Chickafinty ~ A Life in the Laundry

The internet is a weird place to be

There's been something going down on the internet this week which has left me struggling to understand.

The long version is way, way, way too long to explain, but FWIW here's the short version.

A MummyBlogger (whom will remain nameless) has a relatively high blog profile/following mostly due to her 4th child's life-threatening medical condition a couple of years ago.  There were "Pray for XXXX" buttons everywhere, and her blog was followed by thousands.

The child got better, but the following continued and the MummyBlogger got a bit of a name for parenting/cooking/photography etc. 

Over time some began to notice inconsistencies and half-truths in the stuff that was shared.  There was a little plagiarism going on.  There were a couple of intensely personal events that were left out of the blog - which is totally normal...I don't tell YOU everything that goes on in my life - but I don't pretend that I do.  And I don't expect you to believe that I tell you everything.

A few people started asking questions on the blog and got ignored.  Then they started to ask questions and found their comments deleted.  Then they got banned from the blog and the attached forum.

A new blog began with the sole purpose of finding fault with, and drawing attention to, the MummyBlogger and her inconsistencies.

That blog imploded.

Another blog began to replace it.  It was going along tickety-boo until last week when everything went feral and I mean seriously feral.  Feral to the point that an organisation connected to MummyBlogger issued a cease and desist order to the blog.  The blog closed immediately.

A third blog began immediately afterwards, but I now have good reason to suspect that this *new* blog is moderated by someone who has used - to date - at least 3 separate identities on the blogs, the forum and on MummyBloggers site.

You'd think that after the April Rose business I'd have learned a lesson and taken everything with a grain of salt.  But it seems I'm a basically trusting soul.

This whole thing is an absolute trainwreck and I can't look away.

I cannot imagine how it is going to end, but I am guessing it won't end well.

You can't have it both ways

The world has gone mad.

Sometime in the past week the tree at the back of our yard has split right down the middle.  One branch is still vertical, but the other is horizontal, not hanging on by much and if it falls on a child or a dog there is going to be a fatality.

I rang the council to get permission to remove the tree.

Now, get this.

It's OUR tree, on OUR property.  It is presenting a danger to OUR children.  The neightbours behind said fence have designated dangerous dogs...so dangerous in fact that the front doorbell is on the front fence and the homeowner has to come to the front fence to let you in.  THAT kind of dangerous.

According to the chappie at the council, I had to get an arborist to  come and certify that the tree is dangerous.  Ummm, who would be paying for that?  Us, apparently.

I think not.

Well here's the rub.  It's OUR yard and OUR tree, but the government gets to say what we can do with it.  In my book then, it's not our tree, it's the council's tree.  If they call the shots on what we can do with the tree, then it clearly isn't ours.  It's theirs.

After a certain amount of argy-bargy, the tree man agreed to come and have a look himself today.

And, yes, the tree is dangerous.  I am SO GLAD he came to tell us.  I might not have known otherwise.

Yes, we can remove the tree.  Sanity prevails!

But not for long.  We have been ordered to replace the tree.  It is to be a native for preference and must grow to a minimum height of (get this) 8 metres.  8 metres. 8 METRES.  24 feet.  A 24 foot tree has to be planted to replace the one we're cutting down.

In what universe is it acceptable to put an 8m tree in a suburban backyard, This is not a hitherto unknown pocket of the Blue Mountains National Park; it's a suburban backyard.   

Call me mad, but if it's our house and our land and our tree, then it is OUR choice as to WHAT tree goes in that space.

We will comply with the council's request, but I'll be presenting the invoice to the council for reimbursement.  "He who calls the tune pays the piper".

The world has gone mad.

huh?

How on earth did The Boy manage pull his entire chest of drawers over, landing the drawers and all thier contents on the bedroom floor, AND contrive to break the bottom drawer and at least one other, in all probability?

How?

He doesn't know.  He claims he wasn't climbing on it - yeah, right - he was *just* looking for a book on the top of the cupboard.

He was *just* supposed to be in bed!

I've got an almighty mess to clean up in the bedroom, which can't be cleaned up because the drawers are broken.

This is just fantastic.  Once again I'm left shaking my head.

Parenthood is like being pecked to death.  By a duck!

A word on housing "affordability"

Ross Greenwood was on the Today show this morning, spruiking the possibility of a new housing boom based on the "increased afforability of homes".

What the??

Affordability (apparently) increases when demand is high and interest rates low i.e. the current situation.  Huh??

I thought affordability was the ability to "afford" the mortgage repayments.

Let's look at a smaller example for a minute.

Demand for enormous flat screen tvs is high.  Interest rates are low.  According to the current economic model the affordability for flat screen tvs must be huge.

But it isn't.  A quick look at our bottom line indicates that we cannot afford a huge flat screen tv.  The interest rate is irrelevant if the repayments cannot be made in the first place.  The number of flat screen tvs is irrelevant if we cannot afford to buy one.

The average house price in Sydney is $544000.  By what measure is this affordable?  Over half a million dollars for the average home, when the average income is $60000.  On that basis you need TWO average wages to "afford" ONE house.  Huh?!?!?!?

The economists have gone mad, but that wouldn't matter, except that the government is relying on them to run the asylum.

Cyclone Gypsy (edited)

Oh, the joys of a puppy.

I've already mentioned the soft toys and pencils.  I haven't mentioned the shoes.  Chickabid's sandals, Ladybaby's sandals and my one and only pair of summer high heeled shoes all bear some scars from the ministrations of the Gypsy-girl.  Ladybaby's runners will ahve to be replaced based on what we discovered this morning, but this...THIS...is in a whole new league/

To wit:

Cyclone Gypsy

Oh, the joys of a puppy.

I've already mentioned the soft toys and pencils.  I haven't mentioned the shoes.  Chickabid's sandals, Ladybaby's sandals and my one and only pair of summer high heeled shoes all bear some scars from the ministrations of the Gypsy-girl.  Ladybaby's runners will ahve to be replaced based on what we discovered this morning, but this...THIS...is in a whole new league/

To wit:

Target rant

Got a Target catalogue on Monday advertising a sale beginning at 9am today.  They had a number of garments which fit the clothing ideas from MissusSmartypants in sizes up to and including 18.  I am a 16-18 for most shirts and a definite 18 for pants/trousers etc.  They even had some <ahem> "foundation garments" which appeared as though they would hold everything in without producing the dreaded muffin top.  I am NOT a foundation garment kind of girl, but you do what you have to do.  Arrived at Target at about 10.30 and discovered no size 18 garments anywhere!!  About 3 size 16s scattered about, but in colours/patterns that I wouldn't be seen dead in, about twice the number of 14s as opposed to 16s and racks and racks and racks of 10s and 12s.  The foundation garment section??  One pair of tricky undies such as I was seeking. 

In a size 8.

I'm sorry, but if you are a size 8 the chances of you needing any sort of foundation garment is extemely small.  Why do they even make foundation garments in a  size 8????  I did observe some groovy little numbers: foundation garments with a g-string.  Hello?!?!?!?!  Foundation garments are not by their very nature tres s3xy...go for that one oh Google search engine...so what gives?

The chances of a posse of women in this district beating down Target's door at 9am to get their hands on tricky undies and leaving one pathetic pair of size eights on the rack is unbeliveably small.  Where were the clothes advertised?  They weren't on the racks.

So I thought all right, let's check out the foundation garments in body suits.  Great.  They had stacks of them.  Rack upon rack even.  But for every bra size up to a 16D.  I am an 18DD.  Thank you, Garment Manufacturers of the World.  I do not exist.  Or there are so few people like me we should be considered freaks and not worthy. 

Or maybe I am just so enormous that there's no point trying to pretend that I'm anything else and I should just walk around in t-shirts with elephants screen printed* on them so that everyone understands.  "Here comes the Elephant Lady.  Tickets 5 for a dollar!  Don't miss out! Limited opportunity!  Freakishly proportioned woman on display must end Friday!"

*Aquamum and I actually saw one of these t-shirts in the window of the Lifeline shop.  Which clothing manufacturer thought that a screen printed elephant was a good look on a woman's t-shirt?  That's right up there with politicians allowing themselves to be photographed with goats. 

It's Official

Yes, the world has gone completely mad, judging by this article that I found courtesy of Challies Dot Com.  In short, a judge is suing a dry cleaners for...wait for it...$67,000,000 for *losing* his favourite pair of $800 trousers that he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench.

Sixty seven million for a pair of pants.  What price would the judge put on something really important, like defending freedom of speech, or freedom of religion - something that really needs defending?  Would it be more or less than $67 million?  What about the poor owners of the dry cleaner who have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves?

Is it just me, or is this ridiculous?

I do not believe it!!

The NSW Department of Education and Training have DELETED my long service leave and it appears that I have been on leave illegally for the past two weeks.

What the...!!!

English is such a difficult language

Have picked this up from various sources on the Net...it tickles my funny bone (no pun intended)

A new employee is hired at the Tickle Me Elmo (a cuddly toy which laughs when tickled) factory. The Personnel Manager explains her duties and tells her to report to work promptly at 8.00am.

The next day at 8.45am there is a knock at the Personnel Manager's door. The assembly line foreman comes in and starts ranting about this new employee. He says she is incredibly slow and the whole line is backing up. The foreman takes the Personnel Manager down to the factory floor to show him the problem.

Sure enough, Elmos are backed up all over the place. At the end of the line is the new employee. She has a roll of material used for the Elmos and a big bag of marbles. They both watch as she cuts a little piece of fabric, wraps it around two marbles and starts sewing the little package between Elmo's legs.

The Personnel Manager starts laughing hysterically. After several minutes he pulls himself together, walks over to the woman and says "I am sorry, I guess you misunderstood me yesterday, I said, your job is to give Elmo "two test tickles".