Sunday, February 04, 2007
Friday, February 02, 2007
I'm moving...
over to Typepad. It's been fun at Blogger, but the truth is I decided to find a new skin. Microdermabrasion was out, because it sounds too scary. Blog design by Everyday Design was in because Jules is just too cool--bee-boppity-bip-she rules-an-hah-an-hah-an-hah-she walks around in mules--scree-scritchity-scra!
(Okay, can I just interject right here how very hard it is to type rap! You're responsible for your own sound effects. Thank goodness no one came into the room while I was rapping that out!)
Anyhoo, there's a move going on. I do not have all of these posts, version one of A Complete Thought, transferred over. I am working on moving most of them and all of the comments. However, Typepad and Blogger are not so much in love with the idea of sharing the whole A Complete Thought thing, so please be patient while Iwork rap this thing out.
So if you've been over here and you've left your comment, I'm working on giving you the credit for any post over here that you've commented on as I indeedy do move it, post and comment, over there. Of course, I'm not nearly efficient enough to also move the pics and links that went with your great comments. I do apologize. You realize you're working with an amateur? If you've been over here and left a comment and I don't move that post over there, then both the post and your comment will remain as is, here. If you go over there and leave a comment, then I'll leave it all alone--unless of course your comment is snarky (no one would possibly do that, I mean really, the readers here are nothing if not tip top class!).
Without further ado and adieu, please feel free to join me over at A Complete Thought at Typepad.
(Okay, can I just interject right here how very hard it is to type rap! You're responsible for your own sound effects. Thank goodness no one came into the room while I was rapping that out!)
Anyhoo, there's a move going on. I do not have all of these posts, version one of A Complete Thought, transferred over. I am working on moving most of them and all of the comments. However, Typepad and Blogger are not so much in love with the idea of sharing the whole A Complete Thought thing, so please be patient while I
So if you've been over here and you've left your comment, I'm working on giving you the credit for any post over here that you've commented on as I indeedy do move it, post and comment, over there. Of course, I'm not nearly efficient enough to also move the pics and links that went with your great comments. I do apologize. You realize you're working with an amateur? If you've been over here and left a comment and I don't move that post over there, then both the post and your comment will remain as is, here. If you go over there and leave a comment, then I'll leave it all alone--unless of course your comment is snarky (no one would possibly do that, I mean really, the readers here are nothing if not tip top class!).
Without further ado and adieu, please feel free to join me over at A Complete Thought at Typepad.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
A Meme of Six Things...
is actually the first meme I've ever played. Let's see what happens.
Name six things in your refrigerator: Muenster cheese, eggs, milk (both 2% and skim so that peace reigns), Diet Coke (so that peace reigns), and bacon. Now I'm hungry!
Name six things in your freezer: Fish sticks, pecans (this Southern girl will always have these on hand), chocolate chips, stash of M&Ms, chicken, and ice.
Name six things under your kitchen sink: Garbage bags, dishwasher soap, rubber gloves, hand lotion, an empty plastic bottle (I don't remember why I put this under here), and Clorox cleaning wipes.
Name six things around your computer: A cat (she lies on top of the filing cabinet while I blog), the digital camera, Chapstick, a box of tissues, sticky notes, and a book titled Hard Sayings of the Bible.
Name six things in my medicine cabinet: In my house this is an actual closet, the medicine cabinet is 3 shoe boxes full of Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, Vicks Vapor Rub, Hydrocortisone Cream, and medicine syringes.
Name six things on or around your nightstand: Socks, box of tissue, biography of John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progess author), pens, pencils, and two alarm clocks.
Reading back through I can't decide if these are normal things or just immensely boring. Oh well, the first meme has broken through, what might happen next!
Name six things in your refrigerator: Muenster cheese, eggs, milk (both 2% and skim so that peace reigns), Diet Coke (so that peace reigns), and bacon. Now I'm hungry!
Name six things in your freezer: Fish sticks, pecans (this Southern girl will always have these on hand), chocolate chips, stash of M&Ms, chicken, and ice.
Name six things under your kitchen sink: Garbage bags, dishwasher soap, rubber gloves, hand lotion, an empty plastic bottle (I don't remember why I put this under here), and Clorox cleaning wipes.
Name six things around your computer: A cat (she lies on top of the filing cabinet while I blog), the digital camera, Chapstick, a box of tissues, sticky notes, and a book titled Hard Sayings of the Bible.
Name six things in my medicine cabinet: In my house this is an actual closet, the medicine cabinet is 3 shoe boxes full of Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, Vicks Vapor Rub, Hydrocortisone Cream, and medicine syringes.
Name six things on or around your nightstand: Socks, box of tissue, biography of John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progess author), pens, pencils, and two alarm clocks.
Reading back through I can't decide if these are normal things or just immensely boring. Oh well, the first meme has broken through, what might happen next!
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Bible is not a sequel...
where the first part tells one story but the second part tells something completely new, as though the writers decided they needed to jazz up the story to keep the viewers' attention. I really react to the movie sequel idea that so many people have today regarding the Old and New Testaments. The minute I hear someone say, "Well, that's only in the ____ Testament", all sorts of warning bells sound off.
I'm not skirting the obvious differences of Old Testament revelation giving signs, types and shadows and New Testament revelation giving fulfillments and parables. I also agree to the statement that the Old Testament reveals the old covenant, and the New Testament reveals the new covenant (Heb 8:6).
However, believing that the Bible is the whole counsel of God revealing all things essential for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life; and believing that God is changeless, the same yesterday, today and forever, means to me that His revelation has the same changeless authority.
It's just not what we want. We are the fruit of a movie culture--fast action, thin heroes, and lots of cartoons. For the lovers of sequels, it seems that the first part relates a tough, strict, exacting and judgmental God. He's frightening and standoffish, in giving laws and prohibiting that anyone would come too close to His mountain (Ex 19:12).
So it's in the sequel, we think that God has become gentler and more approachable in the person of Jesus Christ. We cite how this Lord heals and feeds thousands, still having time to call little children to Himself. He's nice to His mother. He endures tirelessly the crowds of needy people and those bumbling disciples.
He certainly is all of these things and more. However, my question is, how does anyone think that watering God down, to an image of our own liking or in any way at all for that matter, make Him more able to save? The fact is that it doesn't.
The God who sent thunder, lightning and hail to shake Pharaoh to his core, is the same Lord who has His enemies placed under His feet. The God who struck down Sodom and Gomorrah is the same Lord who struck Saul with blindness. The God who scattered the tribes of Israel for disobedience is the same Lord who scattered the money-changers in the temple.
I'm tired of Christians looking for a way to make God more palatable in His "hard" decrees or in His difficult purposes. That type of God is of the paperdoll variety--flimsy, yielding to chubby, childish hands, quickly grimed up by dirty hands, and just as easily wadded up to be tossed away when interest wanes or attention shifts.
I want a God who unyieldingly decrees His eternal purposes, without the counsel of man. I want a God who sits enthroned in the heavens, holding no counsel but His own. I want a God who is Lord over all the earth, righteous and just in His judgments, faithful and everlasting in His plans.
This is the God of the Old and New Testaments. I'll take nothing less, and neither should you.
I'm not skirting the obvious differences of Old Testament revelation giving signs, types and shadows and New Testament revelation giving fulfillments and parables. I also agree to the statement that the Old Testament reveals the old covenant, and the New Testament reveals the new covenant (Heb 8:6).
However, believing that the Bible is the whole counsel of God revealing all things essential for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life; and believing that God is changeless, the same yesterday, today and forever, means to me that His revelation has the same changeless authority.
It's just not what we want. We are the fruit of a movie culture--fast action, thin heroes, and lots of cartoons. For the lovers of sequels, it seems that the first part relates a tough, strict, exacting and judgmental God. He's frightening and standoffish, in giving laws and prohibiting that anyone would come too close to His mountain (Ex 19:12).
So it's in the sequel, we think that God has become gentler and more approachable in the person of Jesus Christ. We cite how this Lord heals and feeds thousands, still having time to call little children to Himself. He's nice to His mother. He endures tirelessly the crowds of needy people and those bumbling disciples.
He certainly is all of these things and more. However, my question is, how does anyone think that watering God down, to an image of our own liking or in any way at all for that matter, make Him more able to save? The fact is that it doesn't.
The God who sent thunder, lightning and hail to shake Pharaoh to his core, is the same Lord who has His enemies placed under His feet. The God who struck down Sodom and Gomorrah is the same Lord who struck Saul with blindness. The God who scattered the tribes of Israel for disobedience is the same Lord who scattered the money-changers in the temple.
I'm tired of Christians looking for a way to make God more palatable in His "hard" decrees or in His difficult purposes. That type of God is of the paperdoll variety--flimsy, yielding to chubby, childish hands, quickly grimed up by dirty hands, and just as easily wadded up to be tossed away when interest wanes or attention shifts.
I want a God who unyieldingly decrees His eternal purposes, without the counsel of man. I want a God who sits enthroned in the heavens, holding no counsel but His own. I want a God who is Lord over all the earth, righteous and just in His judgments, faithful and everlasting in His plans.
This is the God of the Old and New Testaments. I'll take nothing less, and neither should you.
Dead wood doesn't sprout
Just recently I read this story while doing some looking into the truth and error issue, that should concern each believer.
"There was a champion woodcarver from Bavaria who found a piece of wood in the mouth of a sack of grain. The wood was the same color as the grains of wheat, so he took it into his head to carve the wood into imitation grains. He carved a handful of them, mixed them with some real wheat, and then invited his friends to tell them apart. The woodcarver had done the work so well that no one could tell the difference. Even he was unable to tell the imitation grains from the true wheat. In the end the only way to distinguish the true from the false kernels was to place the grains in water. After a few days the real grain sprouted, while the imitation grain remained exactly what it was before: dead wood."
How can a Christian today tell the difference between the true wheat and the dead wood? The test is the water. The water must be the living water of Christ, not something bottled and marketed by man as the latest, greatest, or newest fad. Bubbles, flavorings, and fancy packaging don't make it good water. Tap water filtered to get out at least 99.8% of the impurities, is still tap water, still containing .2% impurity. The water must come from the Rock, poured out by the Word of the Lord.
The true wheat will sprout when placed in water. The dead wood won't.
What water are you in? Are you sprouting?
"Jesus answered, 'Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:10
"There was a champion woodcarver from Bavaria who found a piece of wood in the mouth of a sack of grain. The wood was the same color as the grains of wheat, so he took it into his head to carve the wood into imitation grains. He carved a handful of them, mixed them with some real wheat, and then invited his friends to tell them apart. The woodcarver had done the work so well that no one could tell the difference. Even he was unable to tell the imitation grains from the true wheat. In the end the only way to distinguish the true from the false kernels was to place the grains in water. After a few days the real grain sprouted, while the imitation grain remained exactly what it was before: dead wood."
How can a Christian today tell the difference between the true wheat and the dead wood? The test is the water. The water must be the living water of Christ, not something bottled and marketed by man as the latest, greatest, or newest fad. Bubbles, flavorings, and fancy packaging don't make it good water. Tap water filtered to get out at least 99.8% of the impurities, is still tap water, still containing .2% impurity. The water must come from the Rock, poured out by the Word of the Lord.
The true wheat will sprout when placed in water. The dead wood won't.
What water are you in? Are you sprouting?
"Jesus answered, 'Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:10
Friday, January 26, 2007
Embracing error...
is a huge part of my past. Maybe that's why as I've grown in truth by God's grace alone, I try to be particularly diligent about error. For too long I lived boldly wrong. I much prefer to live humbly right.
Everyday Mommy posted a terrific piece the other day about a glaring error present in the blasphemous representation by Scientology to make Tom Cruise the next "Jesus". Her assertion in that type of error being obnoxiously loud and offensive to Christians is true. However, she then poses a question daily faced by Christians that has, for some, a more subtle tint--more the whisper of a wrong idea. Read the entire article here.
I was blown away by the comments discussion--mostly blown away by the number of commenters seemingly not too concerned with the highly New Age suggestive language and terms regarding prayer that the author's article encouraged. There was the usual finger-shaking admonitions not to judge lest you be judged, tongue-clucking over how unfortunate that this well-meaning author used terms shared with the false ideations of New Age, and the gentle tolerance of allowing that some people just view things differently than others so let's live and let live.
Of course, there were courageous commenters willing to take on this ridiculous (guess I just gave away what I think about the prayer suggestions) idea with the foundations of scripture supporting their words. Inherent among this second group was the absence of subjectivity and "feelings" replaced instead with the Biblical armor of "facts". Christians are certainly charged to be discerning in their thinking (Prov 17:24), to test and examine every spirit to see if it be false (1 Jn 4:1), and to take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor 10:5). Doing these things with integrity and humility do not make one judgmental but do make one obedient to God's Word.
Naturally, no one wants to be labeled as unfeeling towards another's legitimate questions or even as bearing a lack of grace for another's beliefs. I'm not seeking to offend anyone either, but I'd certainly better be prepared and willing to offend with the truth than be offensive to God by embracing error.
Lamentations 3:40 "Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the Lord. "
Everyday Mommy posted a terrific piece the other day about a glaring error present in the blasphemous representation by Scientology to make Tom Cruise the next "Jesus". Her assertion in that type of error being obnoxiously loud and offensive to Christians is true. However, she then poses a question daily faced by Christians that has, for some, a more subtle tint--more the whisper of a wrong idea. Read the entire article here.
I was blown away by the comments discussion--mostly blown away by the number of commenters seemingly not too concerned with the highly New Age suggestive language and terms regarding prayer that the author's article encouraged. There was the usual finger-shaking admonitions not to judge lest you be judged, tongue-clucking over how unfortunate that this well-meaning author used terms shared with the false ideations of New Age, and the gentle tolerance of allowing that some people just view things differently than others so let's live and let live.
Of course, there were courageous commenters willing to take on this ridiculous (guess I just gave away what I think about the prayer suggestions) idea with the foundations of scripture supporting their words. Inherent among this second group was the absence of subjectivity and "feelings" replaced instead with the Biblical armor of "facts". Christians are certainly charged to be discerning in their thinking (Prov 17:24), to test and examine every spirit to see if it be false (1 Jn 4:1), and to take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor 10:5). Doing these things with integrity and humility do not make one judgmental but do make one obedient to God's Word.
Naturally, no one wants to be labeled as unfeeling towards another's legitimate questions or even as bearing a lack of grace for another's beliefs. I'm not seeking to offend anyone either, but I'd certainly better be prepared and willing to offend with the truth than be offensive to God by embracing error.
Lamentations 3:40 "Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the Lord. "
Seeing your five year old...
hurtling down the neighbor's hill of a driveway, on a scooter, wearing his frog boots and a Rescue Heroes helmet is a sight to behold. Seeing your five year old on the scooter then deliberately aim for and hit the grass edge so hard that it catapults him up into the air is an even bigger sight to behold. Seeing your five year old then land on said grass and roll down the rest of the hill, oh say, 5 or 6 times only to then stand up laughing, is the biggest sight to behold.
Yelling from the front porch that he is not to do that again, at least not in your sight, is a sound to behold.
But I'm not beholding my breath on when he'll venture the next stunt of derring do.
Yelling from the front porch that he is not to do that again, at least not in your sight, is a sound to behold.
But I'm not beholding my breath on when he'll venture the next stunt of derring do.
I'm still here...
lest you think I haven't recovered from the shocks of 24. I'm just currently dwelling in the necessaries of life right now--laundry, meals, homeschool, Bible study prep.
I have a dozen things that I desire to blog about but can't. get. the. complete. thoughts. out. right. now. Please bear with me.
In the meantime, look at this for something to chew on.
See you later.
I have a dozen things that I desire to blog about but can't. get. the. complete. thoughts. out. right. now. Please bear with me.
In the meantime, look at this for something to chew on.
See you later.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Jack is human?
(WARNING: Season 6 of 24 spoilers ahead! Navigate away if not a fan!)
You have got to be kidding me! I was convinced that this terrorist-stomping, bomb-defusing, self-healing, torture-enduring man was not actually conceived and born to human parents, let alone have a brother! Certainly, Jack, of all people, was hatched in some earlier radiation-affected cabbage patch that granted him such significant abilities that all the rest of us just watch with dropped jaws.
No, looks like the guy had his first experience with undue stress in potty training like the rest of us.
Honestly, I thought that last night's one hour was better than the entire 4 hour premiere. I know, some of you might disagree. But bigger than a suitcase nuke taking out Valencia, CA is the news that Rocket Romano (from ER days, I'm sorry I cannot think of him as anyone else) is Jack's brother. And not only that, but this same Rocket Romano (glad to see your arm back on--sorry, more former ER--I don't even watch it anymore) was part of the whole mastermind of Season 5.
Jack, it didn't start and stop with the evil President Logan! Your brother, the guy who shared Cheerios with you, or not--maybe that's where it all started, is THE brain or at least one of them, behind these "terrorist incidents"!
For the love of all that is spy suspense and thrill-seeking, that piece of news is Da Bomb! And to further cause me to come off of the couch with shrieks are the previews indicating that Babe's "That'll do, Pig" farmer is Jack's dad!
I'm telling you that my heart is racing just in the re-telling. Now that's some clever writing, you 24 people. Got to hand it to you. Just when everyone is comfortable with Jack being the man without a family (please, no more Kim) and therefore, he is free and clear to stomp, thrash, shoot, defuse, foil and sabotage the worst and vilest of terrorism, he's got family to consider!
What must Christmas dinner look like at their house? Or family reunions? Do they draw names and then shoot at one another? And can you imagine playing the game of Risk on family night?
So quick synopsis:
Valencia is falling apart. Mass mayhem as everyone not nuked tries to leave before succumbing to radiation sickness. Jack rescues a man out of a helicopter on top of a house. Fayed and co. escape to new safehouse. Fayed calls nuke trigger contact guy with random girlfriend to ask for new nuke trigger since other device now radiation dust. Jack calls Buchanan and asks to be back in. Hasad arrives at CTU and gives info that former Russian general may have provided nukes. Morris discovers link between Russian general and Jack's dad. Buchanan tells Jack. Jack calls Sam, Bauer butler, to look for his dad. Liddy monitors call and then calls Jack's brother, Graham/Gray who wishes Jack had been successfully killed last year (some serious sibling rivalry there). Jack shows up at brother's house but not before Graham/Gray makes insecure wimpy man comment to his wife about her former a'mour relationship with Jack. Jack meets nephew, says hi to sister in law, and then almost immediately but behind privacy of office door begins to "persuade" Graham/Gray to tell the truth!
Other news:
Waleed wears a wire and agrees to help FBI discover info on obvious terrorist cell people being held at detention center. Girlfriend/President's sister, Saundra shrieks about it. President Wayne Palmer is still searching for his presidential presence, ie. courage and in meantime, is embunkered below White House. Advisors, generals and admirals all clamor for attention and status with their pet ideas of handling the situation. President Palmer decides to call the "terrorist incident" a nuclear bomb in his speech.
My apologies for anything I left out. I hear my own Jack Bauers running around demolishing bad guys of the world, so blogging time endeth.
I can't wait for next week!
You have got to be kidding me! I was convinced that this terrorist-stomping, bomb-defusing, self-healing, torture-enduring man was not actually conceived and born to human parents, let alone have a brother! Certainly, Jack, of all people, was hatched in some earlier radiation-affected cabbage patch that granted him such significant abilities that all the rest of us just watch with dropped jaws.
No, looks like the guy had his first experience with undue stress in potty training like the rest of us.
Honestly, I thought that last night's one hour was better than the entire 4 hour premiere. I know, some of you might disagree. But bigger than a suitcase nuke taking out Valencia, CA is the news that Rocket Romano (from ER days, I'm sorry I cannot think of him as anyone else) is Jack's brother. And not only that, but this same Rocket Romano (glad to see your arm back on--sorry, more former ER--I don't even watch it anymore) was part of the whole mastermind of Season 5.
Jack, it didn't start and stop with the evil President Logan! Your brother, the guy who shared Cheerios with you, or not--maybe that's where it all started, is THE brain or at least one of them, behind these "terrorist incidents"!
For the love of all that is spy suspense and thrill-seeking, that piece of news is Da Bomb! And to further cause me to come off of the couch with shrieks are the previews indicating that Babe's "That'll do, Pig" farmer is Jack's dad!
I'm telling you that my heart is racing just in the re-telling. Now that's some clever writing, you 24 people. Got to hand it to you. Just when everyone is comfortable with Jack being the man without a family (please, no more Kim) and therefore, he is free and clear to stomp, thrash, shoot, defuse, foil and sabotage the worst and vilest of terrorism, he's got family to consider!
What must Christmas dinner look like at their house? Or family reunions? Do they draw names and then shoot at one another? And can you imagine playing the game of Risk on family night?
So quick synopsis:
Valencia is falling apart. Mass mayhem as everyone not nuked tries to leave before succumbing to radiation sickness. Jack rescues a man out of a helicopter on top of a house. Fayed and co. escape to new safehouse. Fayed calls nuke trigger contact guy with random girlfriend to ask for new nuke trigger since other device now radiation dust. Jack calls Buchanan and asks to be back in. Hasad arrives at CTU and gives info that former Russian general may have provided nukes. Morris discovers link between Russian general and Jack's dad. Buchanan tells Jack. Jack calls Sam, Bauer butler, to look for his dad. Liddy monitors call and then calls Jack's brother, Graham/Gray who wishes Jack had been successfully killed last year (some serious sibling rivalry there). Jack shows up at brother's house but not before Graham/Gray makes insecure wimpy man comment to his wife about her former a'mour relationship with Jack. Jack meets nephew, says hi to sister in law, and then almost immediately but behind privacy of office door begins to "persuade" Graham/Gray to tell the truth!
Other news:
Waleed wears a wire and agrees to help FBI discover info on obvious terrorist cell people being held at detention center. Girlfriend/President's sister, Saundra shrieks about it. President Wayne Palmer is still searching for his presidential presence, ie. courage and in meantime, is embunkered below White House. Advisors, generals and admirals all clamor for attention and status with their pet ideas of handling the situation. President Palmer decides to call the "terrorist incident" a nuclear bomb in his speech.
My apologies for anything I left out. I hear my own Jack Bauers running around demolishing bad guys of the world, so blogging time endeth.
I can't wait for next week!
Chicken or Fish?
The boys love to ask questions. Each one of them loves to ask lots of individual questions. Each one of them loves to ask individual questions all day long, at various points throughout the day, usually while I'm trying to think complete thoughts. Hence, I blog complete thoughts--or at least I'm trying.
Back to the questions--because so many questions are asked in the course of my day, to which I always feel compelled to answer them, so desirous I am of being a mom who answered her children with other than "because I said so" (although that phrase does suffice around here as well). Do run-on thoughts count as complete thoughts?
Anyway, the point being that lots of times nonsense questions are asked, and I still try to answer them, not discerning that instead I should be challenging the questioner with a seasoned "think for yourself" type admonition. The transition stage of my older ones to actually piece together the provided information and then make wise decisions, responsible decisions, decisions not requiring a question-answer session of their mom, is a tough one I'm discovering.
Case in point, last night's interchange regarding what's for supper--a favorite question around here:
"What's for supper?"
"We're having fish sticks."
"Fish sticks? Do they have chicken in them?"
See, not only are you blown away with the high intelligence of this home but neither can you overcome your culinary jealousy for the gourmet food served therein.
Maybe there's a connection? I'll get back to you on that.
Back to the questions--because so many questions are asked in the course of my day, to which I always feel compelled to answer them, so desirous I am of being a mom who answered her children with other than "because I said so" (although that phrase does suffice around here as well). Do run-on thoughts count as complete thoughts?
Anyway, the point being that lots of times nonsense questions are asked, and I still try to answer them, not discerning that instead I should be challenging the questioner with a seasoned "think for yourself" type admonition. The transition stage of my older ones to actually piece together the provided information and then make wise decisions, responsible decisions, decisions not requiring a question-answer session of their mom, is a tough one I'm discovering.
Case in point, last night's interchange regarding what's for supper--a favorite question around here:
"What's for supper?"
"We're having fish sticks."
"Fish sticks? Do they have chicken in them?"
See, not only are you blown away with the high intelligence of this home but neither can you overcome your culinary jealousy for the gourmet food served therein.
Maybe there's a connection? I'll get back to you on that.
Monday, January 22, 2007
A helpful resource...
is found right here for bloggers and blogger wannabes. I consider myself squarely in the second category, at least until my 100th post. During my wannabe moments, I click on over to this internet deli to feast on technological delights served with simplese language for those of us struggling to understand what we obviously didn't learn in high school or college computer class.
Boy, I can still remember walking by the "nerdy" computer science lab in college and thinking, "What are they doing in there--all that staring at a tiny little screen? Whatever!" I definitely missed the learning curve on that one.
Therefore, I find myself in considerable catch-up mode to not fall behind these younger, hipper, more technologically savvy blogger moms for whom HTML and its appendages are second skin.
Enter Blogging Basics 101 to dash common fears and mistakes regarding blogging. Even more valuable to me is the straightforward step-by-step instruction for blogging success. I followed their instructions to put this button in. Nothing has exploded yet!
If you haven't looked at their site yet, and you're interested in how to start, continue or excel, visit Shannon and Chilihead for blogging etiquette, instruction and advice. Then people can walk by you at your house and ask, "What is she doing in there--all that staring at a tiny little screen? Whatever!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
