return of a squirrel that looked like hitler

48 Responses to return of a squirrel that looked like hitler

1. Stiletto Girl

   March 25, 2007 at 9:53 am

   I…KNEW IT! I went to his site last week and saw your comments…I thought to myself, Hello Valliant, Goodbye doctor guy! (That is, for YOU)!

   He’s probably a Gemini or Libra. I sense an air of smugness in that haughtly litle tongue of his which is not necessarily a bad thing, just that it runs rampant among these signs.
2. Stiletto Girl

   March 25, 2007 at 9:56 am

   Ooops, drop the l in haughty.

   I really wish we were allowed to go back and edit our comments for accuracy.

   Come to think of it, haughtly sort of works, that is, add an o and drop the aught. Perhaps it was a Freudian spiced double entendre misspelling.
3. Jennifer

   March 25, 2007 at 12:31 pm

   Hello anchor! He might be worthy……….he’ll have to share though because, I love Super Hero Girl! I was going to say that I was here first but then I had to remind myself that Max is not ice cream……
4. max

   March 25, 2007 at 1:34 pm

   Oh I am just being a flirt and more than likely some girl named Esmerelda is going to show up and sock me for that.
5. Jennifer

   March 25, 2007 at 2:38 pm

   We can take her….. Esma who?
6. max

   March 25, 2007 at 2:54 pm

   Funny Jennifer.

   [The Valliant guy has a girlfriend. Also he is in Canada. Do not get too attached to romantic imaginings there.]
7. Jennifer

   March 25, 2007 at 3:39 pm

   Max, Did you minor in psychology? Actually, that’s that’s the same thing my psychic told me. Either way, you have special powers.
8. max

   March 25, 2007 at 4:07 pm

   Well you were being terribly subtle and all it was hard to notice. Funny girl.

   This is like when Lulu had me stuffed into a dress and a cake on order over Trench — who hello, is married and lives in South Carolina.

   You guys crack me up. But hey, it is good to be loved. [smile]
9. Stiletto Girl

   March 25, 2007 at 4:51 pm

   Yeah, some of us keep forgetting about that important and telling little adornment on the left hand.
10. max

    March 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    I had a good friend who was a mistress. Long term. And they really did love each other. Any time that looks at all appealing all I have to remember is, she spent every Christmas and holiday alone. Not alone alone, but without him.
11. Stiletto Girl

    March 25, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Oh, so true!

    I keep telling myself that holidays are overrated but the truth is I enjoy them just as much as the next person. I hope to gather the courage one day to say [as I give him the boot]:

    It’s not that I love you less…I just love myself more!
12. max

    March 25, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Sulya posted the smartest thing about love on the forum today. Let me ask her if it is okay to repost it here.
13. Jennifer

    March 25, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    I had my bags packed and my pasport ready when I got a call, I have a wife, she is pregnant, it’s a girl, she wants to name her Jennifer, I can’t do this. I like to think I would have eventually figured out, he was married, but the truth is ……I am still alone on the holidays.
14. max

    March 25, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    I am so sorry Jennifer. People tend to say things like, “There must have been signs.” But there are not always. Some people are very good at deception and I have seen some real smart people go down that path who would not have been on it if there had been signs.
15. Jennifer

    March 25, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    You hit it. You can get over the man but breaking your own cardinal law through deception or not it’s a 7.0 right on your root chakra! : )
16. max

    March 25, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    Here is Sulya’s post. Which is brilliant.

    [Also we are total goofs discussing love and relationships under a squirrel that looks like hitler. Jeesh. What romantics.]

    I spent a large part of last night reading through various threads and trying to get to know this place and the people in it as they reveal themselves. I read all 8 pages of this thread and found that the hamster in my wheel was running a little more quickly and then I read most of the politics thread as well. The hamster picked up speed. Then I slept on things and came back here even though max seems to be giving up on this thread and I can’t possibly know what she intended it to be…

    In any event, the results of all the reading and fuzzy rodent spinning were this:

    Many of the worst things that happen in relationships – both small (between two people) and large (between nations) – seem to happen when one party puts his/her own needs entirely ahead of the other’s and the REST of the worst things that happen in relationships happen when one party makes his/her needs entirely subordinate to the other’s.

    People like to draw gender lines on this issue and stats do tend to show women as more “selfless” and men as more “selfish” but, forgetting how the collection of statistics is fraught with bias, I’ve often felt that this type of categorization serves to lower the level of debate. Who cares who does what more? It’s the behaviour and its effects that matter. It’s the search for balance that matters.

    And the behaviours are in evidence everywhere. It doesn’t matter if you’re married, not married, dating, just sleeping together, friends or creating foreign policy for a nation. If you’re too selfish (in general or in a moment) things are going to get screwed up, if you’re too selfless (in general or in a moment) things are going to get screwed up.

    And the words are important too. The word “backbone” and “spine” are bandied about earlier in this thread and the implication is that the opposite is “weakness” but I would argue that it’s more complicated than that. Sometimes having a “Backbone” is a way to rationalize incredibly selfish and manipulative behaviour. I would also say that I’ve met people who are so self-effacing that having more “spine” is definitely in order. But again, these are the extremes and the goal is always balance.

    I mean, I don’t think I’ve ever met a person – no matter how self-determining – who didn’t wish at one time or another that someone else could just make a few decisions for them, have the answers.

    “I don’t want to think about it, you decide.”

    In the fantasy balance situation the person hearing this will be respectful, capable of taking into consideration what they know about the person saying it, their likes and dislikes, and then – considering themselves as well – will make a decision that is most likely to please them both.

    They will not judge the person “weak” for asking them to make a decision for them. They will not be so incapable of making decisions that they ask endless questions in an effort to discern the speaker’s needs when, clearly, the need is “not to think about it”.

    Isn’t this part of why we seek out love in the first place? To have a safe place to go, a place to rest and be taken care of once in a while by someone who knows us well enough to not judge us for our weaknesses – whatever they may be – because they so admire our strengths? Someone to fill the gaps without judgement?

    Anyway, that’s the theory in its nascent form. It seems so obvious, really, that being sensitive and self-actualized at the same time, able to articulate one’s needs and be appreciative of others’, is where the good stuff happens. It’s just precious few people I’ve known who make it happen in love relationships – or foreign policy for that matter. It seems to be easier in friendship which would suggest that having sex seems to add to the muddle. But, short of the fact that sex (good sex where everyone gets what they need and less than good sex where one party is too selfish, or too selfless) can be used as a metaphor for the problem itself, I don’t know what else to say and so leave it all to the rest of you.

    Cheers, Sulya
17. Stiletto Girl

    March 25, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    Yes it is. Thank you, Sulya! I’d like to think that people are innately selfless and they only become selfish and self centered after having been screwed too many times. But as when gets older your inner cynic rears its head and tells you that people are just the opposite, completely selfish and they’ve really got to reach within and I mean VERY FAR within, to take the high road.

    Jennifer, ouch! That just sucks.
18. Jennifer

    March 25, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    I don’t think we are all born innately one way or another, I think it’s easier for me to take the “high road” than it is for others but I pay a price and had to watch diligently for snobery. I had no right to judge and yet I did. That is trouble if you want to be a truly compassionate person. The “high road” is a lie. I don’t think we all run on the same hampster wheel and it’s cool to eventually gain enough respect, and to know to ask, hey, what track are you on? That is why just being balanced in nature won’t even out foriegn policy. They really don’t want to be mini Americas. Some other cultures have fail safe traps set into action at the very begining to trip up any evolution that might have a chance to occur. They will either break through or implode on themselves and start over. I don’t think we should get the blame for that because we are being “helpful” even if “helpful is a cover for less than pure motives. I think we all have this with in ourselves. A point of tension where we either evolve or implode on ourselves. Maybe we got there on our own or through our relationships. We can take the responsibility or blame others. When you can bust your self rationalizing and being manipulative, life is getting good. Sulya’s right about the importance of balance in selfishness vs. selflessness. I think this balance is most important within the self and how we divide our energy on our priorities. I think one should rest and restore when you don’t feel like making decisions. I used to think of that as a spiritual weakness. Now, it’s just nap time. I worry so much about this balance in my relationship with my son. I don’t want to wake up one day resenting him. Nor, do I want others to resent him when it is truly my choice to live our life this way. I do think Sulya’s post is brillant. I don’t know why we look for love. She is brave as they come for asking that question. Her post is more brilliant every time you read it and it deserves a couple of run throughs at least.
19. max

    March 25, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    I am too dumb to think on love tonight. Maybe tomorrow. I should figure out how to split this up though and make it its own post. Hmm.
20. A.J. Valliant

    March 26, 2007 at 6:40 am

    “not you Valliant Guy you I am going to marry can you imagine, Max Valliant?,”

    You would need a safety harness, two pair of pants, and the willingness to drive 100mph at all times to contain the awesomeness that name would entail.
21. max

    March 26, 2007 at 6:50 am

    Silly Valliant. I have a safety harness and five pairs of pants. You drive.
22. A.J. Valliant

    March 26, 2007 at 6:50 am

    Cancer, actually. June 15th, 1976. A fire dragon by the Chinese zodiac if you into that sort of thing. I’m more cocky than smug in person. Think laid back, self deprecating megalomania.
    Man, I’m glad I missed this post until today. Flattering slumber party talk is distinctly charming way to start a Monday morning.
23. A.J. Valliant

    March 26, 2007 at 7:02 am

    Jennifer: Sadly I’m both Canadian and pathological faithful. Thoroughly charmed though.
24. max

    March 26, 2007 at 7:02 am

    I am going to just start plugging in C’s for all questions relating to you. Canada. Cancer. Capitol. The Cat is a calico, right?

    Also you have to give time and place of birth for the zodiac thing. Ottawa? That does not start with a C it cannot be right.
25. A.J. Valliant

    March 26, 2007 at 10:58 am

    The cat is a Calico, insofar as a fifty pound spherical mass can be considered a cat.

    “Also you have to give time and place of birth for the zodiac thing. Ottawa? That does not start with a C it cannot be right.”
    Around 6 am’ish at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. Does this throw me into astrological peril?
26. max

    March 26, 2007 at 11:11 am

    Absolutely.
27. Jennifer

    March 26, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Did he say, 100 miles per hour? Max, it can be done
28. max

    March 26, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Oh I have done that just bouncing off a car, I am betting it would be easier inside it.
29. Jennifer

    March 26, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    You must mean making them….. : )
30. max

    March 26, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    Do not. Fresh!
31. Jennifer

    March 27, 2007 at 1:23 am

    He he he I know!
32. max

    March 27, 2007 at 10:29 am

    Oh now you are going to scare him. He is a delicate blossom you know.
33. engtech

    March 27, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    Trust me, delicate blossom he is not.
34. max

    March 27, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    You are bolstering up his masculinity right?

    EngTech you are a good friend.
35. max

    March 27, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    “Revelatory” is a big word.
36. A.J. Valliant

    March 27, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    I have one of those calendars, it’s a terrible burden. I spend all day trying to bait people conversations where I can use the word in context.
37. max

    March 27, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    I bet you are making that calendar up and have words you have not even pulled out yet.
38. max

    March 28, 2007 at 11:08 am

    See? “Multiphasic” and “inferential” do not even come on calendars I bet.
39. A.J. Valliant

    March 28, 2007 at 11:11 am

    I went to school for Psychology, those terms were burned into my brain.
40. max

    March 28, 2007 at 11:15 am

    Wow that sounds so uncomfortable.

    Hey what do the psych books say about guys with dragoney tattoos who post photos of themselves in bridal gowns?
41. A.J. Valliant

    March 28, 2007 at 11:32 am

    “Hey what do the psych books say about guys with dragoney tattoos who post photos of themselves in bridal gowns?”

    Nothing good ;)
42. max

    March 28, 2007 at 11:36 am

    Wow those books do not go very much into depth. Are you sure that school was accredited?

    Also am I under investigation yet or was that just being gallant to say you might? That was very polite. I read your stuff and did not ask.
43. A.J. Valliant

    March 28, 2007 at 11:52 am

    “Wow those books do not go very much into depth. Are you sure that school was accredited?”

    There were certain allegations launched against it, but I stand by my diploma…even if it was printed on a soiled undershirt.

    “Also am I under investigation yet or was that just being gallant to say you might?”

    Investigation seems a tad clinical..but you’ve at least engaged my curiosity. Which is a good deal more than most people manage.
44. max

    March 28, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    It is the shirt, right? “Danger, do not cimb this girl”?

45. Pingback: looking for god « celluloid blonde

46. engtech

    April 2, 2007 at 11:25 am

    Hey what do the psych books say about guys with dragoney tattoos who post photos of themselves in bridal gowns?

    They say worse things about the best friend who convinces people to a) wear bridal gowns and b) then takes pictures of it.
47. max

    April 2, 2007 at 11:40 am

    Wow. EngTech. You have an evil streak.

    I am so impressed.
48. max

    April 2, 2007 at 11:44 am

    ps : you so need a psuedonym EngTech