first, an ode to beauty
This is sitting on my desk maintenant:
A thing of love. Bear with me, my dears, while i have a girly-gasm. Iwent on a Target binge last night, intending only to purchase somebunny food and paper towels [the road to Target is paved with goodintentions, it's just when you get inside that impulse takes over], andtwo hours later walked out with a copy of The Devil Wears Prada andthis lovely thingy-thing. It's sleek, solid, elegant, practical,classic, with just a hint of that beauty-aisle powder scent. Like theway you imagine a 40's era starlet might smell. I can't tell you howlong (years?) I've looked for just such an all-inclusive makeup case.It has all the right colors, even the concealer and powder, and theyall look good on me. And a cute little eyeliner pencil. And adecent-sized mirror. It's called "Breathtaking Brunette." oh, yes....yes I am. Who knew it was possible to adore a makeup case so? Thankyou Sonia Kashuk. Thank you.
Fact is, I love efficiency almost more than aesthetic- the reason beingthat I'm already mentally erratic, so i need the mundane things in mylife to be simple andstreamlined as possible. The point is not about being pretty, the pointis economy and good design.Gone are the days of broken lipsticks in thebottom of my bag, orhaving to tolerate rummaging around for my eyeliner, or staring in apowder room mirror and cursing out a pimple, and having no concealerwith which to conquer it. Banished are all the other the half-assedcheapo cases of assorted purple eyeshadow and pink lipgloss withcracked covers and busted hinges, which i purchased in hopes of compactloveliness, and ended up barely using one color. Glitter lipgloss? Getout of my life. I have a new cosmetic compadre.
second, an odious disaster
Here is a screenshot of my google homepage:

Yesterday I unwittingly clicked on the highlighted article. I'll tellyou right now, since i learned the hard way and there was no warningposted at the time, Don't Go There. Ya, ok, so it said "Accident", andmaybe this makes me stupid or naive, but I expected there to [maybe] besome photos of bashed-in windshields or a flaming truck, along with theusual debunking of strange rumors. Apparently, I was horribly, horriblywrong. I didn't even know Snopes had a "Gruesome" section, since allI've ever used is this little RSS module. Instead, I was treated to a
truestory, with actual grisly photos of a crumpled car and smashed skullsand bits of bone and hair and brain strewn everywhere on some concrete.SOMEBODY's
BRAIN.Brains belong in skulls, or egyptian mortuary jars at best, but not inmy morning linkies. I mean, omzg, think of the children!!! Butseriously. I am no prude, and am prone to gory fascinations just likeany other human being, but there's definitely a time and a place forit. Nobody likes being ambushed with pictures of entrails at 9am whenthey're trying to enjoy some dunkies.
So, being the busybody that I am, i emailed Snopes.com. Yes, I am that girl. Hey, at least I was polite!
"I subscribe to snopes.com via my google homepage module. Today it listed "Alton Parkway Accident" (granted, it says accident, i didn't expect "gruesome" or such explicit photos, since sometimes it's just a story or more is left to the imagination) and when i clicked on the link i was treated to pictures of brains splashed everywhere. I'm no prude, but that
was a horrible surprise. I don't know if this is possible, but could you please either refrain from listing explicit or gory articles on the google module, or provide a warning? It was a really crappy way to start my day.
Thanks,
Annie"
And i got this back today:
"The RSS feedfrom which Google pulls their listing of recent articles for our sitefeatures a brief summary of each page's contents, including warningsfor pages with disturbing images. Unfortunately, Google does not display those summaries, a factor over which we have no control (nor dowe have the ability to exclude particular articles from Google'slistings).
We recommend that instead of clicking the individual articles aspresented by Google, you simply click on "New Urban Legends" link displayedimmediately above them, as that will take you directly to our ownlisting of new articles, which always includes warnings for pagescontaining material of a sensitive nature.
- David"
I don't think so, David. But nice try. So i shot back:
"Thanks, but that's sort of beside the point of having anRSS feed or a little direct-link module in the first place, isn't it?If I wanted to go to your webpage directly and slog through yourwebsite, I'd have just typed in your address and done so. I realizethat at the moment you have no control over how the links are listed, so I'd reccommend that youhave a talk with Google about making a change to your module. Again,I'm no prude, but that was a truly horrible surprise yesterday. And inthe meantime I'm just going to remove the Snopes module entirely frommy homepage. Thanks again."
It must have worked, or at least a few other yentas must have bitchedabout it too, because this afternoon I noticed they'd added a warning.Hah-ha! Annie FTW!
Edit: I spoke too soon. Just got a wicked rude email back from The Snopes Dope, as he shall henceforth be called, who apparently needs to work on his reading comprehension. I'm resisting the urde to be aggressive and make David, and the rest of Snopes.com, my personal bitch. As follows:"The solution I provided you merely entailed clicking the other of two adjacent links, not typing in a URL or "slogging" through a web site. We're not the ones who have an issue with Google -- you are.
- David"
Sorry, snopesdope, but i'm not the one providing links to bashed-up-brains, you are. And as long as that module exists and you have an arrangement with Google, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that what ends up in that RSS feed is kosher, or at least provide a reasonable warning. So stop being an ass because i don't want to go to your damn homepage, which is beside the point of having an RSS module in the first place. Your solution is crap, and so is your attitude. Bite me.
In other news, i got him to write "slogging", bahaha.
Recent Comments