PT @shadesong *NEW* Learn how to setup a proxy to help #Iran citizens get their media out! PLEASE RT! http://is.gd/12IA6

Toss a buck in the Mirriam Support Fund. Medical Bills Suck. Paypal to mirriamfund@gmail.com

An interesting discussion on "antagonists", excerpted from this article. Reading though it, it is easy to see how one or two people, by being 'antagonistic' (in the definition of this article), can bring a community to its knees.

The word antagonists is defined and used throughout this article in this way: Antagonists are individuals who, on the basis of nonsubstantive evidence, go out of their way to make insatiable demands,usually attacking the person or performance of others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than building up, and are frequently directed against those in leadership.

Some key phrases in this definition deserve closer attention.
Nonsubstantive evidence

The arguments that antagonists present are typically founded on little — or grossly misrepresented — evidence. They tend to quibble over trifles, providing strong proof of irrelevant points, or exaggerate the positions of their opponents. A favorite tactic is to make an assertion that cannot be disproved and then claim that the inability to disprove it makes it true.

Go out of their way

Antagonists initiate trouble; they do not wait for trouble to come along. This often goes hand-in-hand with hypersensitivity on their part. They tend to take every word and action as a personal attack and respond aggressively. For example, their response to something seemingly as minor as your being preoccupied and passing them in the hallway without speaking could result in an attack. Antagonists would rather cause trouble than give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

Insatiable demands

Antagonists are never satisfied. No amount of appeasement on your part or the congregation as a whole will suffice. Instead of calming antagonists, attempts to placate them only encourage them to make more demands. Many antagonists fight until there is nothing left but rubble. Sometimes even that doesn’t stop them.

Attacking

Harsh as the word attacking is, it accurately applies to antagonists. Although they may present some valid points, antagonists generally don’t offer constructive criticism. Their implicit goal is control, no matter what it costs others.
Selfish in nature

The attacks of antagonists are self-serving. They often seize on a slogan or pick some side of a valid issue and pretend that is what they are fighting for. It rarely is. An antagonist will quickly drop a particular slogan or issue once it no longer serves his ambitions.

Tearing down rather than building up

When people are at odds with each other, it is the result of an antagonist’s actions. Instead of pulling...people together, an antagonist divides them. Show me a divided and strife-torn congregation, and I will show you a congregation that has one or more antagonists in its midst.

At times most of us are selfish or headstrong. Without excusing such behavior, we can be sure that occasional surly behavior does not make an antagonist. What separates us from antagonists is the ferociousness of the attacks and the insatiable or tenacious quality that drags out problems interminably.

You! Yes, You!

You need more BABY OTTERS in your life!

oh, so that's what that is...

Evidently I am a "Language descriptivist".
this came up whilst experiencing second hand an argument about 'irregardless'. One one side, the ZOMG THAT ISN'T A WORD crowd, on the other the side I fell on... Are people using it? Can the communicate their meaning using that collection of sounds together? Yes? THEN IT IS A (&@)(*$^(* WORD!*

I tend to find most arguments about spelling and grammar to he horribly pedantic, ocasionaly bordering on the snobby. The only English 'rule' that ever makes me twitch is misplaced posesive apostrophes. And really run-on emails with no attempt to seperate out thoughts.

Beyond that, I spell like crap, but I get my point across. I can never remember, and almost never care the difference between it's and its, and I don't think there needs to be five different way to spell one set of sounds.

Which is why people using netspeak doesn't bug me. Decrying the simplification of language down into the smallest recognizable set of symbols for a collection of sounds makes perfect linguistic sense.

Midwives now!

Health Care Reform Must Include Access to Certified Professional Midwives

Print this out, mail it to your congress beasties and the white house. Spread this link around. Now is the time to beat DC over the head with this.

This is the letter I'm including with mine:

Dear (congressbeastie),

Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association have come out in opposition of Certified Professional Midwives and home birth (1), insisting that midwives are unreliable, and the only safe place to birth is in a hospital. This is despite the fact that multiple scientifically sound studies have shown no risk in planned home births with a trained midwife (2). Flat out, the ACOG and AMA are wrong.

There is no scientifically sound reason that women should be denied access in any way (legally or though limitations from a for-profit insurance system) to Certified Professional Midwives, and choice of birth location as deemed appropriate by the woman and her maternity care provider.

I urge you to reject the questionable, non-evidence-based stance of the AMA and ACOG, and support inclusion of Certified Professional Midwives in the future of US health care.

Thank you for your attention,
(Me)

(1) ACOG Statement on Home Births 2/6/08: "The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) reiterates its long-standing
opposition to home births."
AMA Resolution #205 "Home Deliveries" 4/28/08
(2) Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529,688 low-risk planned home and hospital births; BJOG: An International Journal
of Obstetrics & Gynaecology; April 2009
Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America; BJM 18 June 2005

TeaHee from Tom Smith

good lord I love this man :)