Bibliophile. Glorified umbrella-holder.
Background Illustrations provided by: http://edison.rutgers.edu/
Reblogged from playingfifa  138 notes
salaam with all due respect ukhti there are brothers in this site and we are prone to fitnah when sisters post pictures of themselves so please don't do that and delete the ones you have posted
Anonymous

caffeineandhope:

with all due respect akhi you can kiss my ass and unfollow me right quick it’s not my problem you can’t control your gaze I am in no way posting anything provocative so if a picture of me looking at a cup of tea turns you on then seek help i’m not here to cater to your whims ma’salaama

Reblogged from lasagne  44,387 notes

We praise people for being “naturally” smart, too, “naturally” athletic, and etc. But studies continue to show, as they have for some time now, that it is generally healthier to praise schoolchildren for being hardworking, than for being naturally gifted. We know now that to emphasize a child’s inherent ability places pressure on that child to continue to be accidentally talented, which is something that is hard for anyone to control. When the children who are applauded for their natural skills fail, they are shown to take the failure very personally. After all, the process of their success has always seemed mysterious and basic and inseparable from the rest of their identity, so it must be they who are failing as whole people. When students are instead complimented and rewarded for their effort and improvement, they tend to not be so hard on themselves. When they fail, they reason, “Well, I’ll work harder next time.” They learn that they are capable of success, rather than constantly automatically deserving of it, and they learn simultaneously that they are bigger and more complex than their individual successes or failures. By Kate of Eat the Damn Cake, The Stupidity of “Natural” Beauty (via theimperfectascent)

Reblogged from faineemae  93,610 notes

bronyparctears:

Do you ever have a problem where you just don’t know how to reply to an argument, not because you don’t know the answer, but you just don’t know where to begin? Like, the foundation of knowledge you’d need to impart to this person before you could even begin to drag them out of their sinkhole of ignorance would cost thousands of dollars if it were coming from a university?

Reblogged from princessnitty  80,992 notes

slaughterhouse-ninetwofive:

albinwonderland:

ediebrit:

oh my fucking god

huge fucking trigger warning but oh my god

shots. fucking. fired.

The scene removed from A Study In Pink that I FUCKING WISH WAS STILL IN IT OMG

MOFFAT HOW COULD YOU WRITE THIS AND NOT INCLUDE IT OH GOD

loudest-subtext-in-television: Every now and again, I get asks from people who’ve read the S&S entries for ASiP and TBB and don’t believe that we’re supposed to suspect Sherlock is suicidal. (Or John, for that matter.) Here’s another piece of evidence.

The first episode is about suicide for a reason. There are suicidal shot compositions and visual metaphors for both John and Sherlock in that same episode for a reason. It’s because they’re both depressed and clinging to reasons to keep living.