Russ the Rock Legend

LOL. I couldn't help it. I just had to tell all of you that Russ just beat Guitar Hero III on Hard. Go Russ!

Fido

If ever a movie was produced specifically for me, Fido would be it. It's got the '50s-style kitschy setting, the dark humor and zombies(!), all seemed aimed right at my weird-movie-loving heart.

The opening montage is fabulous. America has fought and won the Zombie Wars, and domesticated the undead, so that now the average citizen lives a lifestyle of relative ease, with tedious manual tasks relegated to rotting corpses with electric collars around their neck that keep their urge for flesh in check. Enter our hero, Timmy, a friendless runt of a kid with a father obsessed with death and terrified of zombies. (Dad is played by Dylan Baker, who I will always, unfortunately, associate with his creepy role as the child-raping dad in Happyness.) Timmy's mother buys the family a zombie, because they are the last family on the block who doesn't own one, and she hates to feel like she doesn't fit in. Lacking actual friends his age, Timmy names their new zombie Fido, and quickly develops a rapport with him.

Of course things can't stay that simple, and a la Dead Alive, Timmy's zombie breaks loose and kills a nasty old neighbor-lady. Rather than see his pet zombie destroyed, Timmy moves into damage-control mode and tries to cover up the crime, which of course results in a neighborhood-wide outbreak of zombies.

If you liked Ed and His Dead Mother, or Dead Alive, or Shaun of the Dead, this is a movie you'll probably enjoy. I loved it. It's been definitively entered into the "To Buy" list.

Not Panicky Under Pressure!

Who would have thought I'd actually have a reason to use the 'life threatening situations' tag so soon after Livvy created it?

Roy has had a runny nose for the past few days. Last night he slept poorly all night and when he woke up at 6am this morning, he had a fever. Tylenol brought it down for a little while, but he was breathing really fast, and the fever came right back up within a few hours. So I called the Dr. As luck would have it, the Dr's office closes early on Wednesdays, so all I got was the stupid answering service. I made them page Dr. Stonerock, and received a call back within a few minutes. Fever over 103, fast breathing, lethargic, not responding to Tylenol... Dr. says take him to emergency room just to be on the safe side.

So with less than ten minutes before I was supposed to give a presentation to the entire AOL Channels dev team on the project I'm leading, I had to IM my boss with "Can't do presentation. Have to go to emergency room. Tell them I'm sorry. Bye." And we were off.

Luckily, there wasn't anyone ahead of us when we arrived, and we were seen immediately. And that's where the fun began. Dose of Motrin to bring the fever down (BTW - I didn't know this, but you can mix Tylenol and Motrin together to get better fever control - just alternate the doses every 3 hours.) Probe in the butt to take Roy's temperature - 3 different times over the course of the visit, and boy he hated that! Tie a pulse sensor to his toe that I had to spend the next 3 hours trying to keep him from removing. Stick him with an IV to 'rehydrate' him, even though he'd already polished off 4 sippy cups that morning. X-Ray his chest - which Russ got to take him in for, and I could hear Roy screaming down the hall, since they had to strap him down to do it.

Finally, the verdict comes in, and Roy has pneumonia. Dose of antibiotics through the IV, and then wait another half hour after that for the nurse to come back and remove it, and the tape removal resulted in much screaming and crying as well. Four hours straight of keeping the kiddo from ripping out the IV or the pulse sensor and trying to keep him from full-on hysterics, which largely entailed pacing a two foot area and swaying with the kiddo in my arms. Damn but my back hurts now!

So now Roy is on both Tylenol and Motrin and antibiotics for the next ten days. I'm proud to say I didn't cry once. We'll be staying in and taking it easy for the next week or so, though.

Spoon!

Wow, but this has been just crazy times for me lately. Today was the first day I've had to even look at blogs or catch up on news... and I'm glad I did, because here is a real gem of an article for you: It's The Tick! (well, more like American Maid) In real life!

SO YOU'VE DECIDED to become a real-life superhero. Like Wolverine, you've chosen a secret identity and a uniform. But unlike the X-Man, you don't have retractable claws or a mutant healing factor. How do you make up the difference?

Most Reals use a combination of martial arts and weaponry. The Eye is a 49-year-old crimebuster from Mountain View, California, who wears a Green Hornet-inspired fedora and trench coat. Though he focuses mainly on detective work and crime-tip reporting, he prepares himself for hand-to-hand combat by studying kung fu and wielding an arsenal of light-based weapons designed to dazzle enemies. ...

Once you've honed your body and strapped on your utility belt, it's time to decide how to focus your heroic efforts. Within the community of Reals, there's a buffet of choices. Some choose mundane tasks—The Cleanser strolls around picking up trash, while Direction Man helps lost tourists find where they're going. Most Reals also lend their personages to charities, donating to food banks or organizing clothing drives.

So... if YOU were going to don a costume and be a REAL, who would you be?

New Years Resolutions!!

Everybody else has to do it too :). So here they are. My 2008 New Years Resolutions (in order of importance to me):

1. To not talk bad (or even think bad and if I do to stop it immediately) about people and especially not to hate on them.
2. To exercise consistently and get a Jessica Beal like body.
3. To pay off my credit card AGAIN (guh), and then start large payments on my student loans.
4. To graduate from College :). FINALLY!! This is actually really important to me, but I put it farther down on the list because it's pretty much a given.
5. To buy a house. Again, it's farther down on the list because I WILL BUY A HOUSE THIS YEAR!!!

K. Toodles :)!!

Panicky under pressure!!

So, I had an interesting weekend. I experienced something that I've never experienced before. I was rudely awakened at 8am on Saturday, after only 4 hours of sleep to an extremely loud buzzing noise. After about 30 seconds of it going off, I go "Nick, what the hell is that?" He mumbles, "I dunno." 30 more seconds pass by and I "NICK!! What the fuck?" At this point I thought he was pulling some mean prank on me, but he just mumbles "It's probably them." I'm thinking to myself "them who?" But, slowly I become more sensible and realize that the noise isn't just coming from only my apartment, but is surrounding us. So I go to the window, wondering if there's anything outside, like construction or something. Low and behold, I peak through the blinds and the entire building is on fire. Flames are licking up the whole outside of the apartments catty corner to mine and all I can see is FIRE and black smoke. With my over active imagination, I automatically think, "oh my god, the building is on fire, it's going to crumble, maybe explode (what with the oil tank being RIGHT next to where the fire is)! Then I launch into motion. I go "Nick, the buildings on fire, we have to get out of here." He launches out of bed and goes "What!?!" I'm stumbling around pulling on jeans and a robe. When I can't find the tie for the robe, I pull my coat on over it to secure it and then I go get the cat carrier. We only have one though which I see as a problem. Nick's just standing in the room staring at the clock (from my view point anyways) and I go "Nick what are you doing?!" We have to get the cats!!" Nick goes "I'm trying to get ready" And I go, "Oh my god, where's Pinky? Where's Stabby? I think I'm going to have a heart-attack..." So, Nick start looking for Pinky and I do too, without any success, but Nick finds them both behind the couch. Pinky, being spotted, runs for the room, and I trap him behind the hamper and grab him up to my chest in a grip that he was NOT getting away from. Nick's putting his shoes on in the living room and I go "Nick, why don't you have Sebastian? Wah!!" Nick goes, "I'll get him, I just need to get my shoes on..." I go "leave it and get the cat!" I guess Nick does what he wants anyways because he was definitely wearing shoes and socks when we got outside, but in my panicked state he did what I wanted and we trapped Stabby in the bathroom where Nick picked him up. He goes over to the one carrier and goes, "let's put them both in here," but I'm like..."No! I can smell the smoke! We have leave now." Nick goes..."this is how we lose our cats." But, we both head out the door and to the stairwell, where much more calmer individuals are walking down the steps. I guess they didn't have the vantage of the fire that I did, since it was directly in front of our apartment.

By the time we got outside, the fire department had it under control and pretty much put out. But, man was I scared!! Nick was definitely more in control than I was. You never know what you'll do in those situations, but now I know that I panic and definitely would've stayed in the apartment until I got our cats, fire or no! They kept us outside for 3 hours and then let most everyone else go back inside. 4 or 5 apartments were completely ruined by the fire, but ours was ok. It's scary to think about, but living in an apartment/condo building definitely has its risks. Like, anyone could burn down your house and ruin your life... I am much more motivated to buy my own house now. At least then if anything happened it would be my own damn fault.

I have a picture, post fire, but can't upload it right now. If I remember I will!

I can say "I can't".

When I was a little girl in Louisiana, my parents had me taking all sorts of lessons...ballet lessons, jazz lessons, baton lessons, even guitar lessons (the last two were short-lived, in fact, I barely remember them). It was during my dancing days that I remember hearing, for the first time, my instructor (Keitha Donnelly...geez, how do I still know that name?) telling me never to utter the words "I can't" when facing a difficult dance step.

Thirty years later I've heard the same phrase countless times...NEVER SAY CAN'T. Hell, there are tons of motivational books out there with people touting those words as if it were some magical phrase to suddenly boost the listener's ability to do something that they couldn't previously do. It's almost as if you were admitting you were some sort of a loser if you dared to concede to your inabilities.

Well, here it is...I can't put those Google pics in my post. I've tried Celeste's way. I've tried Livvy's way. I CAN'T figure it out! (I was actually able to get one little picture in there and after that, nothing). I suppose if I weren't trying to watch my tivo'd "Days of Our Lives" then maybe I'd have better luck. But, you see, I'm addicted to that show and I CAN'T bear to turn it off.

Posting this blog was much easier anyway!

Could not resist this

Town where I live:A bad habit of mine:
My last name:
The name of a past love:
My first name:
The name of a past pet:
My best friend's nickname:
My nickname:
My middle name:
City of my birth:
My first job:
My favorite place:
My favorite object:
My favorite food:
My favorite color:
My favorite animal:
My grandmother's name:
My college major:
A place I'd like to travel:
My age at next birthday:

Book Report: Samson Agonistes by John Milton

This is not so much a book report as an essay. I don't blog much because I never really feel like I have all that much to say since all I ever really do is school work on my time off. But that is something! Plus the purpose of this blog is to keep people up to date on what I have been up to, so I have decided to start posting some of the essays I write for class. You all might find it boring, but deal with it :). Anywho, this is the most recent one I've written. I'm not the best at grammar so there are probably a few grammatical errors, but overall I think it's a reasonably well written essay. 'Specially since I wrote it the day it was due. ENJOY!!

Also, if you'd like to read anything by John Milton, Dartmouth College has a website with all of his works. They have been annotated for your convenience as well. Here's a link:

Dartmouth Reading Room

Dalila as a Catalyst in Milton’s Play Samson Agonistes

In “The Temptation of Understanding,” an essay included in his book How Milton Works, Stanley Fish argues that he is unable to find an action or plot element within Samson Agonistes that links “the play’s two actions—Samson’s regeneration and his pulling down of the temple” (Fish 392). Also, his fall cannot be understood because there is forever the question of “why did Samson betray himself to Dalila” (Fish 392)? This question, Fish argues, is never satisfactorily answered and he goes on to say that the action in the plot that should logically take Samson from the beginning of the story to the end—Dalila’s visit—is nothing more than “a motiveless malignity, and thus the perfect complement to Samson’s causeless weakness” (Fish 402). In regards to Samson’s “weakness” he claims that referring it to God “has the effect of begging what is for the hero the central question of the play: In a world like this, what does one do” (402)? In other words if one is created to do God’s work, then how can one be sure that one is in fact doing it correctly? With this question, Fish manages to reject the God angle as an answer to why Samson is weak, because if one can never be sure of God’s intentions then one cannot argue that God is the cause. However, in a play that questions how one can know God’s intentions and then answers that question by implying that everything is God’s intent, God must be considered. Where Fish argues that the “cause/effect reasoning” of Samson Agonistes’ is not logically sequential, I will argue that it is. Milton, in using Dalila as the catalyst, successfully regenerates Samson from a dejected state where he questions his actions and God’s intentions, to a state where he is able to fulfill his predestined role of freeing the Israelites.

From early on in the play Milton’s characters argue to implicate or free from blame God in regards to Samson’s fall because they cannot understand that Samson’s current state could possibly have been Divine intention. Samson wars within himself when it comes to questioning God because for all his life he has trusted that his own actions were what God intended for him. In his current state however—blind, captive, fallen—he is unsure. Thus, in considering his weakness in telling Dalila that his strength is kept in his hair, he reasons that it his own fault and wonders “what if all foretold / Had been fulfill’d but through mine own default” (44-5). To Samson—at this point in the play—it is obvious that God would not have intended for him to err so grievously and the fault within Samson has naught to do with him. After all a blind dejected man, who has lost all of his powers cannot possibly deliver “Israel from Philistian yoke” (39). This forces one to the question however, that if God is the creator then how can he not have also created within Samson this flaw? And in his confusion, Samson moves on to implicate God. He notes that God, “when he gave [him] strength, to shew withal / How slight the gift was, hung it in [his] Hair” (58-9), and then later says that the “Vessel trusted to [him] from above, / [was] Gloriously rigg’d” (199-200). In other words, God sets Samson up to fall. Putting his strength in his hair makes it fragile and easily attacked, or shorn off as is the case. To make matters worse, Samson’s body has a flaw that makes him susceptible to the wiles of women. This can only mean of course that God intended for him to betray “the secret gift of God / To a deceitful Woman” (201-02) all along. The Chorus, not ready yet to believe that God would purposefully create someone to sin as a means of ensuring that his Divine plans will be enacted, reprimands Samson for making God culpable and tells him to “tax not divine disposal” (210). Thus, Samson, not able to blame God, and stating that Dalila “was not the prime cause” (234), reverts back to his original claim that he himself is to blame. However, the question remains: if God is the creator, then didn’t he also create Samson’s flaw? It is at this point in the play, with God still unaccounted for, that Dalila enters the play.

Dalila’s main role in this play is to debunk Samson’s previous reasoning as to why he succumbed to Dalila and fell by using his own arguments against him. She begins with an explanation that her “rash but more unfortunate misdeed” (747) is a common female weakness, not unlike the “weakness” Samson claims at the onset of the play when he states that the “seal of silence [he] could not keep, / But weakly to a woman must reveal it” (49-50). In result to this, Samson, who cannot—by virtue of the Bible—be like Dalila, must discard his claim to weakness because as Dalila has successfully demonstrated, anyone can make that plea. Samson decides that “all wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore / With God or Man will gain thee no remission” (834-35). Thus, Samson can no longer claim that his sin was caused by weakness because it is not a valid excuse. God will not forgive it and with weakness cast aside, Dalila tackles Samson’s uncertainty over his actions and God’s intentions.

Dalila compares her motivations to Samson’s and reveals that “the Priest / Was not behind, but ever at [her] ear, / Preaching how meritorious with the gods / It would be to ensnare an irreligious” (857-60). This can be directly correlated to the heroic life of Samson. If not already aware of Samson’s history, the Chorus brings it to the attention of the audience when it questions whether this “can this be hee, / That Heroic, that Renown’d, / Irresistible Samson?...The glory late of Israel” (124-26, 179). Here, the Chorus is relaying that Samson was a man to be admired, a savior. After all, Samson is the chosen one whose “birth from Heaven foretold / Twice by an Angel” (23-4). This idea forces Samson to question how he could have been so wrong as to misunderstand what God had planned for him. He did everything he thought God wanted of him, but instead of the glory predestined, “many evils have enclos’d [him] round” (194). However, with Dalila to compare himself to, someone who has been told just as he has, that to betray the “irreligious” would be estimable, he is forced to rethink his previous notion. Was he not going to betray Dalila for his people and his God, just as she betrayed him? Isn’t that the reason he married two Infidel women because “what [he] motion’d was of God; [he] knew / From intimate impulse” (222-23). This creates a problem though since Dalila is the enemy and therefore her actions cannot be godly. Thus Samson reckons they were done “in feign’d Religion, smooth hypocrisie” (872). He goes on to reason that “zeal mov’d [her]” (895), not Divine intent, and that furthermore, her gods are “gods unable / To acquit themselves and prosecute their foes / But by ungodly deeds, the contradiction / Of their own deity, Gods cannot be” (896-899). Samson is implying that Dalila’s gods are false gods which means that no longer can he call into question his actions or wonder if they were Divinely intended, because they must have been. If they were not, then his god is also a false god. In this instance then, as with the previous claim of weakness, Dalila fails to convince Samson that they are alike in their actions. All she manages to do is to help reinstate his notion that he is indeed God’s tool. This then is the catalyst for Samson’s regeneration. Through Dalila, he is able to remove the veil that was dropped over his eyes (note his blindness), and see that his actions—including his inherent flaw which caused him to fall—and their results were God’s intent. Thus, although Samson may still be blind, no longer is the “work of God to [Samson] extinct” (70). Dalila has effectively aided Samson in regaining his self-assurance, some strength, and most importantly his unquestioning faith in God. Because Samson questioned God though, however briefly, it is necessary for him to adhere to his religious laws.

When the first messenger appears and tells Samson that the Philistian Lords require “some public proof” (1314) of his extra-human strength, Samson automatically answers in the way his religious laws demand: No. He does not question, just outright refuses. The Chorus however, implies that perhaps Samson should not be so hasty in his refusal because he is still their slave and as such will be forced to serve “the Philistines, / Idolatrous, uncircumcis’d, unclean” (1363-64) anyways. Samson explains that there is a difference between “vaunting [his] strength in honour to thir Dagon” (1360) and the “honest and lawful” (1365) labor he would undergo as their slave, and according to his religious laws, the former act God would never forgive, but the latter he would. The Chorus however explains that “where the heart joins not, outward acts defile not” (1368). In other words, it does not matter the action; if one’s heart is not in it, if one is forced into it, then one will not be defiled. Samson argues that he is not being forced into performing these feats of strength though because the “the Philistian Lords command. / Commands are no constraints” (1371-72). Thus, if Samson consented to perform at Dagon’s Temple, then he would be doing it “freely; venturing to displease / God for the fear of Man…which in his jealousie / Shall never, unrepented, find forgiveness” (1373-76). Because the product of Dalila’s visit however, was not merely to reinforce Samson’s trust in his religion, but also in the “intimate impulses” he receives from God, he recalls an opinion voiced earlier in the play by the Chorus: God’s “own Laws he can best dispence” (314). Samson moves on to reason that since God has dispensed of his laws in the past—such as when he “motion’d” (222) that Samson should marry the woman from Timna—why should this instance be any different? This opinion, initially ignored and thus dismissed by Samson, can now be accepted. Samson thus, reasons that God “may dispense with [him] or thee / Present in Temples at Idolatrous Rites / For some important cause, thou needst not doubt” (1369-79). With this in mind, Samson reassuredly goes with the messenger without fearing that he will dishonor his God or his religion. He claims that “this day will be remarkable in my life / By some great act, or of my days the last” (1384-89). Thus, it can safely be assumed that a regenerated Samson is now ready to pull down the temple.

Milton’s play, Samson Agonistes, successfully links “the play’s two actions—Samson’s regeneration and his pulling down of the temple” (Fish 392) by using Dalila as the catalyst. To see this however, God must be implicated as the cause. Fish who dismisses God as questionable, fails to see the logically sequential “cause/effect reasoning” of Milton’s play. At the onset of the play Samson’s faith in his deeds and what he thought were Gods intentions, is in question. Dalila comes to visit, and through her attempts to “debase [Samson] / And aggravate [his] folly” (999-1000), she is instead able to reinforce Samson’s unquestioning belief in God and his religion and therefore reassure him that his actions were indeed the intentions of God. Through his restored faith Samson is once again able to act on one of his “intimate impulses” and fulfill his destiny by freeing his people. Thus, through Dalila, Samson is once again able to find stable ground and reassuredly do Gods work.

[Not included in the essay that I turned in, but something that would be interesting to further consider, is why John Milton’s play, Samson Agonistes, portrays Samson in this light. Samson’s regeneration is ridiculous. The fact that Samson is able to regain his strength and purpose merely because God and his religious laws say that he cannot be like Dalila (though he is in all respects) is hypocritical, and it is no accident that Milton implies this. Also, something to consider would be why does Milton write the main action of the play (Samson’s pulling down of the temple) to take place off stage? Everything that Samson accomplishes is by word of mouth only, and other main characters do not actually see what happens. This parallels the idea that history is written by the victors, not the losers. In other words, are the accounts accurate? Was it really “God’s intent” or the intent of the people? And furthermore, how can you be sure? Thus, I would probably argue that Milton’s intent was to speak out against the Catholic Church and the problems he saw within it. Through a close reading of this play and others written by him, one can easily see that although Milton was a Christian, he saw many problems within the church that needed fixing.]

Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. How Milton Works. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. 391-405.
Milton, John. "Samson Agonistes." The Riverside Milton. Ed. Roy Flannagan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1998. 784-844.

I don't know how to copyright my essays, but I am claiming that it is!! This is copyrighted by Olivia Bilby.

Google Images

1. Age at next birthday:



2. A place you'd like to travel:



3. Your favorite place:



4. Your favorite objects:


5. Your favorite food:



6. Your favorite animals:



7. Your favorite color:



8. Town where you were born:



9. Town where you live:



10. Name of past pet:



11. First name of a past love:

I've only ever had the one!

12. Best friend's nickname:



13. Your screenname/nickname:



14. Your first name:



15. Your middle name:



16. Your last name:



17. Bad habit of yours:



18. First job:



19. Grandmother's name:


I had two of them :)!

20. College major:

Mom Says... - tagged by Celeste

Thanks for inviting me to play! I've been wanting to do one of these tag things for ages!

What is your husband's name: Neil
How long have you been married: 5 years as of the 21st of this month.
How long did you date before you got married: About a year and a half.
Who eats more: He eats a tiny bit more than I do, but stays way thinner. I eat faster than he does.
Who sings better: We both sing pretty well. I am the section leader for the sopranos in our choir, and he is the tenor section leader. I've been singing way longer though.
Who is smarter: I dunno. Sometimes I think I am, but then he comes along and shows me up completely out of the blue. I learn faster, but he has a much better memory.
Whose temper is worse: I think mine, but both of us are pretty darned mellow.
Who does the dishes: me, usually, unless I am sick. He will help me unload without my even asking him...which is huge in my book.
Who pays the bills: I do. I do everything on-line. If it were up to Neil, it would all be paper and pen, and I hate it that way.
Who cooks dinner: me. Neil can cook a mean frozen pizza. Nevertheless, I make him get all the meals on Fridays, which means we go out to eat. Yah!
Who drives when you are together: Mostly Neil. He is an excellent navigator, and cannot read in the car, so he prefers it that way. I read out loud to him when we are on long trips, which he likes.
Who is more stubborn: Sometimes I think I am, but on some things, Neil just won't budge an inch. He's like my dad that way...he smiles and agrees but then does it his way anyway.
Who is the first to admit when they are wrong: me, because I can't stand it when I've done anything to hurt Neil.
Whose parents do you see the most: His folks. They are right up there in OK. My dad won't fly anymore, so we have to save to go see him.
Who kissed who first: Neil
Who asked who out first: He asked me out to lunch at Romano's.
Who proposed: Neil. He took me to Palo Duro Canyon for a picnic, and he proposed then. Very old fashioned.
Who is more sensitive: When it comes to other people, I guess I am the one who is more easily bugged, when it comes to each other, he is the more sensitive.
Who has more friends: We both have a ton of friends, church, dance and band. They're all mutual friends, so it works out very nicely.
Who wears the pants in the family: I don't wear pants much anymore. Neil makes the final decisions about big money purchases. He is not a pushy man, but I defer to him.
Where did you meet your husband: at a contra dance. He was the first man to ask me for a dance, at the very first contra dance I attended in Denton.
Where was your first date: Romano's Macaroni Grill.
What was the first thing you said to your husband: He asked me if I would like to dance, and I said I would love to.
Where was your first kiss: At my old house in West Plano.
Where did you get engaged: Palo Duro Canyon.
Where were you married: St. Barnabus Episcopal Church, Garland, Texas.
How did your reception go: Everything went well. Good cake, my girls all looked gorgeous, and we had a wonderful dinner out at my friends' Elizabeth and Ron's house.
Where was the honeymoon: We went to a bed and breakfast in Dallas that had the most awesome food and afterwards drove to an annual dance weekend in Dennison, TX on Lake Texoma.
If you could have changed anything about it, what would it have been: Nothing. Great food, great dancing, all of our friends there.
Editor's note: I would have changed something! I would have made sure Livvy's boyfriend, Nick stayed away from the green beans almondine!!

Google Images

1. Age at next birthday:


2. A place you'd like to travel:


3. Your favorite place:


4. Your favorite objects:


5. Your favorite food:


6. Your favorite animals:


7. Your favorite color:


8. Town where you were born:


9. Town where you live:


10. Name of past pet:


11. First name of a past love:

OH... wait, did you mean a person? Sorry, no such thing. :)

12. Best friend's nickname:


13. Your screenname/nickname:


14. Your first name:


15. Your middle name:


16. Your last name:


17. Bad habit of yours:


18. First job:


19. Grandmother's name:


20. College major: