sundries

[rm]

It's been a strange, strange 24 hours. Some awesome opportunities have dropped in my lap which may (probably, just on a statistical basis) come to nothing.

Meanwhile, I injured the hell outta my arm (it'll be fine, but OW) in a stupid, stupid way during a deeply surreal professional moment and a bunch of stuff at the office that was worrying me appears to be just fine.

Tonight Patty and I are having a yet to be determined date night.

Tomorrow we're going to see my play, which I doubt will win the festival (these things are really "who can fill the most seats" and the play it much meatier than most people want in a one act and I think it throws folks), but it'll be great to see it, and I want it to win, not just because it's my play, but because these actors and the director deserve it SO MUCH.

The BBC wants to know what its audiences, both anti-gay and LGBT think about their coverage.

I'm still not remotely caught up with BSG and Caprica starts soon. Caprica has my attention for two reasons: 1. James Marsters (who I don't have a thing for, but I think is just delicious to watch on screen) and 2. the basic premise of the show, at least based on the ads I've seen is "people fuck up EVERYTHING when they try to fight death/mortality.

Patty and I continue to watch Buffy. It is quite an odd little thing. Let's say I'm enjoying it SCADS more than Merlin which we still need to finish.

I have to pick up Little Kitty's ashes today. And I think Pretty has a check-up tomorrow. I need to check on that.

I feel like I must say something about yesterday's Supreme Court decision, but what's to say. I certainly will never donate to another political campaign -- there won't be a point. Fine. Lambda Legal could use the extra cash.

Has anyone else noticed that Tim-Tams are now available in the US? I saw them in fucking Target before the cruise and keep forgetting to mention it. I think Pepperridge Farm is distributing them. My gluten-free heart is BREAKING.

My Gallifrey One panel schedule (I think this is pretty much cooked now):

Saturday 1pm, Scottsdale Room
It's The End, But the Moment Has Been Prepared For: Fan Reactions to Character Deaths
Tina Beychok, Paul Cornell, Kate Orman, Racheline Maltese, David Wise, Tammy Garrison
(It's just not Gallifrey if Paul and I aren't on a panel likely to bring the plutonium together.)

Saturday 2pm, Houston Room
The Crossplay Equation
Sarah Underwood, Jessica Montague, Salina Conlan, Racheline Maltese

Saturday 11:30 pm, Houston Room
It's Not Porn, It's Research!
Adult Panel, 18+ Only
Tara O'Shea, Racheline Maltese, Tammy Garrison, Jan Fennick

As to what I'll be going to as an audience member, no idea. I have some strong feelings about stuff I want to see right now, but I know I tend to get distracted by Lobby/BarCon

Comments

Re: BBC poll

[smirnoffmule.livejournal.com]

I agree the Guardian headline appears deliberately sensationalist (and that some of their wording is unfortunate), but it is also possible the Guardian is reflecting the BBC's intentions more accurately than the BBC is. They do seem to have a source beyond just the BBC website. There seem to be two aspects to the research - the general survey aspect, which, if anyone can answer, yes, it's inevitable they'll get homophobic responses, and this "qualitative study" which seems to involve indepth interviews with pre-selected groups, with the issue being that the BBC has apparently pre-selected groups which they already know or suspect to be homophobic.

Without further information, or knowing the quality of the Guardian's source, it's hard to say whether it's something to be concerned about or not, but I think it certainly bears watching.

Re: BBC poll

[kindkit.livejournal.com]

it is also possible the Guardian is reflecting the BBC's intentions more accurately than the BBC is

Yes, I agree. But the headline still seems vastly inflammatory compared to what's actually said in the article, and even within the article, there's no indication that the Guardian has a source for what it's implying. If they're referring to some other BBC document, they should say so, and if they have an insider source they can't name, they should say that also. Because right now it looks like the Guardian is exaggerating or making stuff up. I want to flag the whole article with [citation needed], Wikipedia-style.