May 8th, 2008


(no subject)

Judging by the lawns and lots I pass by on my way through Lawrence, we have a bumper crop of dandilions this year. They were thick on the ground pretty much everywhere.

The Gkika-inspired outfit might just make it to ConQuesT. The skirt fabric is bought, the strapless bra is bought, the corset is half cut out, I have ideas for the decoration of the corset, Sculpy has been bought, pearls and lace I already have. We shall see.

Speaking of ConQuesT, it seems they wanted my bio. I admit to some confusion, as I am only doing a panel or two - I am not a guest, judge, writer or artist, so.... why, I wonder, do they need my bio?

Edit: Oh, I AM a guest. I somehow hung on to 'Will you do some panels for us' and missed the 'as a guest' part.

Work... goes. We shall see just how frustrating the new rules are in a couple weeks. Right now it's paperwork out our ears and filling 5000 vials by hand - in the lab, where the rules are much laxer. I swear, they go through that Secondary Reference Standard way too fast.

(no subject)

I am not going to cite where I found this - some of you likely saw it for yourself, but I believe I take exception to the following:

for a few convention outfits [NOT costumes, it's meant to actually look decent].

*blink, blink* The commentor seems to feel that costumes don't look 'decent'. I will admit, there are quite a few costumes I have seen that didn't look all that good, but there are non-costumes I have seen that didn't look all that good, either. Seems to me there's a bias in the commentor's thinking: "Costumes = bad; outfits = good"

Anyone else with thoughts on this?