Canthook

I have a learning disorder that makes me parse everything I read or hear twice. I automatically get the literal meaning, and then I have to go back and ask myself, "Is that what they really mean?"

I think it's inherited. My father used to joke about all the PBS shows being filmed behind fences. They must use a lot of fences, he said, because almost every program has someone in charge of "post production". It was a family joke to parse a certain question as "What's that on up the road? A head?". And Dad also talked about things "blowing on off the road". Were they on? Were they off?

Consequently, my first thought when someone says they've lost something, is to question whether it's behind the cushions on the couch. Isn't that the place to check when the remote is missing, or the car keys cannot be found?

I have to be careful to keep my mouth shut when someone says they've lost weight. "Oh, did you check behind the cushions of the couch?" They get offended by that, possibly because of generations of situation comedy on TV, where a woman says she's lost weight, and he takes a look at her rump and says "I think I know where it went."

And if I come up with "Oh, did you check behind the cushions of the couch?" when someone says they've lost a husband, it's extremely offensive. The Westboro Baptist Church had a fire a few days ago, and the pastor's daughter thinks it was arson. I can believe that. I don't think I would have trouble coming up with a list of 10,000 people who had motive. But I'm not Fred Phelps. I'm not insensitive to the loss. If they'd said their husband died, there'd have been no problem, but my initial response was to take them at their word.

I'm usually on guard for these things. Believe me, it's not something you want to catch yourself doing. Never the less, people say things all the time that are quite reasonable, when taken figuratively, and comical when taken literally. It doesn't pay to laugh when someone is talking seriously, especially if the person talking is your boss or your customer, but sometimes, it's hard to hold the laughter in. They don't know I'm laughing at this weird and wonderful language we speak, rather than them.

So anyhow, I check behind the cushions of the couch, regularly. Once in a while, I check behind the cushions of the website, as well. If you have good hosting, you can download raw access logs for your site; there's some excellent software (I prefer Analog, which is smack-dab free) to help you analyse those access logs.

For instance, since I put the link on the sidebar saying "Download SharpReader", the number of people accessing my site with that excellent free software has really grown. That tells me that not only are people reading my posts, but they are trust me enough that they download and install software, based on my recommendation. That's gratifying.

It's also gratifying when I look at the inbound traffic. A lot of the traffic comes from search engines, which is to be expected, since this blog is pretty new. (I previously blogged on the site of a company I've since sold, under a pen name that I've stopped using, so as to be fair to the new owner of the company.) Some of it comes from people reading comments I've made elsewhere.

But the really neat thing is when one of my "under the radar" readers is inspired enough by one of my posts to comment on it on his site, adding a link. My post on the unreliability of DNA evidence inspired several such posts, and they appear to be daisy-chained. My post on the Law of 1900 seems to inspire independent posts by a variety of bloggers. Maybe I hit a nerve, or perhaps it's the "Law of 1900" phrase I coined. Everybody seems to glom onto that phrase for their own posts. Maybe it's going to catch on, and I'll be a famous nobody for having coined it, just as Jane Pauley coined "bad hair day" and everybody uses the term without knowing who first used it.

One of the bloggers that liked the Law of 1900 post was Donna L. Watkins, of Virginia. She writes a blog called "The Nature In Us", which appears to be inspired by her attempts to deal with some health challenges.

She's right when she says "Our trials in life can bring great joy" and I can't explain it to anyone who doesn't already understand that. Michael J. Fox explains it better than I ever could, when he describes how his disability has enriched his life.

When I first saw Donna's picture, I thought she had a splotchy complexion. Maybe she does, but judging from her blouse, maybe it's just shadows from the tree she's standing under. With or without, her husband has a pretty wife.

Some of Donna's posts are pretty practical. She writes about cutting the high costs of health care for our pets. She reports on the dangers of excessive caffeine. (For diabetics, 3 cups daily of "unleaded" coffee is recommended; excessive coffee and high-caffeine "energy drinks" appears to be not helpful.) She writes on the history of man and dogs.

I thought her Sunday post to be particularly interesting:

Many people seem to feel that they have too much to carry in life. The burdens are too great, the path is too rocky, and there is no place to find joy in life.

In America we have a lot to bear. Advertising causes us to add many "requirements" to our list of things that need to be done or bought. We have many more worries since "The News" keeps us informed of a long list of things we should concern ourselves with.

Jesus said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matthew 11:29)

In the past when I ran the ARR (American Rat Race) daily, I would read that verse and my mind would settle on the word "REST." Oh! How my soul longed for rest. My mind! My body!

She seems to have something to say, and she says it. That's a pretty good formula for good writing. A tasting is recommended.

Other Bloggers On Related Topics:
faux pas - law of 1900 - learning disorder - Michael J Fox - post production - traffic logs - unreliable DNA - Westboro Baptist