Bitch and Moan By-Laws: Rule #2

I find myself at an impasse. I have two irksome things to complain verbosely on today...but sadly the complaints are conflicting, same issue just two different sides. However, rule #2 of The Bitch and Moan Club clearly states that "nothing is ever too small or to petty." Viola - insta-justification for the wenchy-ness that is me!

What's with the leaving the "H" out of John when you shorten the name Johnathan? Jon? It makes no sense to me. It's already there and it doesn't do any harm. It doesn't add a syllable. If anything, it makes writing said name in cursive much more fluid. Still, some people persist: Jon. Add to the argument that I don't think that I've ever me a "Jon" that I enjoyed. I worked with one once, he was a head case who somehow procured my phone number...it took a while to get rid of that one.

But what if the person's full name was spelled "Jonathan," without the h in its full form? Would Jon still annoy me? It makes no sense but I am compelled to say yes, it would still get to me.

Do annoying Johnathan's tend to spell their name without the H? Or does the name itself make them annoying? Could Shakespeare have been wrong when he said "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet!?!" I enjoy Shakespeare, the prospect of this rocks my world.

And now for the hypocrisy. On the full, far other end of the spectrum is the name Thomas and those who shorten it to "Thom." Where as I am a strong advocate for retaining the H when shortening the name Johnathan, I am fully opposed for allowing it to remain the shortened version of Thomas. Thom just looks....pretentious? Creepy? As if the possessor of said name also has unnaturally long pale spidery looking fingers and shifty eyes?

This much is clear, Thom's and Jon's and I just can't be friends. It isn't in the cards.

No-poo lifestyle and go-gurt

I read an article online this morning about the "no-poo" lifestyle, in which one completely stops shampooing their hair. Apparently 'no-poo-ers' are returning to the time before Farah Fawcett started hawking Suave Shampoo in the 70s, when most women only washed their hair once a week. Go back about a half a century and nobody was really talking about washing their hair at all. Now I don't know that I could survive (or remain employed) during the described "2 - 6 week adjustment period" in which you do not wash your hair, yet it continues to produce the same amount of oils as it would if you were still washing. Still the argument being made (despite its magnificently dreadful moniker) combined with the pictures and testimonials were pretty convincing for why it might work for those who can excuse themselves from society for the duration of "adjustment," and who are looking for a more natural, economic and environmentally friendly personal hygiene regimen.

So this got me to thinking...if we can do without shampoo, what else could we do without?

#1: Gym clothes. I was just thinking about how I needed to go shopping for new work out clothes when a woman in khaki shorts and a t-shirt hopped on the machine next to me. Clearly - she was working out just fine without the benefit of "work out attire." Not that I'm about to give mine back - but I can't help but wonder when exactly we decided that regular clothes were just not right for exercise.

#2: Go-Gurt: yogurt on the go! When did yogurt (individually packaged with a foil lid) become labor intensive and binding enough to warrant the new and improved, 'go-gurt?'

Okay...so I only have two at the moment. I'm sure that more will come to me :) But alas, its time for my recently shampooed and gym-clothes clad self to go work out :)