Moving My Blog

I just thought I'd let readers know that I am changing my blog address. I'll copy and paste the blogs from here onto the new one, the ones that are still of any relevance anyway. I'll try to polish those up some and have already added a new one, with many other newbies in mind that I hope to write in the coming week or two, as I will be heading out of town over Memorial Day weekend.

Anyway, here is the URL to my new blog:

http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/

Fantasy Baseball...Drama?

It's not every day I wake up and think there will be a lot of bickering in a fantasy baseball league, where insults will be thrown at others' expense, vulgarity is utilized more times than not when attempting to make a point and the complaints are anything but few and far between. But, this is what I awoke to a few days ago.

In most fantasy baseball leagues I've participated, the winner of each game every week was determined by winning a majority of categories. These categories could include: At bats, hits, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, walks, strikeouts, runs batted in, stolen bases, innings pitched, wins, losses, saves, holds, earned run average, WHIP, etc. In one league I'm currently participating, there are 20 such categories. In Week 1, I won 14-6-0 (0 standing for ties). In week 2, I won 12-7-1 and in week 3, I won 10-4-6 for a combined record of 36-17-7. In the other league, a team wins a week based on points, which are tallied by a formula that either adds or subtracts points based on the stat(s). For example, when one of your pitchers strikes out a batter, that counts as 5 points. If one of your position players strikes out, that will lose you points. Due to the formula, pitchers dominate the league. In a single game for me this year, Philadelphia Phillies' pitcher, Cliff Lee, earned 141.00 pts. by himself. Adrian Gonzalez, the slugging 1st baseman for the Boston Red Sox, has a total of 160.00 pts. to this point of the season. Position players aren't of much value in the league. They may only be useful when working as a tie-breaker in a tightly contested match. Before going into the drama that unfolded, let me make note that there were no restrictions. An infinite number of moves could be made and there was no maximum or minimum of innings pitched.

One player in the league made 41 moves in the first 3+ weeks, for an average of about 13 moves per week. What did she do? Directly after a pitcher of her's threw, she'd drop him and pick up one whom was slated to throw the next day. She continually did this to gain an advantage in the league by using and abusing the system. I thought this was quite cheap and made mention of it. What point would there be in holding a draft if everyone based their score on quantity of starts as opposed to the quality of pitchers. This is how ridiculous it got. After St. Louis pitcher, Kyle Lohse, threw a complete game shut-out last week, compiling 114.00 pts., this lady dropped him. She did this on several occasions. So, to prove a point on how cheap and ridiculous this was, a buddy of mine and I dropped all of our position players and just picked up pitchers.

The drama started in the first reply to my complaint about how cheap this person was being with her 41 moves in a short duration. Someone quickly responded (not her) by saying the point was to score more points than the opponent and that there are many ways to go about it. He said that this person was strategizing to do just that and that this very method had been used in leagues prior. He closed by saying to do whatever it takes to win. The woman in charge of this team I complained about chimed in by saying something along the lines of, "Why would I play with the same team every day? Why would I play a player who is on the DL (Disabled List) when he's not going to play? Same with these pitchers. Why do I have one on my team if he's not going to play that day?" Lovely logic, isn't it? Things were relatively calm at this point, until my buddy and I made our moves and that's when the insults and profanity came a-flying.

I can tell these two individuals were never involved with a debate club in school and never majored in critical thinking and/or philosophy. Their inconsistencies, double standards and logic (lack there of) are ubiquitous. The argument that to waive pitchers the day after they throw and to then sign a pitcher whom is scheduled to throw that following day is equivalent to starting a position player, whom is on the DL, is ridiculous. A position player on the Disabled List could miss anywhere from 15 days to an entire season. They're on the DL for a reason; they aren't healthy enough to play baseball. No, it wouldn't make much sense to start a player that can't play. A team would be down to 7 position players to fill 8 positions. Good luck with that set-up! Starting pitchers throw every 4-5 games. There's a stark difference between the two situations. In reality, you'll never see the Philadelphia Phillies waive starting pitcher, Cliff Lee, the day after the throws and to then sign someone, whom hasn't thrown for 3-4 games, and can start the following day for them. That's preposterous and is what my friend and I attempted to illustrate by going over the top with our strategy. The two complainers of our strategy laid claim that we were being cheap, that it wasn't realistic to only possess pitchers on a team and that we should start a new sport, which only included pitching, and see how high ratings would be for it. Like I said just a bit ago, that's inconsistent. One unrealistic strategy is okay and another is not? Like the one guy said at the outset, the point of fantasy baseball is to score more points than your opponent. My buddy and I just used his words against him and how did he respond? He basically admitting to losing the argument by sarcastically stating he wishes he was as intelligent as my friend and I, that he wishes he could be just like us and asked where he could go to accomplish this. As I've learned through the years, when a person resorts to name-calling and useless banter such as this by sarcastically claiming the other to be superior to themselves, they're waiving the white flag.

Since then, the owner of the league has changed the settings, so that there may only be 6 moves made per week. That was the initial intention of my friend and my's over-the-top strategy. We just wanted to illustrate how asinine it was to make 41 moves in 3 weeks time, waiving and signing pitchers at a quicker clip than George W. Bush mispronounces words. Mission accomplished! The two of us have since let go of some pitchers and picked up enough position players to field a whole team, so the only complainer will likely be the woman whom made 41 moves in 3 weeks. Under the new guidelines, she will only be able to make 18 moves in three weeks time. It's such a pity when one attempts to take advantage of a system and it backfires on him/her.

Taking on the Jon Kyl Philosophy - Speaking adamantly while making a declaration with no intent of it being factual

Senator Jon Kyl (R - AZ) made a remark recently which has won over many late night talk show hosts, with Kyl being the victim of the jokes.

In a floor speech on April 8th, Kyl stated the following, "Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does."

Survey says? Not even close. The actual number? 3%. That's right, Kyl was off by just 87%. That's more "off" than Charlie Sheen with prostitutes in a hotel room doing coke.

Kyl then got himself into further trouble when CNN's Don Lemon read a statement from Kyl's office, which read, "His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions."

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen! Jon Kyl has given every single one of us a loophole for lying! That's it. That's the end game right there. We can now get away with just about anything. How many mulligans does a person need? Doesn't matter. There is no limit. All one has to do is, when they're caught lying, state, "My remark was not intended to be a factual statement." Let's see how this plays out in other hypothetical scenarios, shall we?

Bruno: "Honey, I've never seen that woman before in my life!"

Theresa: "I caught you in bed with her!"

Bruno: "Sweetie, that was not intended to be a factual statement. I just wanted you to know that of the billions of women in this world, I've never seen most of them. I've seen this one, but those I haven't seen far outweigh those I have seen, fully clothed or naked."


Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Wolf Blitzer: "Now that it's well know that you did in fact have...relations with Monica Lewinsky, what do you have to say for yourself?"

Clinton: "Wolf, my remarks were not intended to be factual. I was just trying to show that I don't sleep around with every woman out there, just Monica and a few others."


George W. Bush: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. That I can promise you."

Keith Olbermann: "Since no WMDs have been found, sir, what do you have to say for yourself? Do you have the decency, sir, to admit you lied to the American people?"

Bush: "Well, Keith, I didn't lie. What I said wasn't intended to be factual. I just wanted the people to know that under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had the potential to be a threat to us, with or without weapons of mass destruction."


Charlie Sheen: "The rumors are ridiculous. I don't do coke. I don't do hookers. I don't drink alcohol."

Katie Couric: "Since you were caught doing all these things you claimed you didn't partake in and are now facing legal trouble for these very acts, would you care to correct yourself?"

Sheen: "Correct what? What I said wasn't meant to be factual. I was only saying that I don't do coke, hookers or drink all the time. How would I have sex, snort lines or drink while I'm asleep? That's ridiculous!"


Lance: "I am so not gay."

LaTasha: "Since you were caught in bed with Justin, would you care to finally come out to the public?"

Lance: "Oh girl, my statement wasn't meant to be factual. I was just saying that I wasn't chipper that day. You know? Don't you ever have a non-gay day? Every day of mine is gay, well, except for that one."


Bubba: "Baby, they call me footlong for a reason, if you catch my drift."

Chastity: "Well, where is it? What's the deal? Where's this footlong of yours?"

Bubba: "Look, what I said wasn't meant to be a factual statement. Besides, it's cold outside."

Chastity: "We're inside, you idiot!"

Bubba: "Speaking of inside. I'm inside of you now."

Chastity: "I can't feel anything! Jesus! I'm finding me another footlong. Perhaps I should shoot for six feet this time!"


How about Jon Kyl himself? Let's see here...

Jon Kyl had an operation and went from Jill to Jon.

Jon Kyl went to rehab for his addictions to Pepto Bismol, Dimetapp and Teletubbies.

Charlie Sheen said with regard to Kyl, "That dude is nuts! Losing!"

Jon Kyl doesn't believe in making factual statements.

For the record, the before-mentioned declarations about Jon Kyl were not intended to be factual, except for that last one. Thanks again, Jon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/jon-kyl-is-sorry-if-he-ga_n_846941.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/

Top Ten List: Top Ten Things You Shouldn't Say on Easter Sunday to a Die-Hard Christian

Top Ten Things You Shouldn't Say on Easter Sunday to a Die-Hard Christian

10) Sheeeee*t! Muthaf***a!

9) You know, Jesus was a socialist. Just sayin'...

8) Was Jesus gay? I'm just asking.

7) I'll drink to that! Where's the booze and ho's? Cheers!

6) Nobody f***s with the Jesus! (courtesy of John Turturro's character in "The Big Lebowski")

5) I saw Jesus once. I was tripping on acid, listening to Pink Floyd while inside a Planetarium.

4) I wonder what Jesus' take is on the controversial question, "Do handjobs constitute as sex?"

3) I wonder if Jesus and Mary Magdalene will be gettin' jiggy wit it on Sunday. It's something to ponder.

2) I pray for lots of pu**y on Easter Sunday. Amen.

1) (drumroll) Lots of men rise from the dead. It's called Viagra.

...and yes, I know I will be going to hell.

Completely Abstaining From Drama Is To Ask For Drama At The End Of The Day

I'm finally beginning to turn the corner on things not working out with a woman I'd longed for three years and whom gave me every indicator she felt the same only to feel rejection in the end and having felt led on and used, I cut off communication to give my heart time and space to heal. As I asked, she hasn't contacted me for the past week plus and is making it much easier for me to lift my head up and move forward again.

This past week or so has given me a great amount of time to reflect on things. I probably should have seen this red flag at the start of trying to pursue something with this woman, but thought, naively enough, that she'd alter her tune a bit. When she and I started communicating much more regularly with one another, I had told a funny tale about a conversation a friend of mine and I had, which showcased that he was kind of gullible and a bit more serious than the average person. This love interest of mine responded by asking how I can be around serious people and going on a tangent about how she can't surround herself with serious individuals. I replied with something about how I love to kick back and have a good time just as much as the next person, but I also believe there are times one has to be serious. I think balance is key. If one becomes too serious, they can forget how to have a good time and when one is all about having fun, they can lose track of things in their life they should probably take more seriously. This woman was definitely the latter of the two.

I'll say it right now, I don't like drama. Unless it's a well-put together piece of cinema, I don't care to have much drama in my life. However, I think the thought of one's life being drama-free is pretty naive. That appears to be how this woman wanted it and she was disappointed things couldn't transpire in such a smooth-sailing fashion. I joked around with her quite frequently. We made small talk. When I brought up a serious subject, however, she backed away and seemed to ignore it all together.

Like I said, I don't care for drama, but to completely ignore it from the outset of a relationship is only asking for problems in the end. If problem A is ignored on Day 5 and problem B makes its presence known on day 25 and is too ignored and problem C comes about on day 52 only to be denied by a party, there's going to be an escalation of tension in the relationship and problems A & B, along with C, will not stop circulating the conversations until they're discussed and resolved to an extent. This is what happened between my before-mentioned love interest and myself. I tried to reach out to her, open up and talk about serious matters, so that we could understand one another and resolve the issue at hand and she continually ignored it (them) until it became too late. She wound up sending me a text by saying, "This is entirely too much drama." I wonder why. To completely abstain from drama is to ask for it and that's exactly what she did.

March Madness/Sadness (...and I wasn't too surprised by the final score of the title game...)

As usual, following the title game in college basketball, a sadness comes over me in knowing the tournament is complete. In my opinion, the NCAA Tournament brings forth the three most exciting weekends in the world of sports, with nothing outside of New Year's Day in college football being able to even compare with the level of excitement generated during those first four days of the tournament. With the upsets, buzzer beaters, Cinderella stories, bracket busters and basketball analysts looking like complete idiots, it's a truly fabulous time of the year in sports, even if it lasts only 10 days (where games are actually played, excluding the play-in games).

This year was particularly crazy. Virginia Commonwealth (VCU) was one of the final four teams selected into the field and along with Alabama-Birmingham (UAB), they were regarded by most analysts as undeserving to have been invited to the Big Dance. UAB may have proven themselves unworthy, as they were crushed in their play-in game by Clemson. Meanwhile, VCU won their play-in game by quite a wide margin against USC of the Pac-10. They didn't stop there. The 11-seeded Rams crushed 6th seeded Georgetown of the Big East, pounded 3rd seeded Purdue of the Big Ten, defeated 10th seeded Florida State of the ACC and beat top seeded Kansas of the Big XII to march onto the Final Four. No, I didn't just make that up while tripping acid. The 11 seeded VCU Rams, whom had to win 5 games to get there, beat 5 teams from 5 different major conferences (SEC being the exception) to wind up playing in the Final Four. My, how those analysts probably feel like idiots now, don't they? What else is new, right?

VCU's march may have been the story of the tournament, but there were plenty of other surprises. Not only did VCU make the Final Four as an 11 seed, but so did 8 seeded Butler, whom matched up with the Rams for the right to play in the national championship game. An 11 vs. an 8 in the Final Four. Who would've thunk it? It's quite rare to have a bracket buster like 11 seeded George Mason a few years ago, but to have two in the same season? Ouch!

Speaking of bracket busters, there were no 1 or 2 seeds in the Final Four. All 1's: Ohio State (to 4th seeded Kentucky), Duke (to 5th seeded Arizona), Kansas (to 11th seeded VCU) and Pittsburgh (to 8th seeded Butler) and all 2's: North Carolina (to 4th seeded Kentucky), San Diego State (to 3rd seeded Connecticut), Notre Dame (to 10th seeded Florida State) and Florida (to 8th seeded Butler) lost before reaching the Final Four. The Final Four included: 4 seed Kentucky vs. 3 seed Connecticut and 11 seed VCU vs. 8 seed Butler for the sum of the four seeds being 26, a record high for a Final Four.

It was a great tournament and I'm sad to see it end, but happy it transpired as it did. As for the National Championship game, I'm having to laugh at all the talk by analysts claiming it was the ugliest title game in college basketball history and making it seem as if they were shocked by the final score. Really, guys? Well, I'm going to play the outsider and say I wasn't all too surprised by the final.

Regardless of the sport or the source of entertainment, we want excitement, a great climax, to be riveted throughout and leave the game or the theater with a smile on our faces, wanting more. Okay, yes, that's very common and understandable. However, let's look at the two teams that were playing last night. We weren't watching North Carolina and Kansas, two high-powered offenses, not known for having the best defenses in the world, which would likely lead to a final score in the 80s for both teams. But, North Carolina and Kansas weren't playing last night. The game featured Connecticut and Butler, teams built around their defenses.

In 38 games this year, Butler held 27 opponents under 70 points (71.1%), 23 under 65 points (60.5%) and 14 under 60 points (36.8%). UConn's numbers were similar, as in 41 games, the Huskies held 27 teams under 70 points (65.9%), 20 under 65 (48.8%) and 13 under 60 (31.7%). So, in roughly 1/3 of both teams' games, they held their opponents to under 60 points.

Offensively, these two teams were not juggernauts. In 38 games, Butler was held under 70 points 14 times (36.8%), under 65 points on 10 occasions (26.3%) and held under 60 points in 4 games (10.5%). In 41 games, UConn was held under 70 points 17 times (41.5%), under 65 on 9 occasions (22.0%) and under 60 points 4 times (9.8%). So, in roughly 1/3 and 2/5 of their games, Butler and UConn were held under 70 points. Butler ranked 71st in points per game (72.8), while UConn ranked 63rd (73.4). Neither team shot the ball too well from the floor, with Butler ranking 122nd in field goal percentage (.446) and Connecticut ranking 187th (.433).

In a few such examples, Butler lost to Xavier on December 9th by the final score of 51-49, lost to Milwaukee-Wisconsin on January 3rd by the score of 76-52, defeated the before-mentioned Milwaukee-Wisconsin and Old Dominion on March 8th and 17th, respectively, by the scores of 59-44 and 60-58. UConn played in similar such games this year as they: Defeated Villanova on January 17th by the final of 61-59, beat Seton Hall on February 5th by the identical score of 61-59, fell short against Louisville on February 18th by the final of 71-58 and lost to West Virginia on March 2nd by the final score of 65-56.

Looking at the two teams' tournament performances, I don't see how we could have expected an exciting, high-flying shootout. In their six games, Butler outscored their opponents 377 - 368 (average of 62.8 - 61.3). Even when excluding their 41-point output against UConn in the title game, Butler outscored their other five tournament opponents 336 - 315 (average of 67.2 - 63.0). Of their 6 games, Butler held 4 (66.7%) under 70 and 65 (66.7%), with the lone exceptions being Pittsburgh, who scored 7o, and Florida, who scored 71, in a game that went to overtime. Butler held 3 of 6 (50.0%) under 60 (VCU scored 62), 2 of 6 under 55 (Old Dominion scored 58) and 0 of 6 under 50 (Wisconsin scored 54 and Connecticut scored 53). Connecticut, meanwhile, outscored their 6 tournament opponents by the score of 398 - 336 (average of 66.3 - 56.0) and even when excluding the final score from the national title game, those sums would read 345 - 295 (average of 69.0 - 59.0). For the tournament, UConn held all 6 opponents under 70 points (100.0%), 5 of 6 under 65 (83.3%), as San Diego State scored a whopping 67. They held 4 of 6 (66.7%) under 60, with Arizona scoring 63. The Huskies held 2 of 6 opponents (33.3%) under 55 points (Kentucky scored 55) and 1 of 6 (16.7%) under 50 (Bucknell scored 52).

One thing I think many analysts are forgetting and I'm not sure why, is the fact that Butler is like an upper echelon Princeton. NBA Analyst, Greg Anthony, even said that Butler is the best team in the country at playing poorly and yet still finding ways to stay in the game and win in the end. Why is this? Butler doesn't make many mental errors. They don't make a lot of mistakes. Even in the title game, they turned the ball over just six times. This prevents teams from having too many fast-break opportunities and with that, easy baskets at the other end. Offensively, UConn thrives in the open court, with transition points. They didn't have many such opportunities last night when their opponent turned the ball over just six times. Butler also typically takes their time on offense in order to find the open man and best percentage shot possible. They're not afraid to take up 25, 30 or all 35 seconds of the shot clock in order to get that open look. This can often times lead to final scores which may not be pretty to look at, but so long as the Bulldogs finish on top, they're not going to care whether they win 102 - 46 or 2 - 1, they'll be content to end the game with the W.

Throughout the course of the season, both Butler and Connecticut relied on their defenses to keep the games close and for their stars, Shelvin Mack and Kemba Walker, to come through for them in the clutch to vault their respective teams to victory. While the shooting last night was anything but admirable, the defenses were intense, contesting shots, being quick on the guard and not allowing many easy-basket opportunities. Even Shelvin Mack's 3-pointer at the end of the first half to vault the Bulldogs to a 22-19 lead was contested. A hand was right in Mack's face when he released the ball, but just made a heck of a shot. The shooting was poor, but let's not forget the fact that these two defenses were the reason for the teams' success both in the regular season and the tournament and this trend continued into the championship game.

For the tournament, UConn gave up an average of 59.0 points per game, while Butler allowed an average of 61.3 points. While the 53-41 final score is a bit on the low side, I would have expected a game in the 50s, maybe 60s. I did not expect a team to reach 70 last night. Anyone whom felt differently was just living in la la land. This wasn't the San Francisco 49ers led by Joe Montana and Jerry Rice against the St. Louis Rams with the likes of Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt. No, this was the Steel Curtain facing the Baltimore Ravens of a few years back. It was a Big East-type brawl. While we, as fans, may want that popcorn movie, it was pretty silly to have expected such a result when these two clubs went head-to-head and like many analysts were being with regard to VCU getting invited to the Big Dance, they're being quite one-sided and silly with their critique of the title game's quality. Perhaps they should watch Arena Football from this point forward as opposed to the NFL.

Letting Go of the Unknown Is a Difficult Task for the Over-Analyzer

I'll be the first to admit I over-analyze things. It's just my nature. If I go out of town and have a tentative plan set, I like to concoct a second and third general plan just in case numero uno doesn't go as scheduled. If I'm confronted on a serious matter, I like to thoroughly think about what I truly feel on the matter before I make my voice heard. When writing an essay on what seems to be a rather black-and-white issue, I like to thoroughly ponder the grey before coming to a more concise conclusion. While my answers may seem vague to seem, they're typically very well thought out and while a black-and-white mentality may not come to a complete understanding of where I'm exactly positioned on an issue, I'd like to believe that even they would be able to learn a great deal more about me and where I stand on that very issue than from a person whom may give them a four- or five-word response. Also, while I rarely see any answer in a black-or-white lens, what bothers me more than anything is not having any idea of what that answer is. To a person whom over-thinks, does more research and studying than they probably should, whom over-analyzes, not being able to come to a semi-concise conclusion is quite bothersome and leaves us wondering. It may be easy for someone whom doesn't over-analyze to close the unfinished book and move on to another, yet it's quite difficult for someone like myself to ultimately close that book until I know the reason for the ending.

This brings me to a recent development in my life, where a woman I had liked for a little over 3 years and whom I (and several others) was (were) pretty certain felt similarly, basically told me she didn't feel the same and while she loved to hang out with me, would basically cut off communication if I couldn't accept the fact she didn't feel for me as I do for her. I then placed the official stamp on the envelope that was soon to be delivered anyway and cut off communication with her to give my heart time and space to heal. Of course, she never provided me with any reasons. She never answered the "Why's". She just gave me the black-and-white response, the ending, without explaining why or how we reached that conclusion. So, it leaves me to wonder, "Why did she tell friends of mine she felt the same for me?", "Why did she regularly cross that line between flirting and showing genuine interest with me?", "Why did she respond in an almost over-the-top fashion when I bought or constructed gifts for her without ever telling or even signaling to me that they wouldn't change her perception of me or our relationship?", "Why does (or doesn't) she feel anything for me?", "If my friends were telling the truth (I know they were), when did her mind change on matters?", "Is she just scared to become seriously involved right now?," "Why did she claim she wanted to keep her distance from me when I visited, yet called/text me every day saying she wanted to get together and seemed very excited about it, only to bail at the last minute?" I may never know the answers to these questions and I'm very cognizant of that. I know that I'll probably not hear any answers today, tomorrow, next week or even a year from now and in time, I'll let it rest, but that will be difficult for a little while.

I sent her one final e-mail Saturday afternoon, apologized for cutting off communication with her, but gave her a reason why I felt I needed to do so, so my heart could mend and I could move forward. I thanked her for giving me hope that I could feel something for a woman again, as I hadn't felt anything since September 12th of 2003 and most in my family felt I'd never generate feelings for a woman again. With her, that feeling of love, that hope was instilled in me again, so I thanked her for that. I also wished her the best, happiness in all areas of life and that she could find the love she most certainly deserves, but that I ask she leave me be, so I can get over her and move on to the next book. She's yet to get back to me and I don't expect her to do so. I just hope it makes her realize how much she meant (means) to me and in time, with me being absent from her life, she'll start to realize she misses me and wishes she had made a different decision on matters.

Outside of being ignorant on what has been going on in that mind and heart of her's, the most difficult part about all this is that I feel like I was led on, through that used and kicked to the curb when I finally stood my ground and didn't let her take any further advantage of me. It's depressing to work so valiantly to achieve a certain goal, only to fall short. I exhausted myself of so much time, energy and effort in attempting to attain her love, it finally caught up with me and has left me drained for the past week. I'll bounce back. I just wish I'd catch a break at some point. For the first time in my life, I felt like I had made all the right moves, like I hadn't made a mistake and even then, the ball didn't bounce my way. Hopefully it will next time. My friends keep telling me she's undeserving of me, that I deserve so much more, someone whom doesn't take me for granted, use me and someone whom gives as much as receives. I'd like to believe they're right, but it's difficult for me to see the light at the end of the tunnel at this point when I'm still venturing that very tunnel with a flashlight in hope of finding some answers. I'll just have to make sure I venture forward until that very light will inevitably make its presence known and I can finally take one look back, breathe a heavy sigh and then step out of the dark tunnel, closing one chapter and moving onto the next.

I'm Going to Protest "Paul" For Its Anti-Christian Stance! ...after I see it a couple times, of course...

I saw the new Simon Pegg/Nick Frost film, "Paul," last week and for the hell of it, decided to peruse the IMDb.com site to see what fellow film-goers had to say regarding the film. To my surprise, there were numerous posts about Pegg, Frost and company crossing the line from funny to offensive with how they mocked organized religion in the film, Christianity in particular. These people went on to say there was a liberal, atheistic, Hollywood agenda attached to the film. Some said they'd protest the movie. Others said they'd contact whomever they could to prevent there from being a sequel or for this film to have any success at the box office. Some people complained that "Paul" wasn't fair and balanced in their criticism of organized religion, as they spent most, if not all of their time, attacking Christianity. Some parents declared they wouldn't allow their kids to see such a film and demanded that other parents hold the same stance.

How I love to see religious folk riled. It's a personal fetish of mine to stir the pot just enough (eh, okay, perhaps overly so at times) to get a rise (not that kind of rise, unless we're talking about priests, then that's another matter entirely) out of them and munch on some popcorn as they come forth with drivel. Just thinking about it right now has put a wide grin on my face, which could have only been implanted by Satan himself (or herself or itself, whatever)!

First off, the film is rated R. No child under 17 can see the movie unless they're with an adult. So, for those parents whom said they wouldn't allow their kids to see the film, that's fine. They can't see the film unless a person such as yourself went with them. So, relax.

Secondly, let's remove that giant log that has been inserted in your rear. I have a hunch it will be a difficult operation, but that's why doctors go to school for so long and get paid what they do. How many films, comics, television programs have poked fun at religion? Are these same people going to complain about and protest each and every such program/performance? Best of luck with that.

Also, why do they think Christianity was the focal point of the religious jokes? Could it be because the majority in this county, the U.S. of A., whom practice religion, is Christian? What, am I going to give speeches at youth basketball camps across the country and talk to them about baseball? Of all organized religions, Christianity is the most practiced in this country. A good chunk of people are not well versed in religions other than that which they themselves practice. If Pegg and Frost spent most of their time poking fun at Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam, a good chunk of viewers would not understand the references and would therefore not laugh at the jokes. Were the religious jokes necessary? That is more worthy of debate. But since the jokes were included in the film, questioning why Pegg and Frost focused on Christianity more so than any other religion, is a tad... Oh, what's the word? Help me out here... I'll let you fill in the blank.

Do these religious folks truly believe that the intent of this film was to turn people away from organized religion? From Christianity? From Jesus? Really? It's a comedy. The intent is to provoke smiles and laughter, not to "brainwash" young people's minds into believing that science, not religion, is the way to go. Although... Eh, nevermind. Do we have to take things so seriously all the time? Someone even compared this film to "Da Vinci Code," saying that the religious jokes were only included to spark protests and through that, build potential viewers' curiosity enough to draw more people to the theaters. That comparison is laughable. That'd be like me comparing "As Good As It Gets" to "Brokeback Mountain," because Greg Kinnear plays a homosexual man in "As Good As It Gets". A bit of a stretch, isn't it? Even professional gymnasts couldn't accomplish such a feat.

As is always the case, the film is not for everybody. Personally, I found it to be quite funny, as I do Pegg and Frost's other work ("Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz"), but let's not dismiss the film due to some harmless religious jokes. For those that do, ::checks watch::, that's going to be a mighty long operation, isn't it?

It's different this time...

I've only cut off communication twice in my life and oddly enough, both occurred in the past 6 months or so. On September 18th, 2010, I cut off communication with someone I had built (thought I had) a strong friendship. We talked most nights after she got back from work. When I visited Omaha, she and I hung out roughly half the days I was in town. We did kiss once, but things began to head south after she told me the strong feelings she had for me and I was uncertain about my feelings toward her. After the kiss and her telling me she had condoms in her purse, suggesting we have intercourse to which I declined, I knew how things were going to end - not pretty. We began drifting apart after that incident until she overdramatized things and with all the stress I already had going on with some serious health problems, I decided it was best to let go of the unneeded stress and drama. I later found out that she wasn't coy about sharing secrets I had told her in confidence. She also lied about and to me pretty regularly. She also got around while she was attempting to persuade me to be her boyfriend. We haven't contacted one another since and I don't, for a second, regret my decision. I always knew something was fishy about her, that she was hiding something and I found this to be the case, unfortunately.

Just this past Tuesday, I cut off communication with another woman, one whom I've liked for over 3 years now. I was told that she confessed she felt the same way about me. After I started feeling better in December and I knew I'd be moving back to Omaha, I made it a point to keep in more regular contact with her to hopefully build upon our friendship and be able to transition to something greater when I moved back. She flirted with and complimented me fairly regularly. We had our own inside jokes, which no one else would get. She put forth reactions to gifts I either bought or constructed which I had never before witnessed; they were so joyful, energetic and enthusiastic. I genuinely felt she and I had something special and it would continue to flourish. Just a couple of weeks ago, she seemed to distance herself from me and the only possible explanation I had was because I was heading to Omaha three days from then and she was nervous, as was I. She saw me the first night I was there and while she seemed quiet and nervous at first, after she opened my gift and laughed so hard she banged her head against a railing behind her, she seemed to be much more open, social and comfortable. She didn't hesitate when a friend of mine said to me that he and I should hang out two days from then and she butted in with, "I want to go!" Given the fact she hadn't hung out with this buddy of mine for quite a while, I had assumed she wanted to see me again. She never called that night. When she called back the next day, she said she couldn't hang out that night, but could the following after work. After work, she text me saying she couldn't hang out that night, but after I called, said we still had plenty of time to get together. The following night, after I text her about where I was heading, she text right back saying she couldn't hang out that night, but might be able to the following, which would be my last night in town. She never got back to me that final night. This has been a trend with her, where she'll seem to take a step or two closer to me and then quickly regress a step or two. This happened while I was situated here, in Ohio, and also when I was in Nebraska. So, I finally e-mailed her and told her what I thought about the situation and how I didn't appreciate feeling like I was on the receiving end of 50% of her effort in return for 100% of mine, that I felt used and taken for granted and wondered what was going on in that mind of her's. She wrote back the very next day with a rather harsh e-mail, saying she tried to distance herself from me while I was in town as to not lead me on into thinking she felt more strongly for me than she actually did, that she always loves hanging out with me, but that the only way she and I could hang out in the future would be if I came to a full understanding and acceptance of her feelings or lack there of. Whether all of that is true is beyond me at this point. Unfortunately, I have to now question the validity of anything she's told me. But, I felt it was best to separate myself from her and allow my heart to mend. It had been toyed with for quite a while and I just didn't care for it to be tampered with by her any more.

Unlike the first occasion I resorted to this cutting off communication, I actually have strong feelings for this person and have had them for quite some time. It honestly wasn't that big of a deal to cut ties with the first woman I spoke about earlier. After about a day, I was over it and actually felt a sense of relief, as I didn't have to deal with her stress-induced drama any more. It's different this time, though. I keep wanting to call her, write her, see her and yet know I probably shouldn't. Part of me hopes due to my absence in her life, she'll soon begin to realize how much she misses me and will come forth with a sincere and heartfelt phone call or even e-mail. I'm not counting on that to happen, though. The most difficult thing in all of this is the fact I just don't understand what has been going on in that mind of her's, what she truly thinks and/or feels and what in the world she thought I would think/feel when she said/did some of the things she said/did. As I came to find out just three short weeks ago, I guess a friend of mine had told her how I felt about her and she said she felt the same. After I told her about a gift I had bought, she had to have known I still had feelings for her. No male friend had ever done that for her as I later learned, so how could she really think any differently? What was her first line in her response? "Oh Craig, your e-mails make me smile, every time. : )." Who says that? When talking to a person you KNOW likes you as more than a friend, why in the world tell them they always make you smile if you don't feel similarly? I just can't understand that. I've never been told by a male friend I always make them smile. I've never been told by a female friend I always make them smile. I've never been told by a family member that I always make them smile. The only such people I've heard this from are girlfriends or women wanting to start a relationship with me. That's it. No one else. Even if she didn't know I liked her, why say that? The fact is she did know I liked her. Does she think a comment like that won't make me think she may feel similarly? Does she think her heavy flirtations and constant compliments aren't going to make me more inclined to think she has some feelings for me? I just wish I could understand her thought-process through these past few months (perhaps years), what she's been thinking and feeling, especially since our communication became much more frequent. I tried opening up to her. I tried engaging in serious, meaningful conversation with her, but she refused to reciprocate. She didn't want to have a serious discussion. She didn't much care for opening up to me as I did to her. Something seemed to be holding her back. Whatever that something was, I just wish I had some answers, so I could fully move on from this and hopefully learn so that this cycle won't repeat itself in the future.

She may not believe this at the moment, but she'll always hold a special place in my heart. Before her, I hadn't felt anything for a woman for 4.5 years and I honestly didn't think I ever would again. She helped prove me wrong and never in my life have I been so happy to have been proven wrong. I'll always love her and wish her nothing but the very best. She has a lot to work on before she thinks about involving herself in a serious relationship, but I know she'll learn and grow, just as I will. Who knows, maybe a couple years from now when I'm moved back and settled in Omaha, she and I will bump into one another and we can again work on establishing a friendship and if we've both grown enough by then, maybe build something greater than that. As I've said previously, I won't be expecting that, but again, who knows? All I know is I love her and hope that she attains happiness in life.