More on the Baby-Sitter's Club

So my very good friend and loyal blog reader sent me a couple websites in response to my BSC discussion earlier.

www.claudiasroom.blogspot.com

www.whatclaudiawore.com

Love it.  Love, love, love it.

She also sent me a link to this article.  In it, we learn that Ann M. Martin only wrote the first 60 of the books or so, the rest were done by ghostwriters.  Tear.  Although this isn't shocking to me now that I think of it at an older age, there was a moment of disappointment for me there.

Anyhow - apparently, there is some movement to 'update' the BSC books (phase out the perms and keds and replace them when straightening irons and texting).  I will get into my thoughts on this in a later post.  However, from the comments section in this article, I learned something about myself.

You see, I always wondering whether I was Claudia or Stacey.  Claudia was all about the outrageous outfits and into fashion, however, Stacey was the only child and more studious.  I was always a bit torn between the two.  However, upon reading some of the comments on this page, such as:

*New hipster outfit for Claudia?
Bangs, oversized t-shirt, high-waisted bright pink pants, high tops, various necklaces, chunky jewelry, side ponytail...

*Does anybody else remember when Claudia wore clock-patterned tights with suspenders? Or what about that time she wore an oversized tuxedo with giant shoulder pads and a red cummerbund? Anybody recall her "Miss Frizzle" outfit?

I remember them all too well.

I blame Claudia for all my "artsy" elementary school fashion missteps

*Oh, God, yes. To this day I have an affinity for quirky earrings, which is probably the last vestige of Claud's influence on my wardrobe.

I do love my earrings, so I'll grudgingly thank her for that, though I still haven't forgiven her for inspiring that DIY shredded-and-knotted oversized craft-store T-shirt that I wore everywhere in sixth grade. Yikes.

Jury's decided.  I'm Claudia.

Google Thinks It Knows Me....

My 'Google Ad Preferences', along with my thoughts on their accuracy (thanks Piper!):

Your interests

Below you can edit the interests that Google has associated with your cookie:

Category

Arts & Humanities - Books & Literature (yes)
Entertainment (check)
Entertainment - Dancing (oh how you know me)
Entertainment - TV - TV Networks (for sure)
Entertainment - TV - TV Programs (I'm an open book)
Home & Garden - Home Furnishings (sure, somewhat)
Lifestyles - Self-Help & Motivational (hmm. is this a not-so-subtle hint, google? what's THAT supposed to mean?)
Local - Regional Content - US & Canada - USA (Canada?!?!)
Real Estate (not buying real estate any time soon)
Reference - How-To & Expert Content (I'm a blogging expert, that's for sure)
Social Networks & Online Communities - Dating & Relationships (I'm the popular social networking site, bookface!)
Sports - Olympics & International Competitions (YES)
Sports - Winter Sports (YES! YES! YES!)

(Editor's Sidenote: My cookie?! What is my cookie?!?! Not just a cookie, MY cookie. Yes, cookies are an interest. I do like cookies. Not as much as cake or ice cream, but moreso than candy.)

Your thoughts? What has been left out? Other than blogging. And wine. And byobs.

Making People Self-Conscious

So I spoke to a good friend and loyal blog reader today - she commented to me (in person, not on the blog) that there were a couple of posts (about relationships) in which she thought I was referring to her.

I wasn't.

Generally speaking, when I refer to a friend, I will tag said individual in the bottom section. Or, I will, at the very least, specifically say 'a friend of mine raised a point/is in a certain situation....'

However, I do realize a lot of topics I discuss on this blog (guys and girls being friends, people living together, dating in general, people having babies, etc.) could mirror the lives of my friends. This is purely coincidental. Actually, I discuss general topics that usually pertain to people in my age group (such a friendships and relationships), so it's not uncommon for there to be overlap in my social circle.

Anyhow. There you go!

New York City, a Recap

So, as you all probably know, I was in New York City with my mother this past week. That would be the main reason behind the lack of blog updates.

It was grand. Spectacular. There are not words.

However, I, of course, was still thinking about my friends and loyal blog readers while I was gone.


The New York Public Library. For you, Piper.

\
Emily - a simple reminder that no matter how bad things seem, they could always be worse.


It says "How You Doin'". This is for Courtney.


For you, Marek. This is your cue to comment again.

Misspelled Words....

Ok, I remember once seeing a trivia question about what is the most commonly misspelled everyday word...the correct answer (drumroll please):

DEFINITELY

I DEFINITELY agree with this assessment. I'll give people credit; it is a more difficult word. However. SERIOUSLY. It drives me NUTS every time I see it misspelled. Not because it's misspelled, but because of the alternative choices of spelling.

Definatly (has to be the most common). Definetly. Definately. Defiantly (different word but based on the context of the sentence, I knew what they meant...). Definitly (so close, but yet, SO far).

I am, secretly, a grammar snob, but I try not to be outward about it 1) because I find grammar snobs obnoxious and b) because then, the second I have the least of typos, I know it's going to be thrown back in my face.

A simple way to remember how to spell this word....it's DEFINITE with an LY on the end. Sounds overly simple, but I never really see definat, definet, etc. People don't seem to have trouble with the root word, so I dunno why it suddenly gets difficult when adding two letters. Anyhow.

Other grammar pet peeves out there? I DEFINITELY have a problem with the you're/your and to/too/two confusions. Any other horrible misspellings that I'm missing?

Some Thoughts of Male/Female Friendships

So anon raised an interesting point in the comments section of a previous post, in regards to men and women being friends:

And on the question about if we are just trying to foster a friendship, we do not want to be friends with you. That is not meant in a mean way, but we don’t want to be friends.

Also, Samantha Jones bluntly put it: "Women are for friendship, men are for f*$&ing".

I am not sure my thoughts on this personally. I actually think almost everyone has some opposite sex friends, especially in the form of coworkers, former classmates, friends' significant others, or friends of one's significant other. I definitely have some male friends - friendships I've fostered through all of the above circumstances. I mean, why not? Friendship makes the road easier and helps us get through the hard times (Kleenex?) - I mean, look at my friendship with Emily. A terrible situation brought us together - if we hadn't found each other in that mess, I'm afraid to think of what could have happened.

Anyhow.

I do think guys and girls can be just friends. I think, though, a large factor is how good of friends they are - of course a casual friendship is easily understandable. However, if we're talking really good friends/best friends, then there might be issues. I think, personally, as Piper pointed out in a previous post - it all depends on if that's been worked out. I think as long as both parties are not interested in more than a friendship, then everything is ok. Throughout life, I've had multiple decently close guy friends (and they are the kind of guys who happened to often have close female friends - perhaps there's a certain type of guy best suited for this).

Anon also pointed out in his post that perhaps if there is more communication amongst men/women, there would be less confusion. I think that's probably one of the best perks of an opposite sex friend - getting a guy's opinion on stuff. That, and sometimes, situationally, friendships just happen based on circumstance/proximity/what have you, and it's not like dating someone - the gender doesn't really matter.

However, there's some Dave Matthews quote out there (which obnoxiously infiltrated many of AIM profiles back in college):

A guy and a girl can be just friends, but at one point or another, they will fall for each other...Maybe temporarily, maybe at the wrong time, maybe too late, or maybe forever.

Here's my take on this - I think if the man is interested in more than a friendship, he knows this from the beginning. However, if he is not interested in the woman as more than a friend at the start, I personally don't see him becoming interested, despite becoming closer to her emotionally, etc. Simply, men know if they are attracted to someone or not, and this generally doesn't change. However, with women, I can definitely see things going the other way, because women have a tendency to feel attracted to men they feel close with and comfortable to (as opposed to it being based solely on physical appearance). So, in short, I don't think a guy will fall for his female friend unless he feels that way about her off the bat, but I can see a woman falling for her male friend over time.

Anyhow. Your thoughts? Is it possible for a guy and girl to be very close friends/best friends without one falling for each other? Are women more likely to fall for their male friends, or vice versa? Do you believe in male/female friendships?

The One?

So now, this morning on the el, I was reading Cosmo (as usual) and there's an article about soulmates (and, kind of, how it's dangerous to believe in them because we pass up good people and just set ourselves up for disappointment).

Do my readers believe in soulmates? I'm a cynic, however, I am torn on this one. I actually kind of do believe in soulmates - however, I think some people will mistakenly think someone is his or her soulmate, get hung up on the person, and then, as cosmo illustrates - miss out on other great people. I can definitely see this - I definitely think it's important to eventually move past someone if it's clear it's either a) not going to work out or b) not happening in the first place. A part of me wants to think (like most of my friends think) that there are lots of people for lots of people, and soulmates are just a figment of one's imagination. (Editor's sidenote - and not to annoy Piper - but it just came to mind that my cynical sarcastic counterpart Chandler Bing also doesn't believe in soulmates. Had to say it.)

Anyhow. There's also another school of thought that says we get two great loves - I'm not sure my feelings on this idea either, although it is quite realistic - maybe there's one for our younger selves (a 'first love', if you will) and then one for our mature adult self - the person we ultimately become.

A tiny tiny part of me does believe there are things not in our control and that sometimes, for whatever reason, some things are just meant to be (or not meant to be), and that maybe some of us do have someone we are somehow destined to end up with. However, I guess I'm not sure everyone has a soulmate. And I definitely, definitely think a lot of people I know have wrongly thought someone was their soulmate (and probably ended up with a lot of wasted time and energy on that person/missed out on other opportunities, etc.). Hmm.

What do you all think? Please, enlighten me.

Apple vs. PC

So, as you know, I am an Apple user. I am in no way shape or form a computer expert (shh, don't tell my coworkers), however, let me say this:

I bought this apple four and a half years ago. Knock on wood, it has never once had a virus, crashed, or lost anything of value (or, for that matter, anything not of value). Going 'Mac' was a decision based on three factors:

1) I had just acquired an ipod a couple months earlier and I really liked how it operated.
2) I'd had a bad experience with my college computer (every roommate I'd ever had made fun of it - I somehow ended up with a lemon).
3) Honestly, I was impressed with the aesthetics and marketing of Apple. I, as an advertising major, would tell you firsthand that this is not a good reason to buy something, but, I did have some backing with reasons 1 & 2.

Anyhow - as I said earlier, despite the fact that I don't do video-editing or various other Mac-specific activities and that I probably paid $200 more for my computer than say, the PC equivalent, my Mac has given me peace of mind, and one can't put a price on that. I am very happy with my decision and, honestly, I don't forsee myself needing to buy a new computer any time in the next couple years (knock on wood...), but if everything continues as is, my next computer will for sure be a Mac.

For Those Watching My Social Calendar....

I will be seeing "Piper II" tomorrow. This is important because she and I don't get to see each other all that often. We are going to celebrate with some high quality Mexican food and good conversation.

What's with the Libraries?

Ok. So I have two close friends who are librarians. I have another close friend who works in a library. I probably have like six or seven, let's say, 'facebook friends', who are currently going to library science school or looking into going to library school. Realistically speaking, I probably know around ten librarians/aspiring librarians! That's more people than I know in almost any other line of work, with the exception of my own.

Is it just me? Am I some weird exception to the rule going on where I personally know a large chunk of the library industry by chance, or is there a sudden surge of popularity with this career path? If the latter, why so? I certainly have no criticisms of this line of work, it does seem to me to be more of a niche interest. Is this a growing area of the economy? Is there a demand for more librarians? Is it a lucrative field? Anyone else out there know a lot of librarians?

Birthdays Galore!

Happy Birthday to Piper (Ana)!!   What would I (and this blog) ever do without you?!?!?!  

When I see you next, I have the world's most appropriate birthday card for you!