Creativity is allowing genAI to make mistakes

Art is Art is knowing which ones are so dreadfully awful that they are too hilarious not to keep.

AI generated art and/or images can be impressive.  But the systems are definitely not yet ready for prime time.

Admittedly, I may have a way to go in learning the art and craft of "prompt engineering."  (Just saying that indicates a problem with the image generation systems.  If you have to put enormous effort into learning *how* to get the systems to generate acceptable images, then how does that support the contention that genAI/LLMs are a great tool that will make our lives better and easier?)  Herewith are some observations and comments on my forays, so far, into the genAI image creation systems.  (Some experiments and observations on the text systems can be found here, here, here, here, and here.)

About a year and a half ago, I tried out a little joke that I called Gnomaste.  That was on DALL-E (now called OpenArt).  So, I decided to see how much the technology had improved:

It definitely *looks* better, but, if you look at the feet, you will notice that they aren't quite right.  And that was the *best* of the three systems that I tried.  I gave a similar prompt to OpenArt, and got:

Once again, check out the feet.  And, in this case, hands.

Now, these aren't too bad, if you are willing to overlook some minor details.  But when I started to ask for more complex images, things got weirder.

Yes, I have to admit that I have strange ideas.  But, when I tried to get the earth and the moon colliding, the systems couldn't even get near it:

This is Meta AI, which won the first round, and, yes, you can see an earth and a moon included, but nothing indicating a collision.  OpenArt and Qwen didn't do any better:

I have always liked the Norris "It's only money" cartoon, so I thought I'd try a tribute.  I asked if to add the caption, and found (and later confirmed) the OpenArt won't do that at all:

But, even absent the refusal to do any captions, 1) I asked for two figures: where did the third come from?  2) OK, I asked for emaciated, but, skeletal?  3) OK, skeletal makes it hard to show facial expressions (with no faces), but they aren't even *looking* at the chest!

Meta AI wasn't *too* bad:

but Qwen gave me the first indication of what *I* consider a serious problem:

asking for text to be incorporated *really* throws the systems into a tizzy!

When I asked for another joke, with only simple text, Meta AI *did* come through:

although "ornate" seemed to translate into "South Asian."  But both OpenArt and Qwen had problems even with text this simple:

I tried something a little less morbid, and the results were *really* disappointing.  (Maybe I should just stick to being weird, dressed, and grieving?)  I once found a tattered image (which got further degraded by me taking a shot of it with a cellphone) which had a very lovely thought associated with it.  So I tried, with all three systems, and with four different variations on prompts, and failed to get anything remotely acceptable.  OpenArt, predictably, refused to include a caption.  Qwen started bad:

and just got worse.  Meta AI was the best of a bad lot:

but even the *best* of what it produced has serious problems:

So, I asked them to produce an image to kind of illustrate the problem:

and even *that* is a horrible mess!

OK, yes, adding a caption is not really image generation.  And there are fixes, and relatively easy ones.  It just seems very strange that "memes," in the social media rather than the original sense, have been so *much* a part of social media and online content, that failing to allow for them is something the AI devotees have never considered ...

And, even *without* captions, sometimes the AIs just can't count:

... and sometimes they can't count *arms* ...

(Actually, with the caption that I have in mind, this *could* work ...)

MGG - 6.12 - Gloria - editor

Psalm 19:12a

But who can discern their own errors?

I'm not being fair to Gloria, of course.  She doesn't have the opportunity to stop me, and correct me, when I've made a mistake.  And, I know, even dictating this, and even more so editing it, very roughly, to take out the worst excesses of Gboard and my stumbling dictation, that Gloria would do a far superior job of editing it.

Over the years, since I published my first book, people have asked me how you write a book.  The first thing I tell them is that, once you have actually written the book, that's the easy part done.  I also told them that, if you intend to be a writer, when you find a good copy editor, you marry her.  That's not a fair comment either, since when I married Gloria I had no idea that I would actually be writing books.  I also didn't know how much I needed editing.  Fortunately, in the time between we got married, and the time that I started to write my first book, I had learned first, how much editing my writing needed, and second, how great an editor Gloria was.  Not just a copy editor.  She was a terrific copy editor.  She was also a structural copy editor. She is a grammatical copy editor. She is a stylistic copy editor.  She was a developmental editor.  There are at least seven different types of editors, and Gloria epitomized every one.  I dedicated my first book to her, and I said in the introduction, that if it wasn't for Gloria I would never have written a book.  That is, quite literally, true.  I needed her support.  She even supported me by taking my handwritten scribbles, mostly illegible (you will recall from my teaching reviews), and typing them into text, where I could work on them.

She supported me at every step of the way.  When my first book got to the copy editing stage, Gloria copy edited their copy editor's notes.  Her help was invaluable, and I truly mean that.

(During the time that I was doing book reviews, again supported by Gloria, one of the books was on writing and editing.  Gloria, when she typed up my reviews, would make suggestions about how I should be modifying what I wrote, and, since the book was about editing, I asked her if I could just leave in her comments, in the final review.  She agreed.  I sent the draft review to the author, and she responded.  Some of her responses were to Gloria's comments.  So I asked the author if I could include *her* comments.  She agreed.  The final result is http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/books/techrev/bkbugwrt.rvw )

I dedicated "Cybersecurity Lessons from CoVID-19" to Gloria.  I did not realize, at the time, that it would be the last book that she would ever edit for me.  I don't know if this memoir will see publication.  I don't know if I can do it without Gloria.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-611-gloria-admin.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/02/mgg-613-gloria-hand.html

MGG - 2.6a - Teaching - You owe us pocket money!

In the dim and distant past, at one point when information technology jobs were a bit thin on the ground, I was teaching at a school for immigrants.  I'm not sure if it was exactly a visa school, but, if not, it was pretty close.  Even though it was backed by a well-regarded institution here in Canada.

The students were primarily there taking senior grades in high school, or the early years of university or college.  I, of course, had been hired to teach the computer program.

The students were all of Chinese extraction.  So, early in the new year, Chinese New Year was a big thing.  All of those of us who were instructors had been given our *own* instructions to have some special feature related to Chinese New Year.  We had also been warned, if only tentatively, about the issue of New Year's money, and had been given a supply of red and gold envelopes, and instructed to put at least a penny in each.

One of the assignments that I had given the students was to write a program that would render a Chinese character, of their choice.  I was already involved with security research, although I am not sure how far I had got in my study of cryptography, and the differences between encryption systems in alphabetic languages versus those that were based on idiographic characters.  However, I was definitely not going very far into that field with these particular students.

At any rate, because of the assignment in regard to Chinese characters, on the appointed day I had prepared a bit of an introduction which I thought might alert them to what was going on.  I had prepared an overhead foil.  (Yes, this was in the days before PowerPoint had corrupted the world.  Power corrupts; PowerPoint corrupt absolutely.)  I had an enlarged version of the four characters for New Year's: the ones spoken as Kung Hei Fat Choi.  They were in a line on the foil, but I had used pieces of paper to mask out everything except one character at a time.

In English, there are holidays, and there are phrases that are associated with those holidays.  Certainly uncovering even the first word in one of those phrases, around the time of the holiday, would alert people to the fact that this was the phrase, and probably everyone would just blurt out the phrase, even if only the first word was showing.  Even if you did it letter by letter, in English, you probably wouldn't have to uncover too many letters in order for people to get the idea, and blurt out the phrase.

This didn't happen with the class of Chinese students.  I uncovered the first character, the one pronounced come Kung, and asked them what word it was.  They told me the meaning, and the multiple meanings that it could be translated to in English, but there was no mention of the full phrase, and nobody seemed to note it.  So, I covered the first one and revealed the second, the one pronounced Hei.  Once again I asked what the character meant, and we had some discussion of that character and it's meaning.  Still no blurting out of kung hei fat choi.  No mention that it was part of a phrase that was commonly said at this time of the year.  So I covered the second and revealed the third.  The same very ordinary discussion, and nothing more, and the same thing happened with the fourth.  Even having gone through all four characters, in sequence, nobody mentioned anything about Chinese New Year, or the full phrase.  Then I removed the coverings entirely, and the full phrase was revealed.

Immediately, all the students in the class became extremely excited.  There were cries of joy!  And one of the students (the one who tended to be most vocally active in the class) burst out "Kung Hei Fat Choi!  You owe us pocket money!

I was, of course, prepared with the pocket money.  The staff at the school had not mentioned the term "pocket money," and so I was unaware of the phrase, but certainly understood the idea.  But, having had such a non-reaction over the individual characters being shown, and discussed in class, I was completely unprepared for the excited reaction on the part of everyone in the class.

I assume that there is some difference in thought processes between those whose first language is an alphabetic language, and those whose first language is ideographic.  (I am currently studying the Nuu-chah-nulth language.  Certain characteristics indicate that, despite having an alphabet, it is, in fact, a syllabic, rather than alphabetic, language, and there are some interesting distinctives in the language speakers' approach to their own language.)

Some aspects of culture are inherent in language?  Or some factors of language are imposed by culture?

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/02/mgg-26-teaching-online-from-paradise.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/02/mgg-27-teaching-robs-universal-classroom.html

genAI sermon test

So, I asked the six genAIs that I have been testing (and Perplexity, based on a response to an earlier posting) to produce a sermon, based on the prompt:

"We have created incredibly complex statistical models of how we use language, which allow programs which we call large language models to produce what appears to be viable English text (and other languages as well).

"In ancient days, the field of philosophy was divided into four components.  The first three were metaphysics, the study of reality; epistemology, the study of knowledge itself; and logic, the tool found most useful for settling questions of reality and knowledge.

"The self-training, "neural network," model that we have used to "train" genAI/LLMs has not taught them any of these fields.  It has taught them the fourth, rhetoric: the art of creating plausible speech to persuade or convince others.  Rhetoric may be used to communicate or teach.  But it is not intended to find truth.  It is intended to persuade: it is part of social engineering.  It can be used for propaganda or for supporting misinformation.  It can be used to create glib and creditable *dis*information.

"Write a sermon, supported by scripture where possible, illustrating this theme."

ChatGPT produced the longest sermon, and also offered, "Let me know if you'd like any refinements or additions!"  I read over its sermon, gave it additional instruction, and added "Emphasize content on the danger of genAI/LLM itself in regard to this topic" to my prompt for the other tests.  The addition of this to the prompt, for ChatGPT, did not materially change the sermon.  It was in the style, and particularly wording, of a sermon, and included numerous scriptural texts.  However, it was repetitive, and the texts usually had only relevance to truth, overall, with little relevance to AI.

Claude, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity, and Meta AI produced relatively short sermons (devotionals?), with similarly vague scriptural references.

DeepSeek took the longest to chew over the question before starting to produce anything, and, in fact, made three attempts with no result (saying the server was busy).  Using the button specifying R1 finally produced a result (although I suppose that could simply be coincidence).  It started out by analysing the request, with some interesting insights included in the analysis.  Rather ironically, The Chinese Communist Party tool, while it still contained significant amounts of only marginally relevant content, also produced probably the most useful content of all seven genAIs tested.

Over the next week or so I'll be examining the content in more depth, and seeing if a viable sermon can be pulled out of the fluff and verbiage.

(Addendum: and, in the past couple of days, Qwen has been added to the mix, so I tried it out, as well.  DeepSeek has been known to balk at providing information about Taiwan, so I tried it on that, too.  It produced a realistic report on Taiwan, which is rather interesting.  In terms of the sermon, it was a bit slow in producing it, in comparison to the rest, but produced a short and uninspired devotional, like Claude, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity, and Meta AI.)

(See also https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/11/meta-bible.html )

ChatClauDeepGemGrokMeta

With the recent interest in artificial intelligence, and particularly the genAI/large language models, I have been running various tests.

One of the tests involves asking for suggestions to save a (real) charitable organization facing dire (and complex) financial straits. I submitted "prompts" containing details of the situation to ChatGPT, Claude, Deepseek, Gemini, Grok, and Meta AI. (If the systems had paid versions, I used only the free versions.)

None of the systems were outstandingly useful. For example, I noted that a single type of expense was the major issue, and that other expenses were not worth trying to avoid. All of the systems, nonetheless, suggested trying to reduce other expenses.

Deepseek, Grok, and Meta AI were all the least useful. All of them produced text that could have come from a bank pamphlet on "how to address your money troubles." Deepseek was marginally the worst of the three, but neither Grok nor Meta AI produced anything worth pursuing.

ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini did include similar fluff that would require extensive pruning. However, they did also suggest some interesting lines of activity that might be worth pursuing.

I'm still trying to answer Neil Postman's query about "what is the problem to which this technology is the solution?" I was beginning to think that genAI, hallucinations and all, could be used for brainstorming, if you have no friends. (As long as you recall Scott Adam's assertion that "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.") Plowing through the fluff, to mine the occasional nuggets of utility, could be worthwhile, as long as there *are* nuggets of utility. (That does seem to leave Deepseek, Grok, and Meta AI out in the cold.)

At the moment, these, and other systems, are vying in an AI arms race, trying to capture "first mover" market dominance (and are burning through thousands of GPUs and gigawatts of energy in order to do so). Every week someone is claiming to have beaten a benchmark or achieved some new kind of function, so this test is probably only valid for another eighty-three hours.

Postman's question remains.

Broken little toe of the church

1 Corinthians 12:12-14,26

Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.  For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.  Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

[...]

If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

So, she was doing the children's story (with one [1] children), and the epistle reading for the day was the bit about many gifts, but one body.  So she was doing that, about how hands were useful for doing art, but if you had four hands and no eyes it'd be hard to do art.  And then she decided to get into the bit about if one part suffers, all suffer, and mentioned stubbing your little toe.

I have broken my little toe a few times: once on the left, and twice on the right.  Gloria broke her little toe regularly.  (Always on the right, and always on the same piece of furniture, and, since it was a piece that *I* had brought, it was always my fault.)

You know what you do to treat a broken toe?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Anything else that gets broken, you sling, or splint, or cast, to stabilize it so it can heal.  But we don't actually *do* anything with our little toe.  It just lies there alongside your other toes.  So it doesn't need to be stabilized, and it already kind of is.  Some doctors or emergency rooms might mention taping it against the next toe, or toes, and we tried that one time with Gloria.  But, in the first place, Gloria had trouble with tape adhesive, and, in the second place, replacing the tape was kind of painful.  So we just left the toe alone most times.

So, I am the broken little toe of the church.  I am the broken little toe of the Body of Christ.  If at all possible, other members of the Body try to avoid me, and wish I weren't around.  I understand that.  I'd avoid me, too, if I possibly could.

The one thing you do do about a broken toe is to try not to injure it further.  But you only do that if it's *your* toe that's broken.  If it's someone else's toe, you don't care.  You don't even think about it.  When Gloria broke her shoulder (her *right* shoulder), everyone, in seeking to comfort her, would pat her on her shoulder.  They always chose her *right* shoulder.

So I suppose it is no wonder that the churches always step on the broken little toe ...

MGG - 6.11 - Gloria - admin

I have been a management consultant, and therefore understand the importance, and necessity, for administration.  Administration is also very important to the field of information security.  The largest single class of security practitioners is likely that of security administrators: those who maintain the rights and permissions for users and resources.  Therefore, yes, I know that administration is important.

However, while I know that it is important, and I can do it, and I can, and have, set up administrative systems in various situations, doing administration itself is, for me, pure, hard, boring work.

Gloria worked as an administrator.  She did this both professionally, and personally, on a volunteer basis.  She was always supremely organized, and was very good at organizing others.  I'm not sure that I actually know how she *felt* about administration, but there is absolutely no question that she was far more skilled at it than I was, and that she had far more natural aptitude for it than I did.

I am a scholar.  Of the old school.  The old time scholars loved to learn, and to write, and to teach.  This isn't necessarily the case anymore.  Scholarship, these days, relies much much more on administration.  When you do your research for a doctorate, or for a scholarly book, these days, you are required much more to cite, accurately, and at great length, a great many sources supporting your work.  It is much more important to build the citations, then it is to actually produce a result that might be useful to anyone.  Therefore, these days, scholarship is much more about administration then it used to be.  This is not, necessarily, entirely a bad thing.  Much of the research of days gone by may have been flawed because a scholar remembered, or thought he remembered, reading something somewhere once, and expressed that idea as fixed and valid, when that citation may not have said exactly what he thought it said, and may, possibly, never have existed at all.  Thus the importance of administration.  But we may have gone overboard, these days, and requiring much more administration, than thought.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-610-gloria-dude.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-612-gloria-editor.html

Collaboration Opportunity: Wikipedia Page Creation spam

I recently found a message in my spam folder with a subject line of "Collaboration Opportunity: Wikipedia Page Creation."  I've subsequently received another one, from the same email account.  I'm not sure whether this is an *outright* fraud, or just somebody trying (rather desperately?) to create a business for himself.

It opens with:

> Good day,

>

> I trust this email finds you in great spirits.

.. so, obviously, this person doesn't know much about me.  It continues:

> As a Wikipedia moderator, I recently came across your exceptional work and contributions.

> Your achievements are truly remarkable, and I believe they deserve a broader audience.

Now, this is all very flattering.  However, as one who has been studying spam since its inception (oh, yes, I *am* old enough to remember a time when there *wasn't* any), and as one who recently had occasion to test how well the various genAI models do at creating a promotional biography, I can't help but note that my exceptional work and contributions and truly remarkable achievements are just a *little* shy on specifics.

And then we get to the hook:

> Would you be interested in exploring the creation of your Wikipedia page? It would be a 

> fantastic way to showcase your impact and share your story with the world.

Now here, Mr. Wikipedia Moderator's lack of research *really* shines.  The thing is, I already *have* a Wikipedia page.  Despite any other interesting accomplishments, the one thing that always impressed my grandchildren's school classmates was that I had one.  (A friend [and co-author] had someone *finally* correct Gloria's current status, which I long held as a personal insult, and still hold as proof of the carelessness of Wikipedia's editting and content creation.)

And we finish up with:

> I’d be delighted to discuss this with you further. Please let me know your thoughts.

> 

> Best regards,

> 

[name elided]

> Wikipedia Moderator,

> Writing Fortress.

My thoughts are that, despite the "open source" and free principles of Wikipedia, further discussions would probably involve mentions of money.  I have no idea whether any "Writing Fortress" actually exists, although I think Wikipedia editors are editors and not moderators (but I don't know that for sure).

So, whether fraud or just an overeager push by someone who obviously doesn't have the skills to run the business that he's trying to create, it's spam.

Coldest Night of the Year

The Coldest Night of the Year (also https://www.facebook.com/cnoyorg) is a fundraiser and awareness walk in support of local charities dealing with homelessness.  In 2025 it is happening on February 22nd.  (If you want to walk, don't worry: you don't have to wander around in the cold all night.  In Port Alberni it's basically from 4-7pm.)

Coldest Night of the Year is Canada-wide: there are events all over the place.

(If the title sounds familiar, it probably is.  That doesn't mean others haven't used it.  Music can be evocative.)

In Port Alberni https://www.facebook.com/CNOYPortAlberni/ the sponsoring (and benefitting) agency is Sage Haven.  Our team is Team Anonymous  .  (I'm Rob Slade: Charles is on as well  :-)

You can be involved.  You can walk.  The Main Event is an organized, in-person walk with either 2km or 5km signed routes, rest stops, volunteers, and snacks at the end.

The 2K starts at the Royal Canadian Legion, Victoria Quay to Roger, Roger to Stamp, Stamp to Pemberton Road, Pemberton to Adelaide St, Adelaide to Johnston, Johnston to Victoria Quay and to Royal Canadian Legion.

The 5K starts at the Royal Canadian Legion, Victoria Quay to Roger, Roger to 10th Avenue, 10th to Redford, Redford to Stamp, Stamp to Roger, Roger to Victoria Quay and to Royal Canadian Legion.

You can donate/sponsor, either the team or me, directly on the Website, using either credit card or Paypal.

You can register, either as an individual, or as part of a team (much more fun), and get people to sponsor (donate in your team's name) your walk.  Registering can be a bit daunting, since the first thing they do is ask you to sign a waiver saying that you won't sue them if you die on the walk.  (If that thought scares you, come and discuss it with us as the Death Cafe, Feb. 6th.)  But, really, the chance of that is pretty small: they take pretty good care to make sure it's safe.  So, register yourself, or a team  and put the word around.

Of course, all of this doesn't just happen, so you can volunteer and help make sure it all happens.  Safely.

(Shout out to the major sponsors in Port Alberni: Coulson Group, BC Housing, Alberni District Co-op, Port Alberni Port Authority, Alberni Electric, Westland Insurance, North Island College, Salvation Army/Bread of Life.)

If you want more information, it's probably here: https://cnoy.org/faq

Or you can contact HQ: https://cnoy.org/contact

Or email them: info@cnoy.org

Locally, you can email portalberni@cnoy.org

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4uV5DhZI70yV0nWWVmEpQG

No, I'm positive

Positivity, as exemplified by Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking," does have some support in the Bible.  There is, for example, Philippians 4:8, noting that "if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things."  There is significant social and psychological research that indicates that thinking about, or emphasizing in your thoughts, about positive or beautiful things, such as art or nature, has a beneficial effect on mood, energy, and even physical health.  Ralph Waldo Emerson is creditted with being the originator of a form of positivity.  It tends to be seen as a basis for the American Dream: an optimism that insists that anyone can grow up to be President (an idea which seems to have been taken to extreme, these days).

It is intriguing that Trump is seen as a champion of this concept, since it insists on limitless opportunity.  And here we see the first failing: while Trump seems to hold with this idea of limitless opportunity, he is, at the same time, insistent upon every negotiation being a "zero-sum" game, where, instead of finding a transaction where both parties benefit, there has to be a winner and a loser (and it is vitally important to be the winner).

Trump also presents as terrified of someone else (see "immigrant") obtaining some of the opportunity, which is an interesting conflict with the idea of "limitless."  This is, of course, in direct conflict with any number of Christian principles.  Therefore, while there is some support for positivity in Christianity, positivity has to be, itself, limited and proscribed.

There is, for example, the extremely popular variant sometimes called the "prosperity gospel."  This is the idea that Christianity is some kind of deal or transaction, where the deal is that we are good, or do things that God wants, and that, in return, God will provide us with goods, or a "good life."  The unfortunate outcome of this viewpoint is that anything that goes wrong; if you are poor, or sick, or in any kind of distress; it is *your* fault, because you have obviously sinned, or don't have enough faith.  This perspective obviates the need to address any needs that someone else has, since any problems that they have are the result of their sin or unfaithfulness.

There is also a popular Christian duality, holding that personal faith in God is separate from work or business.  God is all very well in church on Sunday, but, in the *real* world, you have to follow the tenets of capitalism, since God doesn't know anything about business.  (The fact that the Bible is full of *great* business advice is generally lost on these people, since they don't get very far into the Bible.)  This duality doesn't have a direct connection to the concept of positivity, but positivity devotees tend to hold to very similar dualities (see "Trump," above).

U huk witas hluucsma, Gloria

Tuesday was pretty weird, anyway.  It started with Community Policing, even though it wasn't *supposed* to start with Community Policing, because some people didn't show, and some were late.  And then I had to race back to do the podcast, which ended up being about Community Policing.  And, because of the way things developed, I ended up doing *my* side of Stamp solo (in the freezing cold), and potting *two* speeders doing 75 kmph just on the speedboard alone.  (I took statistics on 737 cars within about an hour.)

So I was already pretty tired when it was time for language class.

We are working, in language class, on basic introductions.  Not just saying your name, but, in the style of the First Nations, identifying where you are from, and who your relations are.  (I'm not sure that, like the Welsh bards of old, we will need to go back nine generations.  However, I already know that we will need to go breadth-first, and extend to a wide family circle.)

But all of that is still to come.  We are, very slowly, working still in pretty immediate circumstances.  We have, previously, covered mother and father.  Today we were working more on where you are from.  We had covered that previously, but this was a bit of a repeat.

And then they decided to throw in something new.  Your spouse.

The thing is, when they had covered parents, they hadn't really stressed the difference between "u huk wa," if your relative is living, and "u huk witas," if your relative is dead.

And then there was the fact that most of those in attendance were women, and had a "chakup," or husband (all of them still living).  And the only other guy had a "hluucsma," or wife--who was still living.  So I had to figure out "u huk witas hluucsma, Gloria" all by myself.

I have had three years to get used to the fact that Gloria is dead.  I have, for over three years, identified myself as a grieving widower.  I don't hide the fact.  So how and why is it that figuring out, in class, how to say that in the Nuu-chah-nulth language is so emotionally fraught?

I assume that O'Connor would say that I am using different neural pathways.  Not even necessarily storing the new vocabulary and syntax of the language, but using the parts of the brain necessary to do the analysis necessary to build coherent sentences in a new language.  But that seems a facile explanation in regard to the strength of this reaction.  And it wasn't just a grief burst, either.  It was some massive impact on all cognitive functions, that seemed to make *any* kind of thinking a real effort.  I think I lost pretty much all the other vocabulary we were taught in the lesson.  I'm pretty sure I've forgotten how to say where I'm from.  (I still remember "wikaah chachimhiy.")

(The fact that I am in a really *deep* depression, at the moment, and that *everything* is an enormous effort, possibly didn't help.)

Part of my reaction may have been because I did all of that work, in the midst of some significant emotional turmoil, and, basically, nobody cared.  (I mean, why should they?)  Maybe it was because the situation demonstrated, once again, that I was entirely alone.  (So far, anybody to whom I have told this hasn't cared.)

It was really weird.

And you still wonder why I wish I was dead?

MGG - 6.10 - Gloria - Dude

Yesterday an executive order was signed in the United States, which mandates that there are only two genders recognized by any US agencies ... and that they cannot be changed.  Which reminded me of Gloria's experience at the Motor Vehicle Branch.

Once Upon a Time, Gloria's driving licence needed to be renewed.  Actually, this happened more than once, and, indeed, fairly regularly.  She had already done the necessary work and visit to the motor vehicle office.  But, when the licence arrived in the mail, we found that, for some reason, she had been changed to a male.

We were both amused by this, but Gloria was somewhat perturbed about it.  She responded with characteristic efficiency.  She gathered up her birth certificate, passport, and other forms of ID attesting to gender, including our marriage certificate.  (I noted that, in the prevailing social climate, our marriage certificate might not count for anything in terms of gender.)

Thus prepared, she sallied forth to the motor vehicle office.

Having waited in line, when she reached the counter, and made her problem known, the absurdity of the situation caused no little consternation among the staff.  Since a driver's licence is probably *THE* form of identification, in most situations, other, and more senior, staff were called over to ensure that rectifying the situation, by simply issuing a new (corrected) driver's licence would not create other problems.  The comments, and extra, and urgent, activities ensured that everyone in the branch, and every client still waiting to fulfill their own actvities and needs, became aware of the issue.

Gloria was quickly shuffled through the process of getting a new driver's licence, including having a picture taken.  The icing was put on the bureaucratic cake by a very large, very athletic, very tall and imposing fellow, awaiting the finalization of his own photo for his own driver's licence, who, when Gloria's photo came up for approval, noted (fairly loudly), "Nice picture ... Dude!"

I wonder how this would have played out under the new American executive order?

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-609-gloria-pleasant.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-611-gloria-admin.html

MGG - 6.09 - Gloria - pleasant

Gloria knew, at the age of 12, that her singing voice was a gift from God, and was to be used for God's glory.  She sang in church: she sang in church choirs, and she sang as a soloist.  She was aware that being on the platform carried certain responsibilities.  She knew that her demeanor, and even facial expression, on the platform either contributed to, or distracted from, worship, by the congregation.  She understood her responsibilities, and trained herself to smile, or at least look pleasant, at all times went on the platform.

Gloria was also, rather acutely, aware of pictures.  This probably stemmed from the fact that being on the platform, she would appear in pictures when people took pictures of the platform party.  Understood that having a picture taken was not always about you: it was about the person taking the picture, and ensuring that they had a picture that they wanted.  Gloria had no patience for people who protested that they didn't take good pictures, and therefore would not smile when asked for a picture.

Gloria was also, as noted, a secretary, but a very senior secretary.  Therefore, also as noted, she was an underpaid manager.  Underpaid, and also, very often, on regarded, by those who go merely by job titles.  Gloria knew her responsibilities there, as well, and made sure that she was able to manage the work of her bosses subordinates, regardless of what they thought about having to take orders from a mere secretary.

There were two results from these responsibilities.  The one was that, despite her natural tendency to introversion, Gloria knew that she had responsibilities to present herself, in a variety of situations.  She could not merely be a shrinking violet: she had to take her responsibilities seriously, and present herself, regardless of the fact that she would have preferred to remain in the background.  Many people who only knew Gloria as in her professional life, or as a soloist and choir member, didn't understand that Gloria was an introvert, and would have been surprised to hear her described as such.

But the other result was that Gloria understood the importance of presenting a pleasant demeanor.  Because she trained herself to do this, it became her "resting" face.  When she was simply walking down the street, people would think that she was smiling at them, and would smile back.  This undoubtedly brightened the day of many people over the years, as Gloria would be seen as smiling at people, and they would smile, and then the next people that they saw would smile back at them, as well.  We can all use an extra smile in our day, whatever our situations.

I learned this from Gloria.  She was aware that it was a deliberate choice and practice, and, having learned it from her, I practiced it as well.  Over the years of our marriage, apparently I have managed to emulate her to a certain extent.  People that I pass walking on the street smile at me, obviously thinking that my resting face is smiling, and so I know that, to a limited extent, I have managed to learn this from Gloria, and to emulate it, at least partly.

This extended to other facets of life in other ways.  Gloria did not have a problem with being seen to enjoy something.  Our society tends to denigrate the appearance of enjoyment.  We seem to think that we have to be too cool to enjoy something.  So, unless something is really spectacular, and surprises us into a gas of astonishment, we seldom smile, or clap, or laugh at enjoyable things around us.  Gloria, particularly when she was enjoying something, would indicate her enjoyment.  As an extension of her responsibility, and the responsibility of social presence, would Express her enjoyment, and would even express more enjoyment, then perhaps she felt, simply to encourage others.  Her social leadership was a responsibility that she felt even when she did not have a professional position to uphold in a given situation.  It was simply an extension of her general responsibility and leadership.  So, for the Lynn Valley Day parade, she would clap for the floats, and bands, and marching groups, as they passed by.  She would call out encouragement.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-608-gloria-enjoyment.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-610-gloria-dude.html

Email, history, and triggers

When Gloria died, and the girls *threw* me out of my house (yeah, yeah), I had to change Internet providers, and that changed how I managed my email.  I recently realized that the new system isn't great for checking on old email that has "aged out," so for about the past week I have been hacking the system, and have cleared out about 1,200 old messages that will never be needed again (trying not to get sidetracked down memory lane as I did so).

And now I'm up to December of 2021, and there are too many reminders, so I am going to give it a rest for a while.  Particularly since the depression has ramped up (at the same time), and the degenerating disks have decided to make their existence *painfully* known, and I seem to be completely exhausted ...

Grief biz

Today I came across a posting.  Someone was offering an activity related to grief support.  And I was interested, and I looked for more details, and I was glad that somebody was doing something about grief.

And then I saw that they were charging for it.

I have done this type of activity, in support of grief, both here, and in other places.  I have tried to help people using this very activity.  And I have tried to implement other activities, in support of those who are grieving and bereaved.  Occasionally someone has asked me how much I am charging.  I always find this question a bit insulting.  I am not charging for any of it.  I am not only doing volunteer work for organizations around here, but I'm doing a lot of other things as well, on a volunteer basis, and not charging, and not expecting to make any money out of it.  I am not in the business of profiting off other people's pain.

And, as I said, I am always a bit insulted when people ask how much I am charging.  I know how much pain I am in, and I know that others must be in pain as well.  I am trying to help.  I am not trying to make money off of other people's pain.  I am not trying to build a business on the backs of other people who are in distress.

I am, as I said, insulted by the question.  But I'm getting to expect it.  So many people seem to expect that I am starting a business.  And other people, who are doing things that are similar to things that I am doing, do seem to expect to build a business, or status, or some other way some other means of enhancing their lives, instead of just trying to help people who are in difficulty.  In our society, they are probably correct.  When I say that I'm not charging for what I'm doing, people react suspiciously.  They keep looking for the scam.  Mercenary, they can understand.

But it's still really hurts every time I see a fresh example that a lot of people are in it for the money.  Or the status.  Or the social position.  Or empire building, even if it is a tiny little empire.

And every time it's just one more pebble added to the pile labeled, "I have reasons that I seriously wish I was dead."

MGG - 6.08 - Gloria - enjoyment

Even in her last days, in hospital, Gloria saw the humour in the fact that my niece, in the southern hemisphere, knew as much or more about Gloria's situation than my baby brother did, since she (the niece) had access to her father's email.

But it wasn't just comedy movies that Gloria enjoyed.  She enjoyed all forms of entertainment.  She enjoyed opera, a taste which I have tried, in vain, to appreciate.  Of our list of "Jesus" movies, her favorite was "Jesus Christ Superstar," which, as you will know, is a rock opera.  She enjoyed the ballet, a taste which I also have tried, but failed, to fully appreciate.  But we went to the ballet a couple of times to productions of "The Nutcracker," at Christmas time (which was double enjoyment for Gloria), and on at least one other occasion, in a more traditional form.  Oh, and I should also mention "The Overcoat," which was produced as a ballet, and which I did, somewhat, enjoy, as I had read the story before we went to see it, and was interested in how they were going to produce it on stage.  But I probably didn't enjoy it as much as Gloria did.

On one occasion, a company that I was doing some work for, treated those of us who were providing it with content, to dinner at a Japanese restaurant.  This was not a sushi restaurant, but rather one of those restaurants with a grill, and Japanese chefs, who put on a bit of a performance in terms of their cooking.  (I should mention that in this particular restaurant, the guests were seated around the outside of two grills, with a group of about eight on each side of the complete section, with one chef serving each group of eight.)  Gloria was, of course, delighted by the artistry and skill of the chef.   Gloria laughed, and clapped, at each demonstration of skill by our chef.  He, of course, started hamming it up, in reaction to her response.  And as his artistry and demonstrations of skill reached new heights, Gloria laughed, and clapped, and commented, all the more.  Gloria egged on the chef, and he responded.  People on the other side of the table got dinner.  We got a full production.  Completely due to the fact that Gloria was always willing to show, and demonstrate, when she was enjoying something.  She enjoyed babies, she enjoyed singing, she enjoyed all kinds of things.

We went to an art gallery one time, and Gloria enjoyed it thoroughly.  It's one thing to see pictures of art.  It's another thing to see the painting, on the wall, with the dabs and swirls of paint, and the peaks where the artist took the brush, or the palette knife, away after a particular stroke.  It's also, rather interestingly, more apparent, with a real painting, rather than simply an illustration, where are the painter intended light to actually shine off the image.  And Gloria delighted in finding that.

And, as I say, Gloria was the best copy editor I ever knew.  She found an error in the labeling of the paintings that were hanging on the wall.  This art exhibition was, in fact, at an auction house, in preparation for an auction, and so there were catalogues of the auction.  We had thought about buying one, but decided that we couldn't afford the $50 for that catalogue.  However, when we went to a representative of the gallery, and pointed out the error on the wall, and the gallery people had rectified the error, the representative allowed as how that would have been a potentially embarrassing error, and how could they thank us?  So, rather unusually bold for once, Gloria asked if their thanks would extend to a copy of the catalogue.  It would, and did, and they gave us one.  And, in the drastic downsizing of my library, where $120,000 worth of books went elsewhere, that catalog survived the downsizing. And I still have it.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-607-gloria-who-are-you-again.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-609-gloria-pleasant.html

Sermon 53 - Adultery

Sermon 53 - Adultery

Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Okay, this sermon is going to be wrong, in oh, *so* many ways.  First of all, I am going to talk about sex.  I am not just going to talk about the fact that there are two genders, in our species: I am going to talk about sexual activity: making love.  You would rather that I not talk about sex.  In fact, about the only thing that you dislike *more* than me talking about sex, would be me talking about death.  So, consider yourself lucky that I'm only talking about sex.

Because I *could* talk about death.

I am an adulterer.  Matthew chapter five, verse thirty-two says that I am an adulterer.  Now, I have only made love to one woman in the entire world.  I have only made to love to one woman in my entire life.  And I married her.  So how is it that I committed adultery?

Well, Gloria was married before *we*, she and I, got married.  She was married to someone else.  I mean, come on: she had kids!  So she was married before.  And, to make things worse, her husband was actually still alive when we got married.

Now, she was legally divorced from her first husband.  As a matter of fact, my little brother is always eager to justify me, with the fact that it was a "Pauline divorce."  Paul laid out a situation under which marrying a divorced woman was not a sin.  He said that if her first husband, committed adultery first, then she was justified in getting a divorce.  That was the case with Gloria's divorce.

But, as smart as Paul was, and as logically as he made his arguments, and as great as I think he was, and as terrific as it is that we have a whole bunch of letters from him, clarifying a lot of situations, I think Jesus is even better.  And Jesus just said that if you married a divorced woman, you committed adultery.

So, I am an adulterer.

Now, you may think that I'm being a little hard on myself.  But no, I don't think that I am.  I could try and justify myself.  I could say that I intended to stick with Gloria until she died.  And, in fact, I did so!  I could say that Gloria was lonely, and had a hard time of it, and that, by marrying her, I was, in fact, expressing love, because I made her life better.  And Gloria herself made that case!

But the fact is, Gloria was divorced.  And so, simply by marrying her, I committed adultery.  And as many arguments as I can make saying that I made Gloria's life better by marrying her (and that is not necessarily, by any means, an absolutely unalloyed gift) my motives in marrying her we're not all together pure.  I didn't want to marry Gloria, and make her life better, and never, physically, touch her.  (To be honest, I don't think Gloria would have liked that either.)  I wanted to make love to Gloria.  I also knew that marrying Gloria would make *my* life better.  I didn't realize how *much* better it would make my life.  I had no idea that only by marrying Gloria would I be able to publish books.  I had no idea that it would be Gloria, encouraging me, that would get me into the situation where I got to teach all around the world (and I love teaching).  I didn't know any of that.  But I knew that marrying Gloria would make my life better.  And so, my rationale for marrying Gloria was not completely disinterested, and was not entirely un-self-serving.  In other words it wasn't completely pure.  It wasn't completely perfect.

And the point is, that is the standard.  That is the standard for living a good life.  That is the standard for being a good person.  Being perfect.  That is what we need to aspire to.  That is what justifies us to God.  Being perfect.  And it's impossible to be perfect.  At least for us.

That is the target.  That is the standard.  Being perfect.  And, as much as Paul, or my little brother, or any of you, or anyone, may want to argue otherwise, I am not perfect.  (Well, I am quite sure that there are quite a number of you who are quite willing to attest to the fact that I am not perfect. Thank you for supporting my argument.)

So, specifically, I am an adulterer.  I married a woman, who was divorced, and I did it from not completely pure motives.  God did not say to me, as he said to Hosea, go and marry a prostitute.  And, in any case, Gloria was not a prostitute.  Far from it.  But the point is, God didn't tell me to marry Gloria.  God did not direct me, and say that, he was going to give me a one-off permit, to break the law, just this once.  No, I decided to marry Gloria, all on my own.  And it wasn't a perfect decision.  So I'm not perfect.

Now there are plenty of other ways that I could prove that I'm not perfect.  But, in this case, the only other party to the transaction is dead, and can't be harmed by my saying it.  And, in addition, if you want to go to the trouble, you can look it up and prove what I am saying.  Gloria had a husband before me, and she divorced him, and he was still alive when I married Gloria.  So I am an adulterer.  I have sinned.

But, we are *all* sinners.  I think that that is the point of this verse, and most of the Sermon on the Mount, come to that.  We don't have to be rabidly promiscuous to be sinners.  We just have to be less than perfect.  Not only are we all sinners, there is *nothing* that we can do that is possibly good enough to make up for our sin.  No possible way we can make it right.  There is no way we can pay off our debt of sin.

So, God did it for us.

And all *we* have to do, is accept it.

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/09/sermons.html

Fantasia

My ultimate fantasy is having a brain that lets me enjoy being alive.

A lack of positive reinforcement eventually results in behavioral extinction.

Sermon 54 - Liability and Negligence

Sermon 54 - Liability and Negligence

Proverbs 24:11-12 Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.  If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?  Does not he who guards your life know it?  Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

For a quarter of a century I have been facilitating seminars for people who are going for their professional certification in information security.  None of this, of course, is of any interest to you.  But part of what I have to cover in the seminars is about law.  Now, I am not a lawyer.  I don't even play one on TV, as the saying goes.  But, in order to deal with the material in these seminars, I have had to study quite a bit about law, and, particularly, legal principles.  I have to concentrate on legal principles, because, in information security, the perpetrator may be in one jurisdiction, and the victim in another jurisdiction, and the system used to perpetrate a crime may be in yet a third jurisdiction.  And that's possibly the very *simplest* case involved in legal matters on the Internet.  So we have to deal with principles that are commonly accepted by pretty much all jurisdictions, rather than individual laws in one particular jurisdiction.

One of the issues that is common to pretty much every legal jurisdiction and system is that of liability.  Generally speaking, just simply the fact that something bad happens is not enough to say that someone is guilty of a crime.  We also have to show that this individual, or enterprise, or other party, is somehow responsible for either the crime, or the fact that a crime happened.  If you have a law that says that someone who does something specific is guilty of a crime, well, that's one thing.  But very often the law also says that, in certain cases, if you don't do something, and someone is harmed, or injured, or suffers a loss, and you had the power to take action to have prevented that loss or harm, and you *didn't* take that action, then you were negligent.  You can be guilty of doing a crime, or you can be guilty of not doing something which prevented a harm.  That is negligence.

And, for a quarter of a century, I have been telling stories to illustrate these twin ideas of liability and negligence.  And so I'm going to tell a couple of them to you now.  I know that, when you write a sermon, you are supposed to have three points and an illustration.  I apologize for failing to stick to the formula.  In the case of this particular sermon, I have one point, and two illustrations.

Actually, the reason that I'm telling you these stories is a little bit different from the reason that I tell the seminars these stories.  The reason that I tell the seminars this story is because of something called precedent.  In Canada, we are under what is known as the Common Law legal system.  The Common Law legal system is actually relatively *un*common.  It comes from the British legal system.  And one of the principles in the Common Law legal system is that, when a court has made a decision, the reason for that decision becomes a precedent.  This means that previous cases, cases that have been decided prior to the one that you are working on, give you guidance as to how you should decide the case that you are currently working on.  The precedents in prior legal cases become, in a sense, legal principles themselves.  This is not the case in many other legal systems around the world, under what is known as a civil law legal system.  Under a civil law legal system, if you don't have a law against what somebody has done, then what they have done is not a crime.

Which is all very interesting if you are studying to deal with the law, but most of you aren't.  As a matter of fact, I think I can probably say that pretty much none of you are.  So we will go on with the story, and I'll get to the point of the story a bit later.

Once upon a time, roughly a century ago (in case you want to know), there was a shipping company.  I believe that, in this particular case, it was operating someplace on the Great Lakes.  On one particular trip they had a ship towing a barge, and the barge was full of contents being shipped from one place to another.  On this particular trip, a storm blew up.  This happens quite often on the Great Lakes.  You may have heard Gordon Lightfoot's song about "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald."  It was that kind of storm, and, while the ship survived, the barge, and the contents of the barge, went down.

The shipping company had insurance.  And so, they made a claim on their insurance, since they, as the shippers, were responsible not only for the fact that they had lost a very expensive barge, but also for all the expensive contents that had been put on the barge.

The insurance company refused to pay.  Now, I know that there may be some of you who think that that's what we are talking about here: the evils of evil insurance companies who do not pay out insurance.  But that's not quite what we're talking about here.

Because the insurance company refused to pay, all of this ended up in court.  And, in court, the insurance company said that if the shipping company had had a radio on the ship that was towing the barge, the people in charge of the ship would have had some warning of the storm, and would have pulled into port in order to ride out the storm.  Therefore, since the shipping company had no radio on the towing ship, or the barge, they were, in fact, negligent, and therefore liable for the loss, and therefore the insurance company did not have to pay.

I have said that this story takes place a while ago.  From nearer to the time of the sinking of the Titanic.  And, when the Titanic went down, it, of course, radioed to other ships that it was sinking.  And, in fact, other ships did respond.  But it took them many hours to get there.  There was a ship that was considerably closer than the other ships that attempted to respond.  The closer ship didn't respond, even though it had a radio, because, at that time, radios were expensive, and specialized, and they weren't used around the clock.  Radios, in those days, were often only on ships because first class passengers, mostly big businessmen, might want to send orders to their businesses, and pay for the privilege.  So, while this ship had a radio, and a radio operator, the radio operator had gone off duty because it was considered that, at that point, none of the first class passengers would be interested in sending messages, and pay for the privilege.  That ship could have got to the Titanic much faster.  That ship might have saved many more lives, but it wasn't considered commercially feasible to have the radio staffed around the clock.

So, that is what the shipping card company argued in court.  They said that radios were new, and that people had to be trained to use them, and that, in fact, almost none of the other shipping companies had radio operators on their ships.  Therefore, to make an argument that they were responsible, and liable, for the damages, and the loss of the barge and content, was unreasonable.

The court decided for the insurance company, and against the shipping company.  The court held that the technology existed.  And that, although radios were expensive, and even though having radio specialists on board between would have added to the expense, the extra expense was, in fact, nothing in comparison to the loss of the barge and the contents.  And therefore the shipping company was liable, and negligent, in not having a radio, and the insurance company didn't have to pay.

Now that is one thing about liability.  And that is now a precedent in common law.  If a protection exists, even if it is an added expense or trouble, if it is not too expensive relative to what you are protecting, you are responsible for putting the protection in place.

Okay, that is one story.  Now to the other story.

This story is about a shoe company.  They were a big shoe company.  They had plants and factories that made shoes.  And they had various materials that went into the processing of leather, and the making of shoes.  So in addition to having property where their factories, and even their stores, were located, they had other properties where they stored materials that went into the making of shoes, and the treating of leather.  And, indeed, they had still other properties where they stored the leftovers, and the discards, and items that remained, after they had dealt with treating the leather, and after they had made the shoes.

Now, this story takes place quite a while after the story about the shipping company.  By this time, governments had started to look at companies, and what they were doing, and how safely they were doing it, and what they were storing on various properties, and whether it was, in fact, safe to store those materials, in the way they were being stored.

So, once upon a time, once again a while ago (but this time not *quite* so long ago), some government inspectors came to a property that was held by the shoe company.  And they identified themselves, and said that they were there to look around the property, and see what was there.  And the supervisor of that particular site took them around.  And answered questions about what materials were stored there.  And, at one point, they came across some steel drums, containing liquid.  And the inspectors asked what was being stored in those steel drums.  And the supervisor said, well, gee, I don't know.  They were here when I got here.  And I never have known what was in them.

And so the inspectors got somebody to look at what was in the steel drums.  What was in the steel drums was, in fact, particularly nasty.  And, in fact, it was leaking out of the drums.

And so the supervisor called up the company, and they got out various people, and various pieces of equipment, and backhoes, and dump trucks, and people who could check what had happened with that material leaking into the ground.  And all of this activity was very expensive.  And, in the end, after finding a safe place to which to take the liquid, and deal with it, and, after digging up the soil that seemed to have been contaminated, and finding a safe place to put that soil, and to deal with it, and after having tested and ensured that none of the material had, in fact, leaked into the groundwater, and then into streams and other places where it might have spread, well, what with all of that, and other things, it came to a lot of money.

And then the inspectors came back.  And they got information about what had been done with the material, and the soil, and what had been done on the site where it had been stored, and all the work that had been done.  And they said, this is very nice.  This is commendable.  You have done a really great job.  Here is a fine for $300,000.

And the shoe company said, wait a minute, we didn't even *know* about this!  As soon as we *did* know, we fixed it!  You even said we did a great job!  Even the supervisor at the site didn't know about this!  Why do we have to pay this fine?  And it went to court.  And the court said, even though you didn't know about it, and even though the supervisor didn't know about it, this was nasty stuff.  You *should* have known about it.  And, yes, you have to pay the fine.  And, in fact, the supervisor is *personally* responsible for $50,000 of that fine.  The site supervisor was, in fact, within 4 months of retirement.  A $50,000 fine is going to put a heck of a crimp into your 401k, or RRSP.

So, in both of those stories, both the shipping company, and the shoe company, and even the site supervisor, were all liable.  They were all held to be negligent.  In the case of the shoe company, and the supervisor, they haven't even actually done something that was criminally wrong.  They had just failed to do something that would have kept other people safe.  And, in the case of the shoe company, and the supervisor, it wasn't even as if a harm *had* been done to other people.  As soon as they were informed; as soon as they knew that there was a problem; they took steps to remediate it, to mitigate it, to make it right, and make sure that nobody got hurt.  They did the right things.  When they found out.

But the courts, in both cases, basically said, you should have known.  It is not enough to say that we didn't know.

And the Bible sides with the courts, in these cases.  The Bible says, it's not enough to follow the Ten Commandments, and not do bad things.  You have to make sure that you are doing the *right* thing.  In the books of the law, the Bible doesn't just say don't steal.  The Bible says if your neighbour's animal wanders away, and you find it, you have to bring it back to your neighbor.  Or you have to let your neighbor know that you found it.  It's not enough to say, oh well, he should have known that his animal was straying.  No, when you see something that could harm your neighbour, you have to fix it.  Or, you have to take steps to make sure your neighbour fixes it.  Even if your neighbour is your enemy, rather than a friend.  If you see something, say something.

The Bible goes further than that.  It says rescue those who are being led away to death.  And it goes on to say, quite specifically, that you can't get off by saying well, we didn't know about that!  The Bible says that you are liable for your neighbour's hurt, or harm, or injury, or distress, even if all you see is a bunch of people being led away.  Or being led astray.

So I have *another* story to tell you.  This story is, once again, about information technology.  It's a little bit more technical.  On a network, when you want to communicate with another machine, or device, on the network, you send it a SYN packet.  That is spelled S Y N.  It's the beginning of the word "synchronize."  That's what you want to do.  You want to synchronize communications on the network so that you can communicate with that particular node or device.  Now, notice, you haven't actually said anything.  You haven't actually communicated anything, other than your desire for communication.  And the device to which you have sent the SYN request responds with an ACK.  That stands for "acknowledge."  It means that the node, that you want to communicate with, is acknowledging that you want to communicate with it, and that it is ready to communicate.

So, even when you have sent the SYN, and got the ACK, you will notice that no communication has actually taken place.  It's just I want to communicate, I am ready to communicate.  That's all.

The reason that I bring this up is that we have a SYN/ACK that we use, pretty much every day, probably more than once a day.  You have probably used it in church already this morning, and you have probably used it multiple times.

That SYN/ACK is, "how are you?"  We don't really care how the other person is.  I know that.  I know that for a *fact*.  Because I can have someone say to me, "how are you," and I will reply "terrible."  And the person will, most often, laugh.  Is that person, in fact, laughing at my pain and distress?  Well, no.  That person just didn't expect me to say terrible.  I have broken the protocol.  That person said how are you, which is basically just SYN.  That person doesn't really care, not really, how I am.  They just want to start a conversation.  My part of the protocol is to respond with, "fine."  That is the ACK part of the protocol.  Whether or not I *am* fine, doesn't matter.  Because the person who said "how are you," doesn't really care how I am.  That's how I know that this is just a protocol, rather than an actual attempt at communication.

As I say, I mess with the protocol.  When I say "terrible," the number one response is the laugh.  One time, somebody asked how I was, and I said terrible, and the person said, and this is a *literal* quote, "just the way you like it!"  How can you possibly say that?  I am a grieving widower.  And I am a depressive.  My life sucks.  And I *live* in a town where, when somebody asks how I am, and I respond terrible, they can respond, "just the way you like it!"  How is it possible that "just the way you like it" is the proper response to "I am terrible!"

Now, mostly we come to church, not to learn about the Bible, not necessarily to praise God, and not to find out whether anybody else in church is in trouble.  Mostly we come to church to socialize.  And we get a chance to socialize before the service starts.  (If, that is, you are not from Port Alberni, and you actually show up early for anything.)  And then we build in time during the service, for us to greet each other, and to do a bit more socializing, possibly with different people than when we socialize with, before the service.  And there are a couple of churches, here in the city, that actually have their coffee time *during* the service, so that there is an *additional* opportunity to socialize, possibly with yet another, different, group of people.  And then there is the period after the service is over, and we have heard the sermon, and we have been blessed, and we are sent on our way, and we can socialize yet again, possibly with yet another, different, group of people.

So, we have multiple opportunities to talk to people. And, now, what I am about to suggest to you, is, I know, unwelcome.  I am going to break your regular protocol, once again.  I suggest that, during any, or indeed, *all*, of those times of socialization, you don't just do SYN/ACK.  I suggest that you ask someone, even if you ask them how they are, and they say fine, I suggest you ask them, how they *really* are.  And I particularly suggest that you do this with someone that you regularly do not socialize with.  That you do not socialize with on a regular basis.  Someone that you do not know. 

I know. I know.  You don't want to do this.  For one thing, you don't want to talk to someone that you don't know.  Who *knows* what trouble that can cause!  You may be talking to someone who has never been to your church before.  You may, horror of horrors, speak to someone who has been to your church, multiple times, and nobody from your church has actually ever *talked* to them!  And, very worst of all, even if it is someone you know, maybe *especially* if it is someone whom you know, and with whom you have had many SYN/ACK conversations over the years, they may *not* be fine!  They may be in trouble!  They may be in pain!  They may be in distress!  And, absolutely worst of all, it may be the kind of trouble that you cannot fix in seventeen seconds with a cliche!  What the heck are you going to do now?

Well, since *I* have created the problem, *I* will give you a suggestion.  Listen.  Don't try to fix the problem.  Don't try to fix the pain.  Don't think that you, with a cliche, or a Bible proof text, have the answer to their distress, and you can just drop that verse into the conversation, a verse which they probably know as well as you do, and everything will magically be all right.  (If you know anything about me you know that I *hate* magical thinking.)

Or, you can do what I know most of you are going to do.  And that is to ignore this entire sermon, and the suggestion, and you can pretend that everything is fine, and that nobody has any problems.  And that if anyone has any problems, those problems are not your responsibility.

You can just go back to being negligent.

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/09/sermons.html

Oh, sheet!

What law of physics or cosmology that states that it is always the *fitted* sheet (and not the flat) in a set that is the one that tears?

MGG - 6.07 - Gloria - Who are you, again?

 Gloria's father was delighted that our decision about the style of the reception saved him a great deal of money in terms of the cost of a sit-down dinner.  He therefore decided to gift us with the present of a honeymoon in Hawaii.  He had arranged our airline tickets, and our stay at a very, very nice hotel, and pick up at the airport by a greeters company.  This didn't work out too terribly well: for some reason our flight was delayed slightly, and the greeters company decided that this was too late, and they were presumably into overtime rates, and so they left.  Both Gloria and myself are short on experience in terms of vacation travel, and this somewhat threw us, and so it was rather late when we finally were able to get a taxi, and get to the hotel.

I must admit that I did not help matters.  Just before we got engaged, I had, basically, lost pretty much my entire life savings in the crash of a financial institution.  Therefore, I was extremely nervous about the additional costs to be incurred on this trip, regardless of the fact that the airline and hotel were paid for.  I was also rather stressed over the preparations for the wedding, and I didn't deal with any of this particularly well.

We got to the hotel.  We got checked in.  Stu had booked us the honeymoon suite.  Actually, I assume that this particular hotel has several honeymoon suites.  But this was a very nice one, tucked in an inside corner of the building, with a balcony looking out over the courtyard.  When we got up in the morning, Gloria looked out into the courtyard, which was planted with coconut palms.  The winds, fairly constant in Hawaii, were gently blowing, and the trees were moving in the wind.  "Oh," said Gloria, "nobody told me about the palm trees dancing!"  We will speak more of Gloria's enjoyment of anything to be enjoyed in life.

Now, I have to admit to a major failing on my part.  I am infamous, among friends and family, for not being able to remember names.  And it's not just names.  I can remember very little about the details of people's lives, unless I am actively dealing with them, extensively, in the immediate time period when you ask me about them.  When I went away to work on the railroad one summer I forgot my best friend's name, during that time period.  I had created a calendar, upon which I had written the names and the dates when I had written to various friends and family members.  When I got home, I had to look up that calendar, and look at a date when I recalled I had sent my best friend a letter, in order to remind myself what his name was.  That's how bad my infirmity is.  I do not do string variables.  I frequently say that I am not very good with names, or faces, but I never forget a number.  And that is almost literally true.  Numbers I remember.  Numbers, as far as I am concerned, have meaning.  (A fact that Gloria would strongly dispute.)  Names are arbitrary, and meaningless, except as variable references.

I blame my mother for this.  As I have mentioned, mother made me her confidante.  She told me all kinds of gossip, about all kinds of people in the church, and the denomination.  She also told me that I could never tell anyone this material.  So, I assume I got very good at forgetting it.  And anything associated with people.  Which makes it difficult these days.

And, if I said that that example was bad, it gets worse.  I forgot Gloria's name, on our honeymoon.  One morning we had gone to a restaurant to get breakfast.  Gloria became interested in a piece of artwork hanging on the wall.  When the hostess (whatever the current, non-gender identified term is, these days) came back to inform us that our table was ready, I turned to Gloria, and realized that none of the female names that I could recall were, in fact, correct.  So, I just said, "Come."  Gloria, knowing that this was not exactly my style, turned to me and said "Come?"  All that I could think of to say, in the moment, was "Come, *please*!"

Gloria, when asked why she didn't like travel or vacations, would note that, if you were sitting on a beach, sand got into your embroidery.  When pressed, she would also note that she did not like to sit in the sun.  This was an understatement.  Not only did Gloria not like the sun, the sun definitely did not like her.  She got sunburn at the drop of a hat.  Sometimes literally.  If she was exposed to the sun for any length, she burned very easily, and suffered great pain from it.  On another morning in our Hawaiian stay, we had planned to be at a hula demonstration, which took place not far from our hotel, at 10:00 in the morning.  On the appointed day, at the appointed time, we went to the display, and enjoyed it.  It was only a short demonstration: no more than twenty minutes.  However, later that day, and not too much later at that, Gloria's skin started to burn.  She had been in the sun for only twenty minutes.  She had covered up, mostly.  But there was an area, about a foot long, and two inches wide, where the neck of her dress had exposed her neck and shoulders.  That area burned.  Not just red: it turned a deep and dark purple, in places almost black.  We obtained an analgesic burn cream from a pharmacy.  I had to apply it with the lightest of touches, putting a large glob of the cream on my finger, and only touching Gloria with the cream itself, so as not to press my fingers on her skin.  Even so, it was intensely painful for Gloria.  And it had not finished healing, by the time we needed to come home.  The skin had started blistering and peeling by then, but the underlying skin was still extremely tender.

As noted, I was not handling any of these problems well.  The combined stress gave me a rather blinding headache for a number of the days of our honeymoon.  I did not do well.  I did not handle the honeymoon, or the headache particularly appropriately.  This is my fault, and my fault alone.  And it is my fault if Gloria did not enjoy being in Hawaii.  We did, in fact, make plans at various times, to get back to Hawaii and have a redo of the honeymoon, at times when Gloria had been able to work on my inability to handle complex situations, and I might have been a bit better able to give her the honeymoon that she deserved.  For one reason or another, these plans never came to fruition before Gloria died.  Another one of my regrets.

Gloria loved quilting. Let me rephrase that: Gloria loved fabric.  Gloria loved textiles, of pretty much any sort.  She loved the colors.  She loved the colors of fabrics for quilting, and she loved matching fabrics for quilting.  She loved purchasing different fabrics, and planning color matches for different block patterns for quilts.  But she also loved buying pre-chosen rolls and packages of fabrics for quilting.  She loved buying quilt kits.  Even if the quilt kit was not a particularly good choice in terms of color.  One such, which is still in the stash, is a kit of microfibre fabrics, deliciously soft, in blacks, whites, and primary colours, and so is a rather unsorted and random mix of colors, but which Gloria purchased, because I liked the touch of the fabrics.  Gloria was going to make it into a quilt for me.  Unfortunately, it never got made.

But another quilt, that never got finished before Gloria died, was one that she was, in fact, designing and starting collecting fabrics for, when we got married.  It was a log cabin block quilt.  Gloria worked on it, off and on, for pretty much the entire period Of our marriage.   She had collected the appropriate fabrics, created the blocks, and pieced the top.  However, she had not finished the borders, or the backing, and had not had it quilted, by the time she died.  After Gloria died, I was going through the sewing room stash.  The girls had put the whole sewing room into a storage locker, as, when they moved me from North Vancouver to Delta, we knew that a sewing room was probably not immediately possible, but none of us were willing to dispose of Gloria stash while she was still unconscious.  I looked through all the materials that I could find in the storage locker, looking for the log cabin quilt.  I didn't find it.  I didn't find it, because the girls had taken it, completed the borders, and then had the quilt quilted.  They presented me with the finished quilt at our great-grandson's first birthday party, that summer.  Fortunately, towards the end of the party, as I was a blubbering mess after the presentation.

Gloria enjoyed what there was to enjoy of life.  Completely.  Her first husband once left a movie, which they were watching together (a comedy movie), because Gloria started laughing.  Out loud.  He actually left the theater, rather than sit beside Gloria while she was laughing.  This says something about Gloria, but it also says something about her first husband.

She had told me this story, somewhat apologetically at times, to warn me that she might laugh out loud in certain situations.  I didn't care.  If Gloria enjoyed herself enough to laugh, I thought that was great.  There was no way I was going to be embarrassed by Gloria laughing.  Gloria did not laugh at inappropriate times.  She did not laugh at inappropriate things.  She enjoyed what there was to enjoy.  And what's the problem with that?

Sometime later my little brother presented us with some videos of two Monty Python movies.  One of them was the movie "And Now for Something Completely Different."  Eventually, we played this movie for ourselves.  As soon as it started playing, Gloria turned to me and said, "That's the movie!"  This was, in fact, the movie that had caused Gloria to laugh out loud, and which her first husband would not sit through, because Gloria was laughing.  I was delighted that she loved this movie enough to laugh at it: I love Monty Python, in all its forms.  Gloria, was not a particular fan of Monty Python.  So, to discover that this particular movie was the one that had caused her to laugh, was a delight to me, as a shared enjoyment.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/01/mgg-606-gloria-wedding-planner.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: TBA