, weighs in at
8.1 megapixels, and cost me just under two hundred bucks, a bargain when you consider that I never leave home without it, and always come back with at least 150 photos from the day's adventure. The L
series is even easier on the pocketbook. You can find L14s with 7.1 MP for around a hundred bucks. No one will mistake you for Ansel Adams, but you can have a lot of fun with it.
Singlism in the News
Yeah? Well, right back atcha, bitches.
There was a story in yesterday's papers about three good samaritans who saved a man's life when he went into cardiac arrest on a T platform at North Station. It was all pretty inspiring, until towards the end of one report on the incident I read that one of the Samaritans, Patricia Rogers, a nurse at Mass. General, told the press afterwards: "One thing that stood out for me was he was wearing a wedding ring so I knew that somebody was out there and he had family and someone that loved him was expecting him to come home."
Say what? Patricia is making a huge a priori assumption about that ring, idn't she?
The assumption that the stricken man was married is perfectly reasonable, of course. But it is no foregone conclusion that he's married happily, that he has a family, someone that loves him, or anyone expecting him home. The ring tells us nothing about the state of the marriage or the condition of his homelife. For all we know he's Richard Burton on his way home to Liz Taylor in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?
We certainly hope that the stricken man's wife hadn't slowly been poisoning him for years and wasn't finally on the verge of cashing in on a big, fat life insurance policy when these meddling Samaritans intervened. But it's possible.
Still, it's not the fairy tale marriage Patricia Rogers envisioned for the man whose life she helped save that's the problem, but the evident converse assumption that no ring would've signified no one out there waiting for him somewhere, no family to miss him, no one *shutter* to love him.
Don't get me wrong. None of this diminishes the heroism of good samaritans Patricia Rogers, Alex Santos and Candice Kruszkowski. Nor is it to suggest that the stricken man's marriage isn't just as Rogers envisioned it. It may well be. And Patricia's logical fallacy may simply have been an additional motivating fantasy for her. I'm sure in the absence of a ring she could have come up with another one.
Like... maybe he had a fiancée at home waiting for him to propose to her, but he just hadn't got around to it yet.
and if the man were married but employed as an electrician, chances are he wouldn't be wearing a wedding band. Doesn't' this toss a wrench into the cogs of Nurse Rogers thought process?
Reply to this
Man, stay away from this Mennonno cake, it's gorgeous but REALLY bitter, stick to the ice cream.
<3
Reply to this
OK, yeah, blame the victim!
Reply to this
Patrick,
The "you're just bitter" argument is old and worn as the hills, especially in the context of singles advocacy.
Rhetorically, it's an empty device that actually *does* manage to stop your opponent in his tracks--though not because it has any logical merit, but rather because all your opponent can say in response is, "Uh, no, I'm not," which brings what should be an intelligent discussion down to the level of a grade school playground (yes you are, no you're not, yes you are, no you're. . .)--a level that would annoy any intelligent debater and cause them to stop arguing (in effect giving the "you're so bitter" proponent the illusion of winning the discussion).
I theorize that the prevalence of the "you're so bitter" response to cries of "singlism!" may actually be a defensive response that stems from the collective consciousnesses of the 50 percent of people who are unhappy in their coupled relationships and therefore threatened or envious of people who know how to be happy single. What I mean is: I think that there could well be a lot of bitterness coming from those folks, directed at singles advocates.
I could just as easily suggest you are bitter because you're not as sharp and funny as Mennonno is in this post, and you feel intimidated by that fact. (No I'm not! Yes you are! No I'm not! Yes you. . . )
I am not actually suggesting that, just saying that I *could*; I have the same amount of data about you as you (as far as I can know) have about Mennonno, from which to form a judgment.
--Christina at Onely
Reply to this