I cannot fall asleep for the night unless I am lying on my stomach. But I can nap on the couch on my side or on my back, usually with journal article nearby.
I notice the first comment to the linked post consists of the author of this post telling -gg-d that nobody else shares the peculiarity he's writing about.
A possible reason for different impressions is whether we readily remember dreams. I usually don't; I think I need to be awakened or disturbed to do so.
I had a dream last night that I went to some event on Liberty Island (except the Statue of Liberty was gone) and it started to flood and the eight of us who were there only had one kitchen sink between us to use as a boat and the only way to power it was a fan but (obviously because of the flooding) there was nowhere to plug it in and we kept waiving at people to come and save us but they didn't understand why we needed saving because they saw ships around us but those were only optical illusions and then I woke up.
Hey ennybuddy read Be||e W4r/ng's dream on her blog (the one that has her name in its title)? It is a memorable one. B-Wo and I have contributed to its interpretation.
Oh my god, I just remembered that I had a dream a couple of nights ago about having sex with some hideous right-wing blogger I've never met. Oh, and I just remembered who it was. Oh ick.
this is one of those "wow, i'm not alone!" moments.
i fall asleep more easily on my right side than left, my stomach sometimes, rarely on my back. but when i fall asleep on my back, i often have much more vivid dreams. maybe there's a larium leak in my ceiling.
also, when i fall asleep on my stomach, i almost always wake up w/ my arms having fallen asleep. that sucks.
BTW as regards the 3x4m/n3d L/f3 post I reference in 8 -- has anyone here heard this piece of folk wisdom: "If a woman feeds her husband roasted owl, he will become subservient to her every wish." It's all over the interwebs but with no source information.
I was sleeping on my back the other night and had a dream that was the entire plot to a fantasy novel and I woke up convinced that it was the next H4rry P0tt3r phenomenon- I actually bothered to write down every thing I could remember (it did steal one plot device from that series.) It was a kind of murder mystery, but unfortunately I couldn't remember the twist that allowed the mystery to be solved.
sex with some hideous right-wing blogger I've never met
I don't care who it is because these people are just names to me, but for this dream you must have an idea of what he looks like. Is this from a picture or — more interesting to me — did you imagine what he looks like?
I also find that what I ate for dinner has a much larger effect than how I'm sleeping.
13- I've had extreme cases of arms falling asleep, not just "tingly" but to the point where I have to pick up my arm and move it like a piece of wood- it feels like I'm moving some else's arm. I could stick a pin into my hand and totally not feel it.
I only sleep on my stomach (facing right first but turning left before I fall asleep). Unless I'm sharing a bed, in which case I only fall asleep on my back, if I sleep at all.
I'm glad to know I'm not the only person who has an unusual experience when laying on my stomach and facing left. Once I woke up in the middle of the night and I was facing left. (It was the Sunday after Thanksgiving, 2001 -- it was a memorable night.) I felt an evil presence on top of me. So I tried telling it to get out. That didn't work because I was so scared I couldn't talk. I tried thinking happy thoughts. That hardly made a dent in the evil. Then I prayed pretty hard. Whatever that experience was, it finally ended (or left). I slept with the light on for a few nights after that. Now I can't fall asleep facing left. I get freaked out.
No, isn't the implicit statement "If you say so, I'll (believe you/assume it's true)"? In which case it's a straightforward conditional about belief. But I always get tangled up in these, so don't trust me.
No, it's not a biscuit conditional unless it's presented that the truth of the consequent ('there are biscuits in the kitchen') is dependent on the truth of the antecedent ('if you want some'), but in reality there isn't any dependency between the two.
Or basically, any time you can give a smartass answer like 'And if I don't want any cookies, they'll disappear into thin air?'
Lamont's lead has been shrinking as results come in, and the big pro-Lieberman distrincts are supposed to be coming in late in the evening. I think we may well be fucked.
51: Lamont's about three and a half points up with 74 percent reporting. But those precincts you mentioned -- Give me specifics, man! And maybe then I'll give you leprechauns. And unicorns.
54: I don't know enough about CT politics to know why this is believed to be so, but it's assumed that the major urban centers will be the most pro-Lieberman, and they apparently take the longest time to report back.
Lamont just widened his lead further- 713/748 reporting, Lamont +10270. Unless those last 35 are big precincts and very pro-Lieberman, it might be over. (If precinct tracked with # of votes, it would be mathematically almost certain- there would only be 12000 votes left- but some city precincts are very large.)
I'm listening to his ghoulish non-concession concession speech now, and it occurs to me that this is the first time in years I've actually heard Joe Lieberman give a sustained speech, and the only thing I can think of listening to his voice is this man is a complete and utter tool.
Totally worth your time to go through the Red State Update archives. That one was just mediocre. The bird flu episode is one of the greatest things ever.
Democrats are still terribly gunshy. Lamont was 3.8% up with 95.5% of the vote counted, and Lieberman would have to have won more than 80% of the remaining votes to win, and even then no one was gloating, or even claiming victory.
Even with only 90% of the votes counted, 3.8% would have been an almost-unbeatable lead, unless the remaining 10% had all been from fanatical Lieberman territory.
I am disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand.
I expect that my opponent will continue to do in the general election what he has done in the primary … partisan polarizing instead of talking about how we can solve people's problems, insults instead of ideas. In other words, more of the same old partisan politics that has assailed Washington today.
This is the language you use against a Republican, not another Democrat. Grr. Shut up, Joe.
The thing is, we want partisan polarization. It's an election year and we're trying to win. If Lieberman ever behaved like a man who was interested in beating his ideological opponents instead of turning the legislative process into a grand tea party with the defenders of torture, he might have ended up in this position.
Is there a way to get the Democrats to say, essentially, "Joe, if you run as an Independent and manage to win, we will not let you caucus with us. You will never chair a commitee?"
You know what I want from a campaign website? I donation form with a space for "This is why I'm giving you this money now. Do this kind of thing more often, and I'll give you more."
Seeing as Holy Joe has no career to return to, we are never going to get rid of that fucker, even if he loses hard. Fox News will hire him as a professional Democratic martyr; he'll get his own show.
I cannot fall asleep for the night unless I am lying on my stomach. But I can nap on the couch on my side or on my back, usually with journal article nearby.
I haven't noticed a dream difference.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:30 PM
I've never noticed any difference either.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:34 PM
I notice the first comment to the linked post consists of the author of this post telling -gg-d that nobody else shares the peculiarity he's writing about.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:35 PM
And apparently, given the chorus of people with similar experiences, talking out of her ass.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:37 PM
Well, clearly -gg-d and all those other people were just playing an elaborate prank.
Wait for it...
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:41 PM
A possible reason for different impressions is whether we readily remember dreams. I usually don't; I think I need to be awakened or disturbed to do so.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:43 PM
I had a dream last night that I went to some event on Liberty Island (except the Statue of Liberty was gone) and it started to flood and the eight of us who were there only had one kitchen sink between us to use as a boat and the only way to power it was a fan but (obviously because of the flooding) there was nowhere to plug it in and we kept waiving at people to come and save us but they didn't understand why we needed saving because they saw ships around us but those were only optical illusions and then I woke up.
I was on my right side at the time.
(I just now remembered this.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:53 PM
Hey ennybuddy read Be||e W4r/ng's dream on her blog (the one that has her name in its title)? It is a memorable one. B-Wo and I have contributed to its interpretation.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:58 PM
Maybe they were confused because you were waiving at them.
Cheap shots are encouraged here, aren't they?
Posted by jmcq | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 1:58 PM
Oh my god, I just remembered that I had a dream a couple of nights ago about having sex with some hideous right-wing blogger I've never met. Oh, and I just remembered who it was. Oh ick.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:04 PM
Vox Day?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:05 PM
(trying to picture the progeny of such a union)
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:05 PM
this is one of those "wow, i'm not alone!" moments.
i fall asleep more easily on my right side than left, my stomach sometimes, rarely on my back. but when i fall asleep on my back, i often have much more vivid dreams. maybe there's a larium leak in my ceiling.
also, when i fall asleep on my stomach, i almost always wake up w/ my arms having fallen asleep. that sucks.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:07 PM
Weird, I had a dream last night that I met ogged and baa, and they gave me a ride home. From, like, my high school.
I do not recall on which side I was sleeping.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:08 PM
I met ogged and baa
I'm not sure how you knew it was the two of us, and not one of us and a twin, since we're nearly indistinguishable in real life.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:11 PM
11---Not sayin'.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:13 PM
A possible reason for different impressions is whether we readily remember dreams.
I usually need to be extremely well-rested before I can remember my dreams, unless they're nightmares.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:14 PM
BTW as regards the 3x4m/n3d L/f3 post I reference in 8 -- has anyone here heard this piece of folk wisdom: "If a woman feeds her husband roasted owl, he will become subservient to her every wish." It's all over the interwebs but with no source information.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:14 PM
14: Don't worry about it. We all have fantasies about baa. See #10.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:14 PM
16 -- you will leave me to my own twisted imaginings, then.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:15 PM
I was sleeping on my back the other night and had a dream that was the entire plot to a fantasy novel and I woke up convinced that it was the next H4rry P0tt3r phenomenon- I actually bothered to write down every thing I could remember (it did steal one plot device from that series.) It was a kind of murder mystery, but unfortunately I couldn't remember the twist that allowed the mystery to be solved.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:18 PM
sex with some hideous right-wing blogger I've never met
I don't care who it is because these people are just names to me, but for this dream you must have an idea of what he looks like. Is this from a picture or — more interesting to me — did you imagine what he looks like?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:19 PM
Seriously, Jackmormon, who has bigger breasts, you or Hugh Hewitt?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:20 PM
Weird, I had a dream last night that I met ogged and baa, and they gave me a ride home.
I thought Ogged drew the line at double penetration.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:21 PM
Reckon JM would not be SdB's type; and probably a little old for D3rbysh/r3...
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:21 PM
I knew I shouldna hit post.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:22 PM
I also find that what I ate for dinner has a much larger effect than how I'm sleeping.
13- I've had extreme cases of arms falling asleep, not just "tingly" but to the point where I have to pick up my arm and move it like a piece of wood- it feels like I'm moving some else's arm. I could stick a pin into my hand and totally not feel it.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:22 PM
How can you tell what position you're in? THat's the part I find weird.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:22 PM
23--How could I win against a disembodied huge tit?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:26 PM
I very rarely remember dreams, but have exactly Cala's positional tendencies in comment #1.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:26 PM
15: Well, one of you was wearing a sombrero.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:42 PM
31 -- are you sure it wasn't Chopper?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 2:43 PM
I only sleep on my stomach (facing right first but turning left before I fall asleep). Unless I'm sharing a bed, in which case I only fall asleep on my back, if I sleep at all.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 3:13 PM
You can't sleep if another person is next to you?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 3:14 PM
You can't sleep if another person is next to you?
Cala, you poor innocent, he means that Saiselgy pokes him all night.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 3:31 PM
I refer you to Standpipe's joke-explaining blog.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 3:31 PM
Ah, the good old days, when Ogged was at the height of his comedic powers:
Butcha are, Blanche, butcha are.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 3:52 PM
Good lord I am a rube. And 12.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 3:56 PM
Don't worry, Cala, you'll understand when you get to college.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 3:58 PM
I hate you all.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 3:58 PM
And 12.
Yes, I am trying to picture the progeny of such a union myself.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 4:17 PM
They would have their father's haircut and their mother's hair, which would result in a lot of awesomely shaped afros.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 4:28 PM
I'm glad to know I'm not the only person who has an unusual experience when laying on my stomach and facing left. Once I woke up in the middle of the night and I was facing left. (It was the Sunday after Thanksgiving, 2001 -- it was a memorable night.) I felt an evil presence on top of me. So I tried telling it to get out. That didn't work because I was so scared I couldn't talk. I tried thinking happy thoughts. That hardly made a dent in the evil. Then I prayed pretty hard. Whatever that experience was, it finally ended (or left). I slept with the light on for a few nights after that. Now I can't fall asleep facing left. I get freaked out.
Posted by Michelle | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 6:06 PM
I felt an evil presence on top of me. So I tried telling it to get out.
Who wants to field this one?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 6:09 PM
Urgent query: Is "If you say so..." a buscuit conditional?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 6:21 PM
biscuit, dammit.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 6:22 PM
No, isn't the implicit statement "If you say so, I'll (believe you/assume it's true)"? In which case it's a straightforward conditional about belief. But I always get tangled up in these, so don't trust me.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 6:29 PM
No, it's not a biscuit conditional unless it's presented that the truth of the consequent ('there are biscuits in the kitchen') is dependent on the truth of the antecedent ('if you want some'), but in reality there isn't any dependency between the two.
Or basically, any time you can give a smartass answer like 'And if I don't want any cookies, they'll disappear into thin air?'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 7:30 PM
Joseph I. Lieberman 64,700 47.9%
Ned Lamont 70,444 52.1%
50% of Precincts Reporting
w00t!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 7:36 PM
That's uncomfortably close.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 7:47 PM
Lamont's lead has been shrinking as results come in, and the big pro-Lieberman distrincts are supposed to be coming in late in the evening. I think we may well be fucked.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 7:53 PM
Someone tell me a happy story, about cows and robots and sprightly leprechauns.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 7:55 PM
It was going to be closer than the polls indicated. Hang in there, 26% to go!
But either way I think Lieberman will be running November.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 7:58 PM
51: Lamont's about three and a half points up with 74 percent reporting. But those precincts you mentioned -- Give me specifics, man! And maybe then I'll give you leprechauns. And unicorns.
Posted by jmcq | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:02 PM
54: I don't know enough about CT politics to know why this is believed to be so, but it's assumed that the major urban centers will be the most pro-Lieberman, and they apparently take the longest time to report back.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:06 PM
Still a 3.5 point lead with 80% in.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:08 PM
But either way I think Lieberman will be running November.
Maybe. I think the party might lean on him, hard. They should.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:14 PM
Is that 80% by number of precincts or number of voters?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:17 PM
Number of precincts.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:18 PM
Precincts.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:18 PM
Live results are here, btw.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:22 PM
I'll believe Joe's finished when they stake him in the chest and stuff his head full of garlic.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:25 PM
And shoot him with a silver bullet? He's a garden gnome, not a zombie.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:27 PM
Damn, this is is frustrating to watch.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:34 PM
Can we at least unleash the hounds?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:34 PM
That son of a bitch won't stay down.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:37 PM
In the other big race, it looks like Cynthia McKinney will soon be out of a job.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:47 PM
Goddammit. If she was going to lose, she should have knocked the officer out cold.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:48 PM
A big pro-Joe precinct just came in, Lamont was up 8800, now only 7900. That was just from adding two new precincts.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:48 PM
68: preach it, sister!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:49 PM
But 35 more just came in and Lamont is back to +8600- Joe's running out of time, only 46 left.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:52 PM
94% in, 51.65-48.35.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:53 PM
It looks like Lamont is up at the moment.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:57 PM
Okay, I'm closer to thinking there's a possibility of a chance we won't lose.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:58 PM
Yet.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:58 PM
*cough*cough*tectonicplates*cough*cough*
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:58 PM
73: Lamont's been up the whole time, but his lead has narrowed considerably.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 8:59 PM
76: Ohmigod! SISMI totally took down the Lieberman site!
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:00 PM
I knew it was them! Even when it was the bloggers, I knew it was them.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:01 PM
76: Sandy Berger stuffed it down his socks! Fortunately, apo has the whole Internet in his pocket.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:02 PM
Kos says his site is getting hit with 2000 users per minute.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:02 PM
Wow, a big Lamont jump.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:03 PM
zidane y va marquer, zidane y va marquer!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:04 PM
My cock has been hit by 2000 users a minute.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:04 PM
Lamont just widened his lead further- 713/748 reporting, Lamont +10270. Unless those last 35 are big precincts and very pro-Lieberman, it might be over. (If precinct tracked with # of votes, it would be mathematically almost certain- there would only be 12000 votes left- but some city precincts are very large.)
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:05 PM
I FEEL THE NEDMENTUM!!1!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:05 PM
Kos says his site is getting hit with 2000 users per minute.
The rate of idiocy.
Posted by Hehindeedsmasher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:05 PM
83: This
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:06 PM
Nedrenaline surging through my veins!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:08 PM
This is laying the foundation for some future troll to say "whenever I go to a liberal blog, I read their August 8 coverage and laugh..."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:09 PM
Lieberman concedes! w00t!
Posted by jmcq | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:10 PM
I'm listening to his ghoulish non-concession concession speech now, and it occurs to me that this is the first time in years I've actually heard Joe Lieberman give a sustained speech, and the only thing I can think of listening to his voice is this man is a complete and utter tool.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:11 PM
apo, that pwned. ('Isn't that a Narnia character?')
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:12 PM
Totally worth your time to go through the Red State Update archives. That one was just mediocre. The bird flu episode is one of the greatest things ever.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:15 PM
Don't forget to call you congresspeople and tell them to back Ned Lamont! (If you want to go the extra mile, call Harry Reid and Bill Clinton.)
[This message brought to you the brainwashed Kossian hoards.]
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:43 PM
Hoards?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:46 PM
I am legion.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 9:47 PM
Democrats are still terribly gunshy. Lamont was 3.8% up with 95.5% of the vote counted, and Lieberman would have to have won more than 80% of the remaining votes to win, and even then no one was gloating, or even claiming victory.
Even with only 90% of the votes counted, 3.8% would have been an almost-unbeatable lead, unless the remaining 10% had all been from fanatical Lieberman territory.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-06 10:20 PM
Could Lieberman be any more of a tool?
This is the language you use against a Republican, not another Democrat. Grr. Shut up, Joe.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 08- 9-06 6:52 AM
The thing is, we want partisan polarization. It's an election year and we're trying to win. If Lieberman ever behaved like a man who was interested in beating his ideological opponents instead of turning the legislative process into a grand tea party with the defenders of torture, he might have ended up in this position.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 9-06 7:05 AM
Is there a way to get the Democrats to say, essentially, "Joe, if you run as an Independent and manage to win, we will not let you caucus with us. You will never chair a commitee?"
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08- 9-06 8:54 AM
Write Reid and demand full support behind Lamont?
You know what I want from a campaign website? I donation form with a space for "This is why I'm giving you this money now. Do this kind of thing more often, and I'll give you more."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 9-06 8:57 AM
Never mind, Reid's pretty much already there. With this kind of statement, this fast, Leiberman can't possibly stay in the race.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 9-06 8:59 AM
Seeing as Holy Joe has no career to return to, we are never going to get rid of that fucker, even if he loses hard. Fox News will hire him as a professional Democratic martyr; he'll get his own show.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08- 9-06 9:00 AM