Bits of conversation for wider exposure

[liv]

Some unanswered questions from conversations recently:

1. Is there such a thing as a lesbian icon?
   
   There were a group of mostly straight or at least non-scene women out with a gay man, and we were trying to get him to explain the gay icon thing. Like, why are most gay icons straight women, such as Cher, Madonna, Judy Garland and so on, and not, you know, actual gay men? His theory was that a gay icon needs to be flamboyant and overtly sexual towards men, but preferably projecting a happy, confident image, as opposed to the angst and emo typical of the few male artists who actually talk directly about gay themes.
   
   Somebody asked, what about lesbians, are there any lesbian icons? I could only think of celebrities who are either well known to be lesbians such as Ellen de Generes, or actresses who are known for lesbian roles, such as Alyson Hannigan. But they are not really icons in quite the same way, I think. I did end up offering to make a playlist of lesbian themed music, though, so any suggestions welcome.
   
   
2. How do they make holy water?
   
   This is from the picnic. Of course we all know that it requires a priest who has to bless the water. But how exactly does it work practically? Does the priest bless a large volume of water and then divide it up into lots of little bottles, each of which is holy? Can the holy water be diluted with normal water, and does that make the mixture holy or unholy? Or does the priest have to bless exactly this particular water in this particular vessel? Is there a maximum amount that the priest can bless at any one time? Does the holiness stick to the water forever, or does it have to be water that was blessed recently? Is it different for Catholics and Protestants?
   
   I hope these questions aren't irreverent; we really do want to know. But they might the kind of questions that only make sense in a conversation between Jews and geeks, and completely miss the point of how Christian theology works.

Why, yes, I am supposed to be working. I'm hoping that interesting speculation on these questions will provide a minor distraction, but not enough of one to keep me from getting any work done at all...

In other news, I have reorganized my flist a bit. I hope this won't lead to drama; I promise that I haven't removed anyone due to being offended by them or thinking badly of them. It's just that that sociological theory that says people can only really handle being connected to a community of about a hundred people seems to apply to LJ as well, at least for me. I had twice that number, and I came to the point where I just had to admit that there were some people I wasn't getting to know, however much I admired them. Of course, by removing a few dozen of the people I interact with least, I haven't actually made my reading much easier to manage. But just to make it absolutely clear, you're entirely welcome to keep reading if you find my journal interesting, and indeed if we start getting into conversations I'll probably add you back. Equally, if you don't have time to follow me I am not going to take offence.

My ideal is to have around 80 to 100 friends and carefully read every word they write and comment and join in discussions. But to get to that level would require cutting people I can't bear to do without, and I can't help myself meeting new shiny people and wanting to add them too, so I'm still really over capacity. *sigh*

Comments

[liv]

This is a good idea, defining a category of people who talk more than I find them interesting, because "too much" is clearly going to be in a different place for people I already have a strong connection with than for people I've met once at a party. I already have a default view and a non-default view, but I don't think that distinction helps me, partly because I don't have enough self-discipline to restrict how often I read the non-default.

I think you are solving a different problem from the one I actually have, though. There were about 30 people on my friendslist who are generally interesting, and talk just the right amount, but left me feeling that I didn't really know them any better after reading their LJs for a few months. I didn't really feel any inclination to comment on their posts, and they rarely commented on mine. I would like to keep these people until I do know them well enough to feel connected to them, but I just have too many people. Moving them into a rarely checked filter would just make it even less likely that I'll ever get to know them. The plan is that if I remove them, more of my LJ time will be spent talking to people and strengthening existing connections, rather than all of it being taken up by just reading really interesting posts from people I don't know.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

My non-default filter contains things I don't want on my work screen, so the discipline is externally imposed. Fair enough about answering a different question, though.