Couch 248: Curiouser and Curiouser

What if una saw her brother and the therapist’s sister nekkid?

A Freudian might not be able to top that.

My mother told me that my brother said my t was a lesbian and she was trying to convert me. That house was a Freudian nightmare.

What was the locker incident?

In all my many years as a lesbian, I have never once tried to convert someone. It isn't like we win a toaster for the most converts brought into the flock. Presumably if you could convert to a lesbian, you could convert back to straight or over to bi, or non-binary, etc. I know she isn't around to be reassured in this manner. Alas, reassurance too late is no reassurance at all.

You are clearly in the wrong club, luv. I am sitting here with a coffee machine, a set of Le Creuset pans and a bespoke oak knife block which didn't win themselves.

There's some sort of organized run in the park next to my house today. People are already starting to line up at this ungodly hour in the morning and parking is tight so the runners are parking all over my neighborhood. It has my dogs all in a dither.

Hmm. My mother had several long-term lesbian girlfriends over the years, but she said that was them, not her. She was just very open-minded. Just about this one thing, apparently! Ha ha, at first i wrote thong, not thing.

Lemon, @@ ran into her t at a gym locker room. Nudity ensued.

Comrade, i have a Calphalon teapot and a Coach coin purse.

I had a deeply closeted acquaintance who had been married for 35+ years and had two children before finally getting together with a good friend of mine the last few years of their lives – at the funeral for the closeted acquaintance they had a video put together of photographs from her life – aside from her sons there were absolutely no photographs of men – all of the photos were of her with women which was hilarious to us because she had constantly denied being lesbian – she wasn't lesbian she was just in love with Jane

Thanks, Lost. I did really enjoy the show! I think it's what I needed. Not just from the Dr. T thing, but from the stress of life in general the past couple weeks (mold remediation mainly). Dancing and singing along with the audience was just very freeing and connecting at the same time.

Thanks for the explanation Una.

Not directly related to your comment, but oooh you’re so fancy! I am lusting after a heart jshaped Le Creuset pot. Will get an Amazon dupe, when I move again.

H is on his way to El Paso again on a job; he won't be home til probably 3am. And like a dummy I'm sitting here depressing myself writing a poem borrowing a line from an Edgar Allan Poe poem, using it as the first line of mine. Oh well. It's working, for sure, I'm actually quite liking it, it's just a tad dark. I'm putting it away to come back to later; time to go feed Penelope and then go watch some mindless TV for a while.

Maybe you do need to get the dark feelings out Art. Come back to it with a cup of tea and see how you can improve on it.

Did you guys see that article in the New York Post . They sure threw Dr F under the bus.

We now know the likely truth about COVID, and how scientists lied

The £1 Billion pound court case against AstraZeneca also started in the UK and a new case also filed against them 5 days ago by an American woman. In addition to a second Pfizer whistleblower cropping up.

It’s lawyers who run the world, only they can get to the truth.

FYI. I'm not sure if you're aware, but the NY Post is a right wing tabloid owned by News Corp/Murdoch family. Here in the U.S. it is not a well regarded or respected news source due to publishing mostly click-bait style sensational stuff -not based in facts or fact checking.

I'm not going to comment on the article itself, but NY Post is definitely not a source where you will find anything written by professional journalists who adhere to ethical guidelines for gathering and writing the news.

Thanks for saying this! As a former journalist, it's hard for me to see people put their trust in publications that are clearly biased (I mean, not counting editorials and things like that).

I wonder what news sources are neutral and impartial. For example, the BBC are well regarded (by most, not all), but are not the impartial reporters which their reputation claims. They are pro-monarchy; they are often a part of the news creation rather than external observers; they frequently make factually incorrect statements about internal politics such as devolution; are pro UK union; etc. I think people tend to consider left leaning or liberal news sources as more credible (such as The Guardian or Al Jezeera or Channel 4 News), but they are not impartial - albeit arguably less sensationalist. I am not defending tabloid news, but I don't think truly credible news is easily accessible.

The tone of the article was very much "gotcha!" Facts should speak for themselves. I don't like a news article to sound like it is rushing to a conclusion, skipping over a fact or two, and this one definitely gave me that impression.

Most all news has some lean- whether right or left. Some more than others. However, there is a difference between a slight lean (or bias) and outright unethical and untruthful reporting. The latter seeks primarily to confuse and muddle the facts in order to instill fear, propaganda and misinformation. News tabloids fall into this category.

And while many respectable news sources may have a lean, they don't all attempt to hide their bias by presenting it as fact. So when reporting news (rather than opinion) they adhere to ethical principals of presenting both sides while sticking to verifiable facts that will not spread misinformation and/or known propaganda. The NY Post is not a reputable news source. That is a fact.

There are a few neutral news sources. One can do their own research to figure out what those are if they are so inclined. There is quite a bit of research out there on the subject. I get most of my news from a variety of news sources (on the spectrum from neutral to left leaning). Consume whatever media you want- just educate yourself on where it is coming from and what the goal of the source may be.

But that is my point - even supposedly reputable news sources spread misinformation either by error or hidden agenda. Presenting both sides of an argument as balanced news reporting is actually an example of creating news which is based on opinion rather than simply presenting fact. It involves a kind of insidious bias which feeds polarisation, affords value to both sides, explores argument rather fact. As I said, I am not supporting tabloid journalism and I agree that people need to consider the bias of the source - but even your examples of neutrality do not qualify as such. Neutrality doesn't mean presenting argument A alongside argument B, it means sidestepping argument altogether and unfortunately, most people don't want dry fact. They (we) want something instructive which chimes with their (our) approach to information.