 to one-up Apple, and that would be the final approval the tech needs, I think.

Of course, Apple are exaggerating massively when they claim that it's a revolutionary feature. As far as I can tell Apple haven't announced anything revolutionary for about three years now (the initial iPhone launch, and the launch of Mac OS X Leopard at a push). Everything has been an evolution of something else (Snow Leopard an evolution of Leopard, the iPad an evolution of the iPhone and iOS 4 an evolution of iPhone OS 3).

And lastly, I have no idea what's going on with Pulse, the iPad RSS reader that was removed from the App Store after a complaint from the New York Times that it was using their content by pulling their RSS feed in the default settings. It was removed, and then it was gone, and now it's back again. I can't work out whether it was removed and then reinstated by Apple, or whether the app's creators were notified and submitted a version of the app that didn't pull that feed automatically (I've read different accounts on different blogs!). I can see where Apple were coming from with their initial reaction but it still highlights definite problems with the current way Apple are doing things. I hope that Steve gets his act together before it's too late.

Bait

May. 28th, 2009 09:45 pm
johncoxon: (Default)
Sometimes, half the battle is not rising to the bait. I realised that today. Just walking away from something, and not lowering yourself to someone's level to argue with them, can really make a day better.
johncoxon: (Cricket (Vaughan Batting))
I don't particularly follow football, as most of you will be aware. Football, to me, isn't super interesting, it's not something I'd seek out on the television and I'm quite capable of taking or leaving it. What a lot of people don't realise is that I really am on the fence, and if football's on, or if a club I feel some strange affinity for is playing and I remember, I will usually keep an eye on the score or watch the game, purely because it's not, actually, boring. Football is a game, and stuff happens during that game, and sometimes that is fun to watch for the same reason that any other sport is fun to watch - to see which team is more skilled and to see twenty-two talented people do what they're best at. (It's usually even more fun if the two teams are very evenly matched, it becomes a thing of beauty.)

But, as I don't follow it myself, I suppose I'm a good person to talk about what I've been noticing more and more recently - the people who don't follow football, don't find football interesting, and think that being into football is somehow something to sneer at. Newsflash: it isn't. You think that being into SF, or computing, or whatever little niche of geekdom has lead you to LiveJournal means that you're somehow better than someone who's into something that sporty instead? What? Just how arrogant and self-centred are you?

SF geeks have been the butt of jokes in the media for a long time and all we're doing by looking down on the people who are upset about Newcastle being relegated or looking down on those who thought that Barcelona vs Manchester United was a good match is becoming exactly as bad as the people who think we're all pointy-eared freaks who smell bad. Sorry, but I can't be that kind of elitist, and I'm shocked that there are otherwise sane and educated people (that I consider friends or acquaintances) who appear to believe they can look down on a subset of society purely because they happen to like watching football matches.

(Comments locked because I don't want to get into a flame war with exams coming up.)
johncoxon: (Default)
Why Dreamwidth may yet prove to be a better solution than LiveJournal
johncoxon: (Default)
An Alton Towers annual pass costs a normal person £75 (which is more than last year, naturally), but it's possible, using a bit of your clever, to get it for £57 instead. It's very easy. You go to the theme park, and you take some two for one vouchers (these usually start coming out free with packets of cereal and whatnot). When you go into the park, you get your mate to give you £18 and thus split the cost of the two tickets between you fairly. When you get the tickets, one will say £36 and one (the 'free' one) will say £0.

When leaving the park, simply take the £36 ticket to the annual pass people at the entrance, and they'll sell you an annual pass for £75 minus the cost of your ticket. Since you only paid £18 for the ticket, but the ticket says you paid £36, you'll receive £18 off the price of the pass. Just make sure your mate doesn't see you do it, or heads could roll!

(I can't believe it's gone up to £75 for a year, though - when I paid last year, it was £66, which worked out at £48.50 using my trick... I'm glad mine continues through to September!)

The Pope

Dec. 25th, 2008 11:57 pm
johncoxon: (Default)
I agree that what the Pope said was completely unacceptable. Discrimination against homosexuals and transsexuals is clearly not something that needs to be encouraged.

However, what some of the people on my flist don't seem to realise (or at least, this is how it appears to me, reading the entries I have read) is that the views of the Pope do not actually necessarily represent the views of the Catholics in the world. They may represent the majority, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The Pope's official line is that contraception is wrong - I know Catholics who use condoms and I know a Catholic that has had a vasectomy. The Archbishop of Canterbury's official line is that abortion is murder, but I, an Anglican, am pro-choice on such things.

The worrying tendency seems to be to assume that because the figurehead of an organisation believes something, every member of the organisation believes the same thing. Do you always agree with what your boss thinks about the way your workplace should operate? To do so would be unhealthy, because it would discourage thought and thus turn employees into drones. Just because you are a member of an organisation, it doesn't mean you agree with every aspect of the organisation. Not every Labour voter supported the war on Iraq, not every Republican thought Sarah Palin was a good candidate for VP. The same is true of religion - there are undoubtedly people who blindly follow the doctrines of a given religion, but equally, there are people who are fully capable of being a practising Catholic without following the Pope's line on everything.

It truly disturbs me that a number of posts have arisen which tar all members of a religion with the same brush. Fighting bigotry with bigotry will not work - tolerance and communication between faiths (and an understanding that people think for themselves) is key, in my opinion.

EDIT: It is also worth noting that if the members of a religion all believe exactly the same things as the leader of the religion, that religion's teachings will never change.

Oh, and a slightly belated Merry Christmas to everyone on my flist!

A rebuttal

Feb. 2nd, 2008 02:21 pm
johncoxon: (Default)
A response to a recent blog post - read the text below first )

ETA 2: I would just like to apologise publically to Charlie for this entry - as it turned out, the entry I based this on, which is on another LJ user's blog, did not include the introduction and I failed to notice that it was a copy and paste of an entry which did include one. In this case, the entry I failed to read was on Charlie's blog, here. I won't delete it because I still think the points I've raised are valid, but they are not really in the proper context, and that's a major boo-boo on my part caused by my skimreading of my friends-list this morning. I would also like to note that I did not intend to cause the original writer any distress or offence. It was just an entry I wrote because I feel passionate about stuff like this and wanted to provoke a debate - insult is never my intention.

I'm really really sorry, Charlie. :(

Reading

Jun. 9th, 2007 11:27 pm
johncoxon: (Default)
There is a part of The Stone Canal by Ken MacLeod (in fact, p32-33 of the UK Orbit paperback) that explains one night stands (and my feelings about how they tend to work out) perfectly - but I'd worked out my reaction before I had it, whereas the character in the book seems not to anticipate it. He essentially feels jealous when she starts to see someone else, and the line "another level of my awareness was congratulating myself on being sufficiently stoical and self-understanding to understand that this was a straightforward primate emotion which would pass," really got me. As Hector says in Alan Bennett's The History Boys, "the best moments in reading are when you come across something which you had thought special and particular to you. Now here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met... And it is as if a hand has come out and taken yours."

So, today has been a day of reflecton, insight, good television and even better breakfast. I found this quite funny, too. One last thing - I was going through some digital A-level Physics papers given to us by our teacher, and trying to get them into some sort of recognisable filing system I can actually use, and I found this amongst the papers. It's a bit of an odd thing to digitize and include in such a collection of files...

Eurovision

May. 12th, 2007 11:06 pm
johncoxon: (Britain)
[livejournal.com profile] zarabee: "[Terry Wogan is] an arse. Ethnically offensive comments every three seconds, I swear."

See, Terry Wogan is the only reason I watch the Eurovision. The UK is hated by 99% of Europe, the songs are, in the main, total drivel and the forced sincerity during the voting is enough to make you sick. Terry actually dares to poke fun at the load of shit that is the song contest and does so in a way that has me in stitches. I didn't notice any ethnically offensive comments - I noticed a couple (or fifty comments) which implied that it might be possible that certain nations vote for each other (the scandal!) and the quote about Finland being a part of Scandinavia was hilarious.

So shoot me for being a racist, or whatever, but I like Tel. I'm glad the BBC still let him do it.

Infidelity

Oct. 6th, 2006 06:11 pm
johncoxon: (Breakup)
I want to write this because I want to write it. I'm talking about infidelity, and forgiving such things, and I will also be talking about my relationship with Emma [livejournal.com profile] nytevampire (yes, I am well aware that that's ancient history, but still...).

I know what it's like to make a mistake, to be unfaithful to the person you're with. It's a very easy thing to do if someone is showing interest in you, and I was unfaithful to Emma. I made that mistake. It's easy to think, in retrospect, "It was only online, so it didn't matter," but as the rest of that relationship was online, it did matter, and it hurt her a hell of a lot. She did a very big thing by forgiving me for that, and I am grateful that she gave me a second chance in that situation.

However, this isn't the only sort of infidelity - there are other varieties as well (some people feel that confiding more in someone than in your girlfriend is infidelity - I happen to be of this viewpoint, as I know that when Emma told other people more than she told me about how she was feeling or about what was happening in her life, I felt very down about it) - but the one I want to talk about here is the affair.

An affair is different from cheating on someone in one key way, and that is that an affair is more than once (typically a lot more than once) over a period of time that could be a week, could be a month or could be a year. Emma did this to me with Josh [livejournal.com profile] jippyjosh, over the course of about a fortnight or a month.

Before I say anything else, I would just like to say that Josh is one of my closest and dearest friends, and I forgave him for this a long, long time ago. I love him dearly, I understand why he did what he did, and it's fine by me. Any negative comments which relate to either him or Emma will be deleted - I'm not writing this entry to get at either of them.

Now, I tried my level best to forgive her for that, and our relationship limped on for another three months or so after it had happened. We met for the first time after it had happened, wonderful things occurred between the two of us, but the bottom line was that I was always insecure about her relationships with other guys after that had happened (it may be more accurate to say 'more insecure'). If one thing had happened between her and Josh, once, then it would have been much, much easier to forgive her, but it didn't.

She lied to me. She lied, and she did so in a calculated way, to make me feel guilty about being insecure even when I had good reason to be. She told me she had low credit as she spent £50 texting my best friend, she told me that her and Josh were just good friends and that she loved me even as she said that he looked cute and she loved him. She spun a web of deceit to be with another guy, and that's just not forgivable. It isn't just a mistake, it's a planned series of events which eventually and inevitably must lead to the conclusion that the relationship is irreparably broken. No-one who loves someone else can have an affair without their knowledge - it's not possible.

Cheating on someone by having a fling with someone else is a horrible, horrible thing to do. I am so ashamed that I lowered myself to that level, and I will never let myself forget what a bad thing it was for me to do. But it was a mistake, and I told the girl that I loved about it because she deserved to know. An affair, lying to your partner for a period of time so that you can be with somebody else, just isn't a mistake, and as such, it's not something I would ever forgive again. The trust would vanish, and although the last months with Emma were ones that did make me happy, the trust was gone. I thought that that was what a relationship was supposed to be like, at the time, and my experiences with Jess and Jen have shown me that it doesn't have to be like that.

Having an affair behind somebody's back isn't something that can happen in a good relationship where both people trust and love each other. That's just my opinion, undoubtedly there are other viewpoints on such things. I would be interested to hear reactions, but I would ask those people on my flist who are polyamorous to bear in mind that I am not, in any way, judging them. If both people in a relationship are aware of extra-relationship activities such as sex, and they're both comfortable with it, then there is still trust there, and trust is really what I'm talking about.
johncoxon: (London 07/07)
The more eagle-eyed of my friends list will have noticed that my default icon is different today (the inspiration is here). I would like to use this post to commemorate those people who have died through terrorism, not just a year ago today but in the al-Qaeda actions of 11th September, 2001 and also other acts of terrorism perpetrated by such organisations as the IRA and animal rights extremists. One day, the world will get better.

The icon will stay my default until I lay hands on some recent photographs of myself that are decent enough to include in an icon.

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

July 2014

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
2021 2223242526
2728293031  

Style Credit

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios