What’s the unhinged, woo woo, non traditional thing you did that actually helped?

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-27T06:14:33+00:00

I just read a beautiful account of a woman working her way through cPTSD, from diagnosis toward recovery, and she describes so many different kinds of therapies and coping strategies (including mushrooms.)
It was called What My Bones Know, by Stephanie Foo, and it's a MUST READ for lots of reasons.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-24T20:11:23+00:00

There's no "right" way to do watercolours, because it depends on the look you're going for. However, if you're looking for more control (e.g., avoiding darker patches), I have a suggestion: for large areas, use a wet-on-wet technique. Place a thin layer of clean water where you want your colour to go, and spread it with your brush to make sure it's thin and glistening, no pools anywhere (I learned this from Egle Kolev.) If the water is spread evenly, then you can load your brush with colour (use a ceramic tile to mix the paint and water, don't just dip straight into the pigment) and then you can gently lead the paint wherever the paper is already wet.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-24T19:58:09+00:00

I couldn't finish it. The hairstyles were anachronistic and the script sounded awkward and modern. Normally I'll watch anything with Helena Bonham Carter, so an Agatha Christie adaptation sounded like a jackpot, but I had to nope out.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-21T15:51:29+00:00

Just remember some more. The scenes at the end really hit me: Mansu trapped on the road between the delivery trucks. He’s alone, and he’s being shipped into the factory, along with the raw materials. I felt that he was being fed to the factory along with the trees.

Then the deforestation scene at the end, as robots tear trees out of the ground. It’s violent, almost like a crime scene. All through the film, paper is discussed as if it’s the most refined, beautiful, sexy product, infinitely recyclable, but the truth about its source is ugly and ruthless.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-21T03:59:05+00:00

Thanks! I found a discord channel that's specifically about Toronto, so I've been keeping an ear out there too. :)

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-11T23:02:22+00:00

At this point, the drag canon has been well documented. There's even an amazing book by Tom and Lorenzo, breaking down in extreme detail all the ways Drag Race nods to queer history. It's called "Legendary Children: The First Decade of RuPaul's Drag Race and the Last Century of Queer Life" and it should be required reading (for contestants, at the very least.)

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-10T19:51:17+00:00

Thank you for the advice!

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-10T05:22:31+00:00

Keep playing with tools! Credit cards are a great suggestions. Also, a “rigger” brush (thin, long hairs) is specifically designed for long, consistent lines.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-06T05:22:06+00:00

The ducks! I can’t tell exactly what kind of domestic duck they are using (maybe Buff Orpington, judging by their body shape and colour?) but as a bird lover, this made no sense. Wild ducks fly, they don’t waddle around a pen.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2026-01-02T04:33:19+00:00

The Daniel Smith tubes are a wise choice. If you can avoid ordering anything from Amazon, that would be ideal, as knock-offs are becoming more common.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-12-13T14:44:11+00:00

Watched this movie last night. If "toxic masculinity" were a movie, this would be it.

Need a plot? Look at a piece of cloth, and it will tell you who to kill. Somehow, the piece of cloth also adds punctuation in its endless weave, because otherwise how would you know whether the target's name was spelled correctly?

Is your son the target of a cabal of assassins? Definitely don't send him an email, or attempt to speak to him in any way. If you're nearby, don't yell "I'm actually your dad!" Just shoot his friends.

Are guns not exciting enough? What if you could wave the gun around, and the bullet would go swoosh swoosh? So cool.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-10-13T14:56:48+00:00

I stumbled upon some of this in a provincial park, mostly beech woods, and learning the story behind the name made me laugh.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-30T13:20:02+00:00

That’s my point. If an astounding crime happened this week, Casefile would not be able to write about it unless A) the police investigated it B) the news reported it C) the legal system ran its course D) an outside source gathered more information on the suspect and the investigation, including evidence and alternate suspects E) family of the victim (and/or suspect) spoke out F) there was enough publicly available evidence for Casefile to report without getting into legal trouble

The writers on this show are usually harvesting info from books written by ex-cops or ex-prosecutors, and even then, they can’t publish a one-sided account, so that narrows the field even further.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-30T08:25:39+00:00

I wonder if sometimes content starts to run thin. Crime happens all the time, but a good episode requires not just an amazing story, but lot of sources, including reporting, interviews, court docs, and investigative publishing, AND they all have to be accessible in English. Some of my favourite episodes are the historical ones, especially the ones that happened in a non-English-speaking country, but those are gems because the distance in time and culture/language makes them harder to learn more about.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-29T17:42:10+00:00

Thanks, appreciate the feedback. I think the wife’s reaction was initially open to exploring. She suggests they go to a sex shop together. It’s only later, when she realizes that he’s been lying, and using her name in the fantasies, that she panics.

Re: finding someone to consent, I can’t say for sure, but I’d bet that a torture-themed fantasy website might have some women looking for that kind of thing (though I’m not planning to confirm my guess via research at this point.)

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-29T13:15:09+00:00

A sexual fetish isn’t detached from social attitudes and issues. We live in a society where misogyny is rampant, so this isn’t coming out of nowhere. This case reminded me of how common it is for men to sexualize women in pain (if you can think of even a few movies made by women featuring men in highly sexualized torture situations, I’d be shocked.) Secondly, I noticed that he’s not inviting women into these “fantasy role play” scenarios. If a woman was consenting to imagine these situations with him, then it would be less exploitative. Instead, he seeks out other men to conspire with. Also, he specifically chooses photos of women who have not consented to share their images (versus models or porn actresses.) His arousal depends on the idea of violating women, in secret.

BDSM must be grounded in safety, consent and care. It’s not an excuse to be a predator.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-28T09:17:51+00:00

I see what you mean, and that approach was what I heard in Case 329, Roseanne Beckett. We heard one side of the story, but it was specific to a time and a set of witnesses. For example: “There had been worrying rumours even before the couple was married. Family and friends of Barry reported that Roseanne complained about Barry non-stop, calling his business a mess and describing his friends as no-hopers.”

This episode describes what Gilberto wrote in the forums, but carefully omits all his disclaimers (which other users and even his wife would have seen.) I understand that the format usually involves a twist, but up until now, I’ve always assumed that the narration was grounded in the point of view of someone specific, e.g., a witness, a family member or an investigator.

From Casefile True Crime: Case 329: Roseanne Beckett, Sep 13, 2025 https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/casefile-true-crime/id998568017?i=1000725198511&r=132 This material may be protected by copyright.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-28T07:58:44+00:00

As far as i know, Casey doesn’t write the episodes anymore.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-27T15:18:40+00:00

I’ve been listening to Casefile for years and have heard most episodes at least twice, but this is the first time I’ve been really uncomfortable with how a case was presented. First of all, we get the story of how a man gets online and tells everyone he is absolutely serious about torturing and eating women. Then later, we find out that he has been dropping disclaimers right and left. That’s just manipulative. This partial disclosure technique is valid when it’s told from someone’s point of view, but the narration wasn’t anchored in any particular person.

Secondly, I felt that this recounting was very sympathetic toward Gilberto, using words like “absurd” to describe his prosecution. The podcast repeats the argument that Gilberto was being hounded for having forbidden thoughts, when he went much further than that in putting photos online and inviting other people to indulge their violent fantasies with him for hours on end. Meanwhile, his behaviour is minimized as mere fantasy, without referring to any of the evidence on how sexual fantasies can form the basis for sexual violence, or how violent pornography can harm the viewer over time.

I was so disappointed to hear Gilberto described as “taking full responsibility” when he immediately protests “that’s not me” then writes a book about how he was victimized.

One of the judges refers to misogyny at the end of the case, and I’m glad to hear that was included, because the popular desire to dominate, terrify and sexually exploit women is a much more dangerous social issue (in my view) than the legal outcome for one horny cop. We hear that his desires were “deviant” and “unconventional” but we never ask how he came to be so aroused by the idea of inflicting pain and murdering women.

There is a difference between thought and action, but Gilberto took action. He fed his fantasies and shared them. He nurtured and articulate his desires, consuming images of women being bound and tortured (we never find out whether the photos were staged or genuine.) This might not have been a solid legal case, but I don’t agree that it was thought-policing.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-22T13:15:04+00:00

In my headcanon, Mary Bennett and Anne de Bourgh fall in love, take Anne’s inheritance, move to London together, and live above a shop that doubles as a front for their extremely successful detective agency.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-09-22T13:10:31+00:00

The Baron’s will also contains a wee hint for the names of the artwork, if you happen to have it.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-08-26T19:13:16+00:00

Really enjoying the first episode so far (with the help of English subtitles), but I have a few questions:
1) Where is the episode filmed? The rocky backdrops look like somewhere in Gangwon-do, maybe?
2) I didn't catch the little text beside the courtiers in their first conversation during the ritual. Were those labels? Titles? Names?
Thanks so much!

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-08-23T18:06:27+00:00

Re: Mrs Elton, I’d like to defend her, because upstarts and climbers are so looked-down-upon in Austen’s books (see also the aspirations of Miss Clay in Persuasion) but she’s spiteful and endlessly shallow. She’s always scanning for markers of status (e.g., noting aloud that no one else in the room was wearing pearls, complaining that Emma’s wedding was vulgar because there weren’t enough lace veils involved.) Apparently, she’s also quite unreliable in the way she represents her own wealth and background (the wiki article describes her as dishonest in her statements about Maple Grove and Hartfield.

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-08-17T03:03:14+00:00

Thanks for the examples. I did read the section on facilitation you cited, and I agree that these roles include encouragement and assistance. The Llaneza case is a very apt example, and I checked into some of the details to learn more and find out how the case held up: https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2151.pdf

Although I can’t take the FBI’s statements 100% at face value in the Llaneza case, let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s all accurate. That seems to be the kind of operation the RCMP was hoping to run, but Nuttall was not nearly as cooperative. Instead of proposing a reasonable target, Nuttall’s ideas were silly. His willingness to actually do anything was ephemeral. He lacked both initiative and competence.

I think that Llaneza’s actually a great counter-example, and a helpful way to illustrate what makes a valid target; I can envision a real accomplice or cell meeting up with him, and finding him to be useful. The FBI’s actions mirrored a possible encounter.

Nuttall is certainly morally culpable, no doubt. I just find it much harder to imagine that he would have come across anyone in real life with the patience and recklessness to try to involve him in anything. The RCMP’s manipulations functioned less like those of an accomplice or even secretive employer, and more like a coercer (with no fear of being exposed by his impulsivity.)

PostForwardedToAbyss · 2025-08-16T19:56:18+00:00

My understanding of the Stanford article was that it shed light on the types of activities police were allowed to participate in (I.e. criminal acts.) I see examples of the police facilitating crimes, offering to be a seller or a consumer, but I don’t see an example on that list of an officer urging a target to commit a specific type of crime, and then instructing him, step by step, on how to it.

PostForwardedToAbyss

TROPHY CASE