The other side from the twin tram tracks.
True to promise, this is what the world looks like on the other side of the polished steel. Quite a pleasantly strident contrast, if I may say so. Of course, the pictures are somewhat old and the foliage is neither as luxuriant nor as green at the moment. But if not for remembrance, then what are frozen images for?
And a little more to the right…
And finally, the great beyond:
Enjoy. I do.
Now I simply must go for a drive, for I fear I will go mad otherwise.
- atb - ecstasy
November 14th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Are there bears in those woods? Ive also never seen a completely white sky before…I cant say I like it too much. It’d drive me mad too.
Fatboy Slim Talking ‘Bout My Baby (Midfield General’s Disco Reshuffle) BBBII
November 14th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
No, but we do have marauding packs of occasionally rabid stray dogs reverted feral.
The blank sky is due to my noobishly setting a ludicrously prolonged exposure time. The camera was new to me and I new to it. The weather was exceedingly clear at the time. I’ve toned the pics’ brightness down in postproc to try and alleviate some of the jadedness and recover hue and depth of colour but the sky’s blue remained a casualty, unfortunately.
I find the effect captivating, though. Accidental artistic genius?
Bonkers, Female, but not evil…
- atb - the fields of love
November 14th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Mind linking to any pics you might have of where you live? I’d enjoy quenching my own curiosity now that, I like to think, I’ve quenched yours.
Any kangaroos or wallabies about? Dropbears don’t eat the poor things I hope, do they?
- atb - i dont wanna stop
November 14th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
That sounds so surreal to me. I can’t imagine that happening in a metro area…maybe one dog, in a drought stricken area.. would have to be almost full dingo.. but not a PACK of dogs going feral!! This makes me surprised that you are so anti-gun.
Where I live, there is no view (which is enough to drive anyone bonkers). There is a nice park around the corner though, from which I took the picture of the Manly ferry on its way to - who woulda thought it - Manly.
Post your email address and I will send you a pic but you must respect my privacy and not show to anyone else.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
That goes without saying. Likewise, not that I’m prudish or anything, I’d rather you had picked my addy up from my profile on the forums. I’m understandably reluctant about posting it just about anywhere. Even better would have been for you to have uploaded the pic somewhere like, imageshack or your own blog, and simply linked back to it. However, as we stand, here it is.
Just this year, a Japanese citisen residing downtown was mortally injured by a stray lashing his femoral artery open. He exsanguinated in moments on the sidewalk, metres from the safety of the entrance to the apartment building where he lived. When the ambulance arrived they could but pronounce him dead.
That there are an estimated 200,000 strays in Bucharest alone seems to me as fear mongering through blatant hyperbole in the journalistic heat of the moment.
As you can see, though, the article garnered quite a few comments. There has not been another documented attack since.
- atb - hold you
November 14th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Thoroughly civilised societies have neither feral dogs nor firearms loose on their streets.
- atb - 9 pm (till i come)
November 14th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Btw, have a look.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Coming from a more affluent country, I have to say it is quite shocking to learn about your neighbourhood. How can the authorities let rabid dogs (rabies!!) wander around? To me, this is really disturbing. Do they view it as a form of population/curfew control?
I have some friends who are going to visit Romania early next month, one of them is fascinated by it, so I’ll probably get a look at some of his photos on his return.
I couldn’t read the article which I guess was in Romanian but what a lovely picture of a body bag in use…
Your email doesn’t display on the mabtw member list. I’ve emailed you some info, if you want to give me some feedback that’s cool, just please do so privately.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Are you hiding your email address so that Odonell doesnt obtain it because unfortunately he now has it. hee hee.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Sonyad, I need to ask you a favour. I think the comment on the link may be of interest to bunny wunny. I would be grateful if you would invite her to read it. Thanks.
http://wolfe.mabtw.com/2006/11/14/open-thread-for-women-2/#comment-1567
November 19th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Female you wallaby, do find some cockled errand boy to do your biding. Speaking of whom… why don’t you have Odonell solicit for you, from work or through a proxy? He’s supposed to be some sort o’pro with them ‘nets’, ain’t he?
Oh, I see. You broke up with Rosie. Or are you mild mannered ‘donny only in the daytime?
Cheers.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
November 28th, 2006 at 10:29 am
So even though the infertile husband agreed to sourcing sperm from a third party, with the full intention and wishes for that sperm to transform into a human, he shouldn’t be responsible for that human when it is born? Obviously I’ve missread your other views on women being the only ones who don’t want to be held accountable for their choice and actions. Such a shame when you are blind to your own conflicting views. I think they call that prejudice. Or projection. Or buck passing. Or something.
So then, it would be better if that man never had the experience of being a father, even if he desperately had wanted to be one? It’s better if he just missed out on that then? I think they call that Pride. Or Ego. Or Stupidity. Or something.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Much as I’d love to take you to task, blind wallaby, I fear I lack the resolve. I’m content to dispassionately observe and succintly and poignantly reply to your purposefully misconstruing my writing.
In the case of subsequent divorce, after impregnation with the third party’s sperm, a successful pregnancy and a live born child, the father’s rights to custody supersede those of the mother, unless he should chose to forfeit those rights in favour of her or there be some based reason to deny him custody, as in proven abuse on his part or well founded belief therein.
If the infertile man should desperately desire to have children, as opposed to suddenly becoming aware. by whatever way, of his wife harlotry and the sour fruits sired by another’s loins that she spawned; how is that at all different but better through knowledge and consent, though still excruciating?
Of women, few but spinsters and the rare rare sterile unfortunates know a childless death. No woman can be cheated out of her progenitures by another, least of all her husband. Nature and the courts saw amply to that.
I fail to see where I contradict myself or earlier installments of my views. You seem to be fond of quoting out of context, though. Are you sure you read my comments integrally?
‘Obviously I’ve missread[...]‘
Clearly. I doubt you can feign that well.
- The Chemical Brothers - the big jump-kalbar
November 28th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
I can see why you said you’d love to take me to task but lacked the resolve. Sadly obvious.
Why, pray tell?
Yes, that’s what I said.
Desire is not opposed to enlightenment. Unless you’re a buddhist.
The Eightfold Path is one way, mmmm. And?
Right. Okay, maybe his wife cheated on him.
Okaaay. Rotten apple, fell far from the tree.
The evil, devil woman.
I’m sorry, different to what? I’ve been distracted by demonized woman and rotting fruit.
To know or not to know. Which is preferable would depend entirely on the man and his amount of pride. The equation works like this. Man’s Pride > 50% of personality. Do not tell! Do not tell! Anything less, he should be able to handle it.
If the man is fertile, then the more excruciating it becomes, because it served no other purpose than betrayal and deceit. If the man is infertile, wants a child and the wife also wants a child, but cheats, then, she isn’t necessarily a selfish slut. Keep that in mind when you go about changing the legislation.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Legally unwed (single) or divorced women should not be allowed to resort to sperm banks to conceive while out of wedlock. It is unnatural and likely harmful to the child to be raised by a single mother, as seems ever more fashionable in our ever more feminised societies.
Women should be able, with the husband’s consent, to resort to sperm banks if the husband is physiologically unable to conceive or has a high risk of siring children afflicted with congenital deformations or genetic aberrations. No, children already born should not be put down out of eugenic consideration veiled in ‘humanness’.
If, after conception and live birth, the woman decides to divorce the infertile husband, his right to custody should supersede the mother’s unless some more encompassing rationale deems otherwise, after objective evaluation on a case by case basis, for the reason I stated earlier - possible abuse of the child by the legal father - .Thus women, the sweet, weak willed creatures that they are, will be aided in overcoming the temptation of divorcing the sterile man being comforted by no knowledge of likely custody over the child or .
A deterrent to marrying a man known to be unable to conceive pending approval of sperm bank usage and a subsequent divorce with assured retaining custody rights. Either you divorce the man right after you find out he is sterile/bear with it or give up the child.
For this state of affairs to be achieved it follows that there should be no private sperm banks. Not least because they’d likely go out of business in such a legal environment but because, far more likely, they’d consequently be under severe strain only to resist the temptation of breaking the law merely to stay afloat. This task should be left up to the national healthcare system, that is not bound to cash flow or profit margin objectives through customers served.
If the man is not sterile but the woman resorts to adulterous relationships for men to sire her children unbeknownst or assented to by her hubby, then you tell me what is morally/honourably/humanely appropriate and should be compounded into law. Take him to the cleaners and make him pay for some the bastard for 18 years? You seem to not only condone but approve of that approach.
Women aren’t complex. You’re just bloody complicated and convoluted.
- Antique - follow me
November 28th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
*or free paychecks.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Everything’s peachy keen so long as the cockled fool don’t find out, is it? If he does, too bad. Take him to the cleaners and make him pay 18 years of alimony for someone else’s kid.
You epitomise fairness and eekwalitee, Female. Jolly good show, you wallaby.
- Antique - follow me
December 4th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Ah hahaha. You are funny, aren’t you? You’d have to be, to perceive me as unfair while you yourself have basically said that women should have zero parental and custody rights when it comes to children. Should women have any rights at all Sonyad? How about the right to wear what they want and go out in public without a male chaperone? Don’t answer that, I don’t want to unnecessarily delay you on your way to the mosque. And I think we already know the answer.
You seem to imagine this as if the mother and all her friends are in on a big secret that they think is a hilarious joke on the man. Laughing at him, behind his back, at any and every opportunity. The reality of the situation would be that both parents and even the child may suspect, but would choose denial more often than not. It’s a good choice, it’s a defense against the pain of the truth. If the mother knew without a shadow of a doubt who the real father was, and knew it wasn’t the husband, then I doubt she would be laughing about the fact she had cuckolded her husband. I doubt many woman would even entertain the thought that their husband was cuckolded. More than likely, she would be living with the constant burden of guilt and fear of the consequences for all concerned if the secret was revealed. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss and in this situation, I think it definately is.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Oy, Female, I’m all shaken up about it.
The horrendous burden of guilt, the sullying pain of day to day coping with the knowledge! The horror… the horror… Boohoohoo, my heart fell apart last instant. The world and the ubiquitous patriarchal society it sports are both so bloody cruel to bastard spawning adulterous women! Outrageous. Closed minded misogynist fools.
Female, is there some sort of ‘wallaby mode’ switch you flick each time you trip over yourself in beaming left and right, from another blog to mine?
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your continued presence here. And I’m not just saying that cause scarcely anybody else besides me posts anything here.
“How about the right to wear what they want and go out in public without a male chaperone?”
Last time I checked, neither Australia nor Romania are under Sharia law or Burka dress code. They both have laws in place to reprimand indecent exposure, though. Neither was Romania, last time I checked, Osama’s caliphate. Then again, it’s been a good few hours since this morning. God knows what might have transpired.
And I don’t envision the prospect of mine becoming a Muslim nation ever as particularly enticing.
As for adulterous spouses of the female variety. Why in hell should it matter at all to women the depravity that is cheating? In the end, whatever happens short of an abhortion or miscarriage, it’s their plodder for certain.
The man, if his only child is in (hidden or otherwise) actuality a bastard, will die childless and heirless. An entire family line might go to bloody heel because of his having hitched unwisely. A bastard will then neatly supplant him/herself as sole heir(ess).
I find your take on this as distastefully condoning, not to say approving. You’ve simply reworded and consistently expanded your earlier view that, as per my paraphrasal of the quintessence, so long as the fool don’t find out, everything’s peachy keen.
And yet you’ve the gall to deem me a sympathiser of Sharia law and an unfit Christian, whilst you yourself also condone or even praisingly approve of abhortion as well as cruel and unusual punishment for purported rapists, as opposed to statutory rapists.
As for parental and custody rights. Men already have arguably almost no such rights and the few that be have quite feeble statutory representation. But the thing that I take exception at and is the original issue at the heart of my diatribe is women being allowed to legally resort to sperm banks for artificial insemination. You might remember I argued that this should not be so for it is unnatural and quite likely harmful to the child’s proper, healthy mental as well as physical development and that society needs to take steps to bring the alienated father back into the fold, as the rightful head of the family.
I went further and touched the matter of infertile couples resorting to the service niche now being offered by the national healthcare system and how preventing possible abuses loopholes around women now not being allowed to use artificial insemination except within a legally couple should be plugged. No pun intended. By making any subsequent divorce impose forfeiting of the child. Not that that many men are infertile that their wives should be warranted to legally resort to artificial insemination within that couple, given the proposed legal environment I have suggested.
Cheers, wallaby.
- Jimmy Hendrix - Hey Joe
December 4th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
By making any subsequent divorce impose forfeiting of the child *by the mother unless otherwise relented to by the father (as in what rights women currently enjoy, reversed)*. Not that that many men are infertile that their wives should be warranted to legally resort to artificial insemination within that couple, given the proposed legal environment I have suggested.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:45 am
I am confused with your proposed legislation. Let’s see if I have this right. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, or even if I’m right, I know how much you and your friends simply love to correct.
You want mothers of children who conceive children using the sperm of a non-spousal donor, to forfeit their legal parental right to that child if they seek a divorce from their spouse?
In other words, the biological father and mother have no parental legal rights, while the non-biological father should have all legal and custodial rights?
Just out of curiosity, I would like to know what universe of craziness has made you come up with these rules. As you also seem to think they are a solution, I also wouldn’t mind knowing exactly what the problem is, because really this doesn’t seem to be more than you wanting to reverse current custodial legislation simply because OH MY GOSH! it may be unfair, though not necessarily impractical.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:12 am
My friends, Female? Would you care to elaborate, though I suspect I can fathom the shallow depth of the statements and ask only for certainty that I’m not actually missing anything of substance.
No, your readback is correct, albeit incomplete. Allowance from a sperm bank would only be granted to legally certified couples, never single mothers and the task would constitute an obligation of
To this amendingly append, mandatory paternity test to be carried on each new born infant so as to ascertain the paternity of the mother’s spouse. These should be bought and paid for out of the health ministry’s budget or, preferably, deducted from the annual state granted budgets of such bullshit organisation as NOW or TOW or social workers’ remuneration funds.
Upon a result invalidating the possibility of the child having been sired by the legal spouse, all bets should be off. The man should be perfectly free to divorce her without forfeiting any assets or being obliged to any form of child support or payments towards his estranged and divorced wife. She should only be allowed to retain from the marriage those assets and goods that she brought into it or bought and paid for out of her own or her familiy’s income or willingly forfeited by the husband. In other words, an equitable and completely financially unbinding divorce.
I imagine all this must seem some insanely heinous evil plot, in your eyes. Fairness is such trifle detail compared to practicality, isn’t it?
- Morandi - So Cold
December 6th, 2006 at 1:12 am
*an obligation of the national healthcare system.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:49 am
I think you know who I mean.
I did not answer you above on practicality, with respect to a woman who had cheated on her husband. You were talking about granting no custodial rights to a woman who had conceived a child with her spouse’s consent using donor sperm. That is a very different scenerio to the new one you have introduced in your reply to me, where you go on about negating the need to provide alimony for a non-biological child conceived unknowingly out of wedlock.
I can’t continue to discuss this with you when you change the scenerio’s but state that my opinion applies to many different scenerios. When I give an opinion, it applies to a specific scenerio and that scenerio alone. I don’t give two shits if this results in hundreds more laws having to be enacted and making lawyers study for longer and do more work in order to know ever more legislation. The world is becoming more complex with ever more techonology and the real problem here is that one specific law or paragraph of legislation is supposed to account for too many different scenerio’s within the one domain, when it simply cannot. That is the real unfairness and impracticality of it all.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
You know, there’s other stuff for you to talk about here. How about them pics? Just a thought…
- Alb & Negru - Je Taime
December 7th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
so very true. Canon cameras are the best IMO. I have the PowerShot S2 IS which has one serious zoom on it and not that pricey really. If you saw my Sydney city pics you can tell how good the zoom is.
Can your new camera take non-panoramic shots as well? At first I thought the little blue car was the front end of a truck with the back of it missing.
La Noyée - Yann Tiersen
December 30th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Thought you may find this of interest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501820.html