http://www.insidescience.org/content/liquid-droplets-reveal-clues-quantum-behavior/1349
http://medx.cc/294638665
http://bit.ly/15kqOzN
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-hole-in-our-collective-memory-how-copyright-made-mid-century-books-vanish/278209/
Saturday, August 3, 2013
ok, so why did this get released?
scare tactic?
this is what happens when you fuck with us?
and why are they doing it?
humiliation?
it's right out of orwell, but it's nothing new. it's the same kind of shit the americans were doing in iraq. this is how the state maintains order in an uprising: intimidation. like the gang of armed thugs that they are.
i can never understand why they need to flaunt godwin's law like this. there's plenty of comparisons closer to home.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/brazilian-police-line-naked-protesters-against-wall-gas-and-shoot-them-with-rubber-bullets/
scare tactic?
this is what happens when you fuck with us?
and why are they doing it?
humiliation?
it's right out of orwell, but it's nothing new. it's the same kind of shit the americans were doing in iraq. this is how the state maintains order in an uprising: intimidation. like the gang of armed thugs that they are.
i can never understand why they need to flaunt godwin's law like this. there's plenty of comparisons closer to home.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/brazilian-police-line-naked-protesters-against-wall-gas-and-shoot-them-with-rubber-bullets/
at
21:04
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
these arguments are sooooo tiring. governments v. markets. blah blah blah.
what few people seem to realize is that this argument is indicative of the fact that liberals/conservatives/libertarians are controlling the debate. we're collectively still arguing over how much intervention should be had. that's their narrative, but it has little reflection upon reality.
the problem in europe is monetary. it has nothing to do with how much or how little influence the governments have over the economy. what is has to do with is how much power local governments have over their power to print money. greece and spain and the other have two options - they can either accept yearly transfers from the more wealthy countries (like west virginia accepts transfer from new york), or they can take their sovereignty back and inflate their currency. the idea that they can just accept a currency that's thirty or fifty or a hundred times more valuable than markets would allow their currency to be is ridiculous - unless they want to accept widespread poverty, third world level poverty, as a permanent condition.
further, walkom's lost the plot regarding this country - a plot that was once plastered everywhere. we have a mortgage monopoly here, and they were able to quietly buy up bad assets. we've separated commercial and investment banking. that has nothing to do with anything any recent government has done, and it's not indicative of a better economic position. we were *not* shielded. we simply didn't dismantle the system that was put in place in the 30s and 40s like the americans did, or go back to the gold standard like the europeans did. we were consequently able to *react*. and they would have been able to react, too, had they not foolishly dismantled all their checks and balances.
it's correct to understand it as a failure of the policies of reagan and thatcher.
that's not to say i think these systems are ideal, so much as i recognize that if we must have markets (i'd rather not...) then they need to be regulated to prevent them from collapsing.
our regulatory systems worked, for the simple reason that they still existed.
and, then you get the "borrowing beyond their limits" folks. as though the 1000% rise in the cost of housing, combined with the 50% decrease in real wages, has nothing to do with anything. it's not that housing is too expensive, it's that workers don't deserve to have modest living conditions. you, over there! go live in a closet! get a third job!
we *do* need more socialism, real socialism from the ground up, and it's coming whether anybody likes it or not. the service industry is the economy, now. fast food restaurants are unionizing. other service sectors will follow. this is a natural process and can only be stopped with excessive violence; they may try it, in all truth, but it won't work in the long run. it's a matter of time before wages go up dramatically. and wages have to go up dramatically. people are borrowing heavily because they're not making enough money to live comfortably. once the wage imbalances are fixed, people will no longer have to borrow so much.
so, can we drop this tired governments v. markets shit? in that sense, walkom is right on point.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/30/stephen_harper_doesnt_get_new_world_economy_walkom.html
what few people seem to realize is that this argument is indicative of the fact that liberals/conservatives/libertarians are controlling the debate. we're collectively still arguing over how much intervention should be had. that's their narrative, but it has little reflection upon reality.
the problem in europe is monetary. it has nothing to do with how much or how little influence the governments have over the economy. what is has to do with is how much power local governments have over their power to print money. greece and spain and the other have two options - they can either accept yearly transfers from the more wealthy countries (like west virginia accepts transfer from new york), or they can take their sovereignty back and inflate their currency. the idea that they can just accept a currency that's thirty or fifty or a hundred times more valuable than markets would allow their currency to be is ridiculous - unless they want to accept widespread poverty, third world level poverty, as a permanent condition.
further, walkom's lost the plot regarding this country - a plot that was once plastered everywhere. we have a mortgage monopoly here, and they were able to quietly buy up bad assets. we've separated commercial and investment banking. that has nothing to do with anything any recent government has done, and it's not indicative of a better economic position. we were *not* shielded. we simply didn't dismantle the system that was put in place in the 30s and 40s like the americans did, or go back to the gold standard like the europeans did. we were consequently able to *react*. and they would have been able to react, too, had they not foolishly dismantled all their checks and balances.
it's correct to understand it as a failure of the policies of reagan and thatcher.
that's not to say i think these systems are ideal, so much as i recognize that if we must have markets (i'd rather not...) then they need to be regulated to prevent them from collapsing.
our regulatory systems worked, for the simple reason that they still existed.
and, then you get the "borrowing beyond their limits" folks. as though the 1000% rise in the cost of housing, combined with the 50% decrease in real wages, has nothing to do with anything. it's not that housing is too expensive, it's that workers don't deserve to have modest living conditions. you, over there! go live in a closet! get a third job!
we *do* need more socialism, real socialism from the ground up, and it's coming whether anybody likes it or not. the service industry is the economy, now. fast food restaurants are unionizing. other service sectors will follow. this is a natural process and can only be stopped with excessive violence; they may try it, in all truth, but it won't work in the long run. it's a matter of time before wages go up dramatically. and wages have to go up dramatically. people are borrowing heavily because they're not making enough money to live comfortably. once the wage imbalances are fixed, people will no longer have to borrow so much.
so, can we drop this tired governments v. markets shit? in that sense, walkom is right on point.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/30/stephen_harper_doesnt_get_new_world_economy_walkom.html
at
20:22
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
she's 14, and she's mostly spouting nonsense. he's...i don't know how old he is...but he's not any more informed than she is. he's consequently an idiot, and she's just 14.
the information on golden rice that she's stating is over ten years old. the most recent strains of golden rice have been shown through controlled trials to have enough vitamin a for the rda in two bowls. it works just fine. she throws the naturalistic fallacy out there; she's 14, she's allowed to not have a strong grasp of anthropology. either mother nature is a constantly changing entity that evolves over time with the input of itself (in other words, creating gmo is working with mother nature by definition because humans are a part of nature), or it doesn't exist at all. further, there are plenty of independent studies out there. this idea that there aren't unbiased studies is a really goofy tactic. as the hosts tried to point out, it can't be tested properly.
he didn't challenge her on any of it, kid gloves, but he's right about her being used as a shill - she's just repeating all the same nonsense that gets shared on social media sites, and (judging from what she said) her research probably consisted of a combination of reading facebook and sorting through badly put together activist literature. the female host challenged a bit stronger, but what the fuck kind of question is "are you anti-science?".
i'm very much in favour of labeling gmos, but they both lose here as far as i'm concerned.
i'm sure somebody will post a fact check on the interview. i'll post it if i find it...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/01/rachel-parent-kevin-oleary-gmos-video_n_3689126.html
http://ciitn.missouri.edu/cgi-bin/pub_view_project_ind.cgi?g_num=20&c_id=2007009
the whole "blind because they're only eating rice" thing is a highly privileged argument. first, it's stated very poorly. it should be stated something more like this:
"poor people in 'developing countries' are only able to afford rice, and consequently suffer from malnutrition."
so, maybe they should eat more carrots or other sources of vitamin a or beta-carotene. ok, well that's what we do here, because we can afford it. it's a socio-economic argument.
either approach would solve the problem. but, is it more likely that the problem is going to be solved through wealth redistribution or through creating a cheap source of vitamin a? what the fuck kind of privilege factors into telling poor brown people to go buy food they can't afford?
it's not like i want to force people to only eat rice, it's just that i'm being a lot more realistic. as a starting point, i suppose i don't see anything inherently wrong with "modifying mother nature". i don't really see why gmos are fundamentally different than building houses. both are adapting to the environment.
but, if we have a serious problem, i think we need to look at all avenues to solve it.
ironically, one of the things about rice is that it's a high yield crop with a lower environmental impact. if we're concerned about maximizing yield out of growing spaces - and we should be - then rice is a smarter thing to grow than carrots.
again, i need to point out the obvious - the kid is 14. if you're just following what she's saying without critically analyzing it, you should really hand in your adult card. sorry.
the information on golden rice that she's stating is over ten years old. the most recent strains of golden rice have been shown through controlled trials to have enough vitamin a for the rda in two bowls. it works just fine. she throws the naturalistic fallacy out there; she's 14, she's allowed to not have a strong grasp of anthropology. either mother nature is a constantly changing entity that evolves over time with the input of itself (in other words, creating gmo is working with mother nature by definition because humans are a part of nature), or it doesn't exist at all. further, there are plenty of independent studies out there. this idea that there aren't unbiased studies is a really goofy tactic. as the hosts tried to point out, it can't be tested properly.
he didn't challenge her on any of it, kid gloves, but he's right about her being used as a shill - she's just repeating all the same nonsense that gets shared on social media sites, and (judging from what she said) her research probably consisted of a combination of reading facebook and sorting through badly put together activist literature. the female host challenged a bit stronger, but what the fuck kind of question is "are you anti-science?".
i'm very much in favour of labeling gmos, but they both lose here as far as i'm concerned.
i'm sure somebody will post a fact check on the interview. i'll post it if i find it...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/01/rachel-parent-kevin-oleary-gmos-video_n_3689126.html
http://ciitn.missouri.edu/cgi-bin/pub_view_project_ind.cgi?g_num=20&c_id=2007009
the whole "blind because they're only eating rice" thing is a highly privileged argument. first, it's stated very poorly. it should be stated something more like this:
"poor people in 'developing countries' are only able to afford rice, and consequently suffer from malnutrition."
so, maybe they should eat more carrots or other sources of vitamin a or beta-carotene. ok, well that's what we do here, because we can afford it. it's a socio-economic argument.
either approach would solve the problem. but, is it more likely that the problem is going to be solved through wealth redistribution or through creating a cheap source of vitamin a? what the fuck kind of privilege factors into telling poor brown people to go buy food they can't afford?
it's not like i want to force people to only eat rice, it's just that i'm being a lot more realistic. as a starting point, i suppose i don't see anything inherently wrong with "modifying mother nature". i don't really see why gmos are fundamentally different than building houses. both are adapting to the environment.
but, if we have a serious problem, i think we need to look at all avenues to solve it.
ironically, one of the things about rice is that it's a high yield crop with a lower environmental impact. if we're concerned about maximizing yield out of growing spaces - and we should be - then rice is a smarter thing to grow than carrots.
again, i need to point out the obvious - the kid is 14. if you're just following what she's saying without critically analyzing it, you should really hand in your adult card. sorry.
at
19:55
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Jessica Amber Murray
did you get your dad's netbook yet? can you get it by monday?
also, what are you up to tonight? i think i'm finally feeling social. yesterday was fucking ridiculous, i spent all day tracking my dad's cds down at used stores...
ESA
uhmmm dunno what i'm up to... sleeping. not feeling superrr social. maybe we can hang out tomorrow? and i'll give u your laptop
Jessica Amber Murray
that works.
ESA
Saweetttt
did you get your dad's netbook yet? can you get it by monday?
also, what are you up to tonight? i think i'm finally feeling social. yesterday was fucking ridiculous, i spent all day tracking my dad's cds down at used stores...
ESA
uhmmm dunno what i'm up to... sleeping. not feeling superrr social. maybe we can hang out tomorrow? and i'll give u your laptop
Jessica Amber Murray
that works.
ESA
Saweetttt
at
15:40
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
bicycle?
From: "Jessica Murray" <dfhldgdhdlhfdla@gmail.com>
To: stepmother’s email address
how much would you want for that bicycle? or do you want me to just take it off your hands?
i kind of screwed mine up a little worse than i thought. i was trying to straighten the handle bars, and i ended up losing a lot of the ball bearings that allow the front handle bars to turn (i twisted the wrong allan key open). it's still rideable, but it's not very safe unless i'm moving fairly slowly because turning is very jagged.
i took a walk down to the closest store and the guy in the store said it'll cost about $50 to fix it. i mean, i just need to get the ball bearings in, but i've never done that before, so i'd rather get somebody to do it. the thing is that that bike in your garage is the same model. so, if i can get that bike cheaper, it would make more sense to keep the one i have for spare parts...or fix it and keep it as a backup in case i've got a flat or something. i had two bikes for a long time and found it very convenient for that reason.
j
To: stepmother’s email address
how much would you want for that bicycle? or do you want me to just take it off your hands?
i kind of screwed mine up a little worse than i thought. i was trying to straighten the handle bars, and i ended up losing a lot of the ball bearings that allow the front handle bars to turn (i twisted the wrong allan key open). it's still rideable, but it's not very safe unless i'm moving fairly slowly because turning is very jagged.
i took a walk down to the closest store and the guy in the store said it'll cost about $50 to fix it. i mean, i just need to get the ball bearings in, but i've never done that before, so i'd rather get somebody to do it. the thing is that that bike in your garage is the same model. so, if i can get that bike cheaper, it would make more sense to keep the one i have for spare parts...or fix it and keep it as a backup in case i've got a flat or something. i had two bikes for a long time and found it very convenient for that reason.
j
at
15:23
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Re: my father's cds
From: the surviving uncle’s email address
To: "Jessica Murray" <dfhldgdhdlhfdla@gmail.com>
Well, it sounds to me like you have a pretty good handle on the situation, all of them actually. People rarely deal with the real issues and if they do, it's usually a long time coming. Nobody expected your dad to go as quickly as he did and as you well know it's not something that could have been predicted with any kind of accuracy. You had a chance to say goodbye and that's what counts. Often, we don't get that opportunity.
there were frequent occasions when my dad talked about leaving her. he always said he couldn't leave her because she'd self-destruct into a rage and possibly even harm herself. i'm a little worried she's in the process of doing this, but i don't know a way i can help and i'm even worried that if i try it'll make things worse.
We talked about this often. He did his part and though he may have hoped you would have some sort of relationship with her, he didn't really expect it would happen as he was not delusional. I wouldn't send anything to ferris as it really no longer concerns you in any way. Let her family worry about her. Your dad wanted you to take care of yourself and for you to be happy. So do that. Do it for you and do it for him.
We (your dad's family) do very much consider you family, so keep in touch and let us know where you are and how we can reach you. If there is anything we can help with, let us know.
To: "Jessica Murray" <dfhldgdhdlhfdla@gmail.com>
Well, it sounds to me like you have a pretty good handle on the situation, all of them actually. People rarely deal with the real issues and if they do, it's usually a long time coming. Nobody expected your dad to go as quickly as he did and as you well know it's not something that could have been predicted with any kind of accuracy. You had a chance to say goodbye and that's what counts. Often, we don't get that opportunity.
there were frequent occasions when my dad talked about leaving her. he always said he couldn't leave her because she'd self-destruct into a rage and possibly even harm herself. i'm a little worried she's in the process of doing this, but i don't know a way i can help and i'm even worried that if i try it'll make things worse.
We talked about this often. He did his part and though he may have hoped you would have some sort of relationship with her, he didn't really expect it would happen as he was not delusional. I wouldn't send anything to ferris as it really no longer concerns you in any way. Let her family worry about her. Your dad wanted you to take care of yourself and for you to be happy. So do that. Do it for you and do it for him.
We (your dad's family) do very much consider you family, so keep in touch and let us know where you are and how we can reach you. If there is anything we can help with, let us know.
at
12:46
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Re: my father's cds
From: "Jessica Murray" <dfhldgdhdlhfdla@gmail.com>
To: the surviving uncle’s email address
i'll be picking my stuff up and leaving on monday.
it turns out d has a bunch of them. i'm hoping he'll let me sort through them. there's only a handful more of them that i was hoping for, but, if not, in all honesty, the fact that i have at least a few is sort of enough. most of the stuff i wanted is really easy to find anywhere: dark side, sgt peppers, aladin sane...stuff that you can get for $1 at any garage sale...but stuff that i was really attached to. off of the top of my head, the only other things i was hoping to find were joe's garage and the apostrophe/overnite sensation split.
she's actually giving me a lot of stuff, and i appreciate that, and i do trust her to at least not destroy the things i have. i can only hope that trust is properly placed. if there's significant damage, i'm going to have to sue her. she *is* legally obligated not to harm property that doesn't belong to her, and she understands that. if she chooses to act otherwise, she'll have to take responsibility for that. i don't want to do that, obviously...
the thing i understand is that this isn't actually about me, even if it seems like it is at first. when she's upset or does things that don't seem to make much sense, it's rarely about what's on the surface. what she does is pick scapegoats and then heap all kinds of abuse on to them. i mean, she's obviously upset right now, and has a good reason to be. what she's doing is taking out all of her grief and anger and frustration and hurt on me because i'm the scapegoat she's picked for that. she doesn't require a good reason to do that. often, she doesn't require any reason at all, or will make up a reason to justify it. if i want to get clinical, it's sort of a classic example of somebody passing on abusive behaviour across generations.
so, maybe she's a little upset that i wasn't there at the very end. i don't really know what to say other than that my relationship with my father is something that existed between my father and i. i spent a lot of time with him the week before i left, because i wasn't sure if he'd make it until i got back. and i even asked her - is he expected to make it through the week? should i reschedule? and she told me it would be fine and i should go. on top of that, i had a really emotional conversation with him the night before i left. it was a goodbye call. it felt final. despite what she said about him making it through the week, when i left i felt the goodbyes had been said. i expected to not see him again. and i was at peace with that. again, that's between me and my dad, not between me and the stepmother.
to an extent, she might be internalizing that. she told me he'd still be here when i got back, and he wasn't, so she might be feeling guilty about that. of course that's not her fault, and i wouldn't blame her for it. but if she *feels* like it's her fault, then her response would be to reject that guilt and project it on to somebody else. and, of course, i'm the convenient scape goat. it's even easier, in this circumstance, given the context.
so, she would be able to construct an elaborate fantasy about me not loving my father as a shield to protect her from that guilt that she shouldn't be feeling in the first place. if i didn't love my father, i shouldn't get anything from him.
this seems complex and arbitrary, but she has a lot of complex issues, and i've dealt a lot with them over the years. i feel i have a certain power of psycho-analysis through experience. it's certainly *something* like this - she is *somehow* projecting all her hurt and sadness on to me as a release, and it's neither my fault nor does it really have much to do with me at all.
but, you're right - i can't talk it through with her. i always needed dad to do that.
it's just a few more days...
when i'm gone, she'll key on somebody else. it's not going to end until she can come to terms with things and understand what she's doing. but, realistically, just about every approach has been tried over 35 or 40 years, so i don't know what's going to happen.
there were frequent occasions when my dad talked about leaving her. he always said he couldn't leave her because she'd self-destruct into a rage and possibly even harm herself. i'm a little worried she's in the process of doing this, but i don't know a way i can help and i'm even worried that if i try it'll make things worse.
i'll probably wait until i leave and then send something to her brother, ferris.
j
To: the surviving uncle’s email address
i'll be picking my stuff up and leaving on monday.
it turns out d has a bunch of them. i'm hoping he'll let me sort through them. there's only a handful more of them that i was hoping for, but, if not, in all honesty, the fact that i have at least a few is sort of enough. most of the stuff i wanted is really easy to find anywhere: dark side, sgt peppers, aladin sane...stuff that you can get for $1 at any garage sale...but stuff that i was really attached to. off of the top of my head, the only other things i was hoping to find were joe's garage and the apostrophe/overnite sensation split.
she's actually giving me a lot of stuff, and i appreciate that, and i do trust her to at least not destroy the things i have. i can only hope that trust is properly placed. if there's significant damage, i'm going to have to sue her. she *is* legally obligated not to harm property that doesn't belong to her, and she understands that. if she chooses to act otherwise, she'll have to take responsibility for that. i don't want to do that, obviously...
the thing i understand is that this isn't actually about me, even if it seems like it is at first. when she's upset or does things that don't seem to make much sense, it's rarely about what's on the surface. what she does is pick scapegoats and then heap all kinds of abuse on to them. i mean, she's obviously upset right now, and has a good reason to be. what she's doing is taking out all of her grief and anger and frustration and hurt on me because i'm the scapegoat she's picked for that. she doesn't require a good reason to do that. often, she doesn't require any reason at all, or will make up a reason to justify it. if i want to get clinical, it's sort of a classic example of somebody passing on abusive behaviour across generations.
so, maybe she's a little upset that i wasn't there at the very end. i don't really know what to say other than that my relationship with my father is something that existed between my father and i. i spent a lot of time with him the week before i left, because i wasn't sure if he'd make it until i got back. and i even asked her - is he expected to make it through the week? should i reschedule? and she told me it would be fine and i should go. on top of that, i had a really emotional conversation with him the night before i left. it was a goodbye call. it felt final. despite what she said about him making it through the week, when i left i felt the goodbyes had been said. i expected to not see him again. and i was at peace with that. again, that's between me and my dad, not between me and the stepmother.
to an extent, she might be internalizing that. she told me he'd still be here when i got back, and he wasn't, so she might be feeling guilty about that. of course that's not her fault, and i wouldn't blame her for it. but if she *feels* like it's her fault, then her response would be to reject that guilt and project it on to somebody else. and, of course, i'm the convenient scape goat. it's even easier, in this circumstance, given the context.
so, she would be able to construct an elaborate fantasy about me not loving my father as a shield to protect her from that guilt that she shouldn't be feeling in the first place. if i didn't love my father, i shouldn't get anything from him.
this seems complex and arbitrary, but she has a lot of complex issues, and i've dealt a lot with them over the years. i feel i have a certain power of psycho-analysis through experience. it's certainly *something* like this - she is *somehow* projecting all her hurt and sadness on to me as a release, and it's neither my fault nor does it really have much to do with me at all.
but, you're right - i can't talk it through with her. i always needed dad to do that.
it's just a few more days...
when i'm gone, she'll key on somebody else. it's not going to end until she can come to terms with things and understand what she's doing. but, realistically, just about every approach has been tried over 35 or 40 years, so i don't know what's going to happen.
there were frequent occasions when my dad talked about leaving her. he always said he couldn't leave her because she'd self-destruct into a rage and possibly even harm herself. i'm a little worried she's in the process of doing this, but i don't know a way i can help and i'm even worried that if i try it'll make things worse.
i'll probably wait until i leave and then send something to her brother, ferris.
j
at
11:55
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Re: my father's cds
From: the surviving uncle’s email address
To: "Jessica Murray" <dfhldgdhdlhfdla@gmail.com>
J, people do hurtful things. Sometimes all you can do is try be be a better person than the ones hurting you. You are aware of what is going on and I believe that the only stuff you will get is the stuff you have retrieved on your own. As much as it hurts, at least you have what you have gotten back. The only cd's I got were given to me by your dad and they were 10 or 11 cd's that were the dead uncle’s. You are not in a good bargaining position and need to play what cards you do have, well.
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe strongly that a box of your dad's personal effects have been put aside for you with your things. I would not even ask about them. All you would be doing is saying, "here is another way to hurt me". I would drop the cd issue, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. There is not much to figure out, I think what is going on is pretty clear.
Speaking from personal experience, what I would do (and what your dad would tell you) is do nothing. Don't inquire about anything else. Just get your things as soon as possible and with as little fanfare as possible. Sometimes taking the high road brings surprising results. You are in a very tough spot, try to not let your feelings make it worse.
If you are not in a position to get your things to Windsor right now, maybe the best thing would be to hire a small local mover for an hour or two and put your stuff in a storage locker for now. At least you would be able to see what was given to you and you would know that it is safe.
Considering what is going on, I think that's your best bet. If you don't feel you can trust someone or a situation, then don’t.
To: "Jessica Murray" <dfhldgdhdlhfdla@gmail.com>
J, people do hurtful things. Sometimes all you can do is try be be a better person than the ones hurting you. You are aware of what is going on and I believe that the only stuff you will get is the stuff you have retrieved on your own. As much as it hurts, at least you have what you have gotten back. The only cd's I got were given to me by your dad and they were 10 or 11 cd's that were the dead uncle’s. You are not in a good bargaining position and need to play what cards you do have, well.
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe strongly that a box of your dad's personal effects have been put aside for you with your things. I would not even ask about them. All you would be doing is saying, "here is another way to hurt me". I would drop the cd issue, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. There is not much to figure out, I think what is going on is pretty clear.
Speaking from personal experience, what I would do (and what your dad would tell you) is do nothing. Don't inquire about anything else. Just get your things as soon as possible and with as little fanfare as possible. Sometimes taking the high road brings surprising results. You are in a very tough spot, try to not let your feelings make it worse.
If you are not in a position to get your things to Windsor right now, maybe the best thing would be to hire a small local mover for an hour or two and put your stuff in a storage locker for now. At least you would be able to see what was given to you and you would know that it is safe.
Considering what is going on, I think that's your best bet. If you don't feel you can trust someone or a situation, then don’t.
at
06:52
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
thankfully, i was at least able to recover some of the cds. it cost me a day in phone calls and bus rides, and $107 i don't have, but i got around 45 of them back, including a large percentage of the ones that were very important to me. there's just a few more i hope i can track down.
at
00:30
Location:
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)