Saturday, December 29, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
My nephew is cuter than your nephew
I already have four nephews that all appear to be in the 99th percentile as to talent, good-looks, and charm (no surprises, obviously). The oldest two, Ian (9) and Ty (7) I would pair up against any other set for all-out toughness. Cage matches are definitely in their future. But anyway, as my younger sister is in the hospital right now waiting to deliver (she is not in labor yet, so I am not really being insensitive saying "waiting," am I?) her first boy, Hugh, I thought this an excellent chance to say, "Holy crap, I've got a cute nephew coming."
He's a little small. He will be about 3 weeks early, and is only 4.5 lbs right now. I'll update that after the birth, but Hugh Geoffrey Wood will fit right in with the other nephews in all the categories discussed above I am sure. And he's got Kirton-sized feet; I am sure he will kick the soccer ball pretty well, too.
Incidentally, I am somewhat familiar with ultrasonography, both in theory and having performed a few scans myself, but I was blown away by these pictures taken a week ago. As Ann-Marie said, you almost expect to see what color his eyes are, though they are shut here.
He's a little small. He will be about 3 weeks early, and is only 4.5 lbs right now. I'll update that after the birth, but Hugh Geoffrey Wood will fit right in with the other nephews in all the categories discussed above I am sure. And he's got Kirton-sized feet; I am sure he will kick the soccer ball pretty well, too.
Incidentally, I am somewhat familiar with ultrasonography, both in theory and having performed a few scans myself, but I was blown away by these pictures taken a week ago. As Ann-Marie said, you almost expect to see what color his eyes are, though they are shut here.
Monday, December 10, 2007
The Law of Two Calls, or, Bivocare
There seems to be what we in the scientific community would call a law. I have seen it termed a wide variety of things. However it is not the name that is important, but rather the truth it teaches. Name it after Brad Pitt or whomever-else; so many people have arrived at this same truth, deriving it independently, that to future generations it should seem self-evident.
I had a friend that did not understand this law and helped me come to its realization early in my dating career. After peppering a girl with upwards of half a dozen phone calls over maybe a day and a half, leaving messages with roommates, brothers, or the family answering machine, he would not wait or pursue other options. I saw the problems with this option immediately, and it aided in the derivation of this Law in my personal life.
Now, I should make something clear. As anyone actually reading this would well know already, I am by no means a dating machine. The speed with which I move in romantic realms can hardly even be called such. The velocity, rather, is quite low. It does, at least, have a positive value (so get off my back, Mom). I make no claims at expertness. I have only my set of sad stories and a few observations of friends’ failures (and occasional successes, too, I suppose) from which I have drawn these conclusions.
But I digress. The Law is simply this:
Notice the period at the end of that sentence, as it plays a key part of this law. Unless there is reciprocity, attempts to further any relationship – at whatever level – is terminated. “That sounds too harsh, too strict, like something from the Septuagint,” you think? Well, as my new roommate might saw, “You either have her interested in you or you don’t.” There is not a vast expanse of grey area involved here. If she is, two calls seem more than enough. If she is not, on the other hand, more than two calls is too much. I have not seen any verifiable research on this matter, but I suspect that this law would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis, if statistical analysis can ever be called rigorous. I think this standard would prove to be both sensitive and specific, and that the number of false negatives would be incredibly low. The problem, at least in my limited experience, comes in getting the true positive.
Cell phones have infinitely reduced the amount of trouble surrounding this rule. No longer are we, the male gender, plagued by thoughts of, “did the roommate give her the message? Did someone else delete it?” And the awkwardness of talking with the family - gone forever! But again, I digress. Two calls: the first, if it is not answered, will be met by a brief voicemail announcing name and number, followed by, “I’ll call you later.” The second, if again she does not answer, will be followed by whatever I feel like leaving, ending with, “Call me.” If she doesn’t, meh.
Hence, in a word, bivocare.
Of course, this policy has led to my 26 year track record of unblemished virginity. Some – myself included, sometimes (In talking with my 9 year old nephew, Ian, the other day he asked, “How’s your family?” He waited, and then said, “Oh, wait, you don’t have one. BURN!”) – could say that would be proof against the validity of this law. But even those of us who remain sexually frustrated must maintain some dignity (in real life, not in the bloggersphere).
I've already received flak for this post, which does not make any sense to me. This is not in anyway meant to be inflammatory, offensive, or mean-spirited. It is not the result of an attempt to write when upset for some reason. It is simply the result of a boring pathology lecture.
I had a friend that did not understand this law and helped me come to its realization early in my dating career. After peppering a girl with upwards of half a dozen phone calls over maybe a day and a half, leaving messages with roommates, brothers, or the family answering machine, he would not wait or pursue other options. I saw the problems with this option immediately, and it aided in the derivation of this Law in my personal life.
Now, I should make something clear. As anyone actually reading this would well know already, I am by no means a dating machine. The speed with which I move in romantic realms can hardly even be called such. The velocity, rather, is quite low. It does, at least, have a positive value (so get off my back, Mom). I make no claims at expertness. I have only my set of sad stories and a few observations of friends’ failures (and occasional successes, too, I suppose) from which I have drawn these conclusions.
But I digress. The Law is simply this:
A girl/woman/chick will get two phone calls.
Notice the period at the end of that sentence, as it plays a key part of this law. Unless there is reciprocity, attempts to further any relationship – at whatever level – is terminated. “That sounds too harsh, too strict, like something from the Septuagint,” you think? Well, as my new roommate might saw, “You either have her interested in you or you don’t.” There is not a vast expanse of grey area involved here. If she is, two calls seem more than enough. If she is not, on the other hand, more than two calls is too much. I have not seen any verifiable research on this matter, but I suspect that this law would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis, if statistical analysis can ever be called rigorous. I think this standard would prove to be both sensitive and specific, and that the number of false negatives would be incredibly low. The problem, at least in my limited experience, comes in getting the true positive.
Cell phones have infinitely reduced the amount of trouble surrounding this rule. No longer are we, the male gender, plagued by thoughts of, “did the roommate give her the message? Did someone else delete it?” And the awkwardness of talking with the family - gone forever! But again, I digress. Two calls: the first, if it is not answered, will be met by a brief voicemail announcing name and number, followed by, “I’ll call you later.” The second, if again she does not answer, will be followed by whatever I feel like leaving, ending with, “Call me.” If she doesn’t, meh.
Hence, in a word, bivocare.
Of course, this policy has led to my 26 year track record of unblemished virginity. Some – myself included, sometimes (In talking with my 9 year old nephew, Ian, the other day he asked, “How’s your family?” He waited, and then said, “Oh, wait, you don’t have one. BURN!”) – could say that would be proof against the validity of this law. But even those of us who remain sexually frustrated must maintain some dignity (in real life, not in the bloggersphere).
I've already received flak for this post, which does not make any sense to me. This is not in anyway meant to be inflammatory, offensive, or mean-spirited. It is not the result of an attempt to write when upset for some reason. It is simply the result of a boring pathology lecture.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
What better way to start?
As this is my blog's seminal post, after much prayer and deliberation, I decided that I would start with a post that is very dear to my heart. I should also qualify this by saying that this is not original material, but that the idea was, in fact, originally that of my friend Matt Broadbent's brother. I am in your debt, Dave.
Now, recognize, I am not a lawyer or a devotee of logic, but it seems to me that by this youg man's argument, God doesn't like BYU all that much. Or they weren't living right before they met Tulsa or UCLA. Forgive the blasphemy, on at least two levels, but it would seem He favors the University of Michigan Wolverines above all, as they are the most "winningest" team in D1A football, though honorable mentions should go out to other "righteous" teams, due at least in part to the devoted, prayerful cheering of fans for teams such as The Ohio State University Buckeyes, the Florida Gators, the Texas Longhorns, etc.
And where was He Who Is Mighty To Save all those decades and decades that BYU just plain sucked?
Man, I love football. I can't stand a lot of the fans (and a few players), but that's a whole different subject. Only one more week and bowling, though, I suppose.
Go UTES!
And I guess there is at least one TDS fan I can't say I hate:
Now, recognize, I am not a lawyer or a devotee of logic, but it seems to me that by this youg man's argument, God doesn't like BYU all that much. Or they weren't living right before they met Tulsa or UCLA. Forgive the blasphemy, on at least two levels, but it would seem He favors the University of Michigan Wolverines above all, as they are the most "winningest" team in D1A football, though honorable mentions should go out to other "righteous" teams, due at least in part to the devoted, prayerful cheering of fans for teams such as The Ohio State University Buckeyes, the Florida Gators, the Texas Longhorns, etc.
And where was He Who Is Mighty To Save all those decades and decades that BYU just plain sucked?
Man, I love football. I can't stand a lot of the fans (and a few players), but that's a whole different subject. Only one more week and bowling, though, I suppose.
Go UTES!
And I guess there is at least one TDS fan I can't say I hate:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
