the other surf green strat i totally forgot about
You go through enough guitars, and sometimes you forget the ones you owned in the past.
I still have the Sonic Strat in Surf Green. It's good and I've had it for over a month now.
Before buying that guitar, I had not seen it in person, so I was worried about whether Squier's version of Surf Green would be to my liking or not. When I saw it in person fresh out of the box at Guitar Center, I knew instantly yes, good color. And then after buying it, I thought hey, nice to own my first Surf Green Strat.
But it wasn't the first.
I should first note that my Squier Sonic Stratocaster is a Surf Green with maple fingerboard, which is a Guitar Center exclusive color combination. However, elsewhere you will find it with a dark fretboard (which I think is Indian Laurel). I'm okay with the Surf + maple combo, but you may be one of those players that thinks Surf + dark fingerboard looks better. Guitar Center doesn't have that as it's an online-only thing.
Second to note is that Sea Foam Green is NOT Surf Green, as Sea Foam has more blue in it. You may see a few of those kicking around.
And this brings me to that Fender Player Stratocaster I owned briefly back in 2021.
That guitar was technically not Surf Green, but rather Surf Pearl. It was a color I didn't even want, but had to go with it due to the fact it was the only Player model I tried that didn't suck.
I've told this story before, so here's a recap:
Back then when the Player was "only" just over $800 after sales tax (the Player II is now $920 after tax in most US states), I wanted one in a color called Buttercream.
Summarized, I had to try FIVE different Player models at TWO different Guitar Center stores just to find one that wasn't terrible. FOUR of them, two Buttercream and two Polar White, all had bad nuts that made sitar noises on the unwound plain strings. Only one didn't, which was one in Surf Pearl, so that's what I went with.
I was never in love with the color, which I'll get more into in a moment.
That Fender did not stay with me because I quickly discovered the B and high-E were too tight as a result of no string guide spacer from the factory. I had to go to ANOTHER Guitar Center just to get that stupid part, installed it, and... it didn't fix the problem. I got rid of the guitar shortly after that as it was still well within the return window. The money on that stupid spacer was wasted.
Surf Pearl is a sorta/kinda metallic Surf Green but at the same time not really. It's one of the weirder colors from Fender. I never truly took a liking to it.
Consider Surf Pearl to be "You Wish This Was Surf Green But It Isn't", and that sums that color up.
As for my Sonic Strat, it does have a real-deal Surf Green. No metallic flake and a "minty" hue to it, just like it should look. And by that I mean as it should look for a gloss polyurethane finished body.
Nitro finish over Surf Green does look a touch greener while gloss poly mutes it a bit. I'm okay with this. Almost the exact same color muting happens with Fenders in Surf Green that are urethane finished instead of lacquered, so this is not a unique-to-Squier thing.
This is of course assuming you can even get a current production Fender Stratocaster in Surf Green with nitro finishing that doesn't have the dopey two-post bridge... which you currently can't. How do I know? I looked through the Fender catalog. Yeah, they have a few Surf Green Strats, but none with a proper 6-screw bridge. The closest you'll get with the 6-screw bridge is the American Vintage II 1957 Stratocaster in Sea Foam Green, which again is not Surf Green.
You can and should hold out for a color you really want...
...and shouldn't have to pay extra for it either.
If there weren't an option for Surf Green on the Sonic Strat, two other colorways currently offered works for me. There's basic black, which is a black body with all-maple neck a.k.a. Eric Clapton "Blackie" style, and an Arctic White HT version with white guard and blond neck. Either one of those would also suit me fine.
I got lucky twice with the Surf Green Sonic Strat I bought. It was available, thankfully cheap, and on sale at the time I bought it. Doesn't get much better than that.
Oh, and I didn't have to fight with the guitar either like I did with the aforementioned Fender. On first play, the Squier was good and needed nothing.
let's go to waimart to buy a tooi
All email should be text-only with no HTML at all, displayed in a monospaced font across the entire interface, and I'm going to show you why.
I recently had to add two misspellings to my email filters, waimart and tooi. Both of these "words" do not exist outside of email spam.
The entire reason these "words" exist is to fool the reader, you, into thinking they're something else. It's an exploitation of many sans-serif fonts.
This is best shown by example:
Here is a phrase using a sans-serif font:
And now the exact same phrase using a monospaced font:
If you're thinking the two phrases are different, you're wrong, they're the same. A capital I on a sans-serif font looks almost identical to a lowercase l.
And when I say the monospaced font should be across the entire mail interface, I'm not kidding.
Take this example:
Do you think you're reading that correctly?
It's actually this:
Still think you're reading it correctly?
Let's change that to uppercase:
I'll guess you probably saw what it actually was in monospaced lowercase.
Now imagine the sans-serif version in a tiny font displaying the From address in your mail client or phone. Do you think you would catch it then? I doubt it, regardless of how good your eyesight is.
Bear in mind that field is not part of the message but rather a different part of the mail interface...
...which is why I say a monospaced font should be across the entire mail interface. From field, Subject field, To field, and the body of the message. All of it. No exceptions.
If you have the ability to do so, switch over everything you can in your email to display in a monospaced font only. And if you can do the same for your text messaging app on your phone, do so.
Monospaced fonts is whatever "looks like typewriter", such as Courier New or PT Mono.
dental adventures so far this year
As I write this, I just came back from the dentist. A second abscess formed that needed to be removed, this time on the upper gum. It was a small one, but needed to be done. The first abscess was on the lower gum, and that one was large. I had that taken care of in late 2025.
Any time an abscess forms, as in that hard bump, yes, it absolutely has to be taken care of. If not taken care of, that leads to major dental problems later. Not issues. Problems. As in very painful problems.
Were these abscesses my fault? They might have been.
A brief history of me and my teeth:
In my teens and 20s, I went to the dentist when I had to, but wasn't good with my dental care.
In my 30s, I started going to the dentist a lot more. Any time I had anything go wrong even to the slightest degree, I'd book an appointment at the dentist, go, and just get it over with. During this decade of my life, many cavities repaired, several fillings put in, along with a few crowns and root canals.
In my early 40s, mostly the same.
In my late 40s, this is when I finally started getting serious with my dental care. I learned the "modified Bass brushing technique", and flossed way more often. However, for whatever stupid reason, I thought all toothpaste was bad. While my brushing technique was great (and I also switched out for a new toothbrush once a month like clockwork), and my flossing was also great, no toothpaste used at all...
...and that's when I got my first abscess.
But even after I got that fixed, I still didn't go back to toothpaste.
Now before continuing, a couple of things.
First, make no mistake that oh yes, I was really good about brushing, and once or twice weekly used baking soda as a toothpaste. You can't use baking soda every day because it's too abrasive, but once or twice weekly is fine as long as it's spread 2 to 3 days apart. For example, brush with baking soda on Monday, water-only for Tue/Wed, baking soda on Thursday, water-only for Fri-Sat-Sun, repeat. And since I know some would be curious, the way to brush with baking soda is to put a teaspoon of it dry in the hand, take your toothbrush with the other hand, wet bristles, dip into the baking soda, brush normally. Dip the bristles into the baking soda a few times during brushing. The taste of baking soda is slightly salty, nothing crazy.
Second, I was also very good about flossing.
But even with all that in check, a few months later I feel a second abscess starting to form high on the upper gum.
"Oh, hell no...", I said to myself.
This is when I changed up how I brush and floss.
When the first abscess happened, that thing kept growing and got fairly large pretty quick.
This time around, I didn't want that happening, so this is what I did:
First, it was back to all the stuff I thought was "bad" before.
This started with Sensodyne Extra Whitening. It worked, but burned my gums a bit. Switched over to Colgate Optic White Advanced. My gums liked this a lot better.
For floss, Reach Waxed Unflavored, although generic grocery store floss pretty much does the same job (but does shred more easily).
For mouthwash, I refuse to use anything with coloring in it, so I went with Listerine Total Care Alcohol Free "Extra Mild", which is totally clear like a proper mouthwash should be.
As for my toothbrushes, again I switch out for a new one once monthly (every 1st of the month) and just buy whatever is available. However, I did switch over to an extra soft toothbrush. I can handle soft just fine, but needed to go extra soft for what I'm about to explain next.
Second, it was time to change around my brushing technique. Again.
A modified Bass brushing technique totally works, but I modified that even further by brushing not just above the gum lines but way higher and way lower. I would brush my teeth first for front and back as usual, but then brush over as much gum as possible. Everywhere I could brush, I did, and still do.
Regular soft bristle toothbrushes made my gums too sore, hence the reason I switched to extra soft. And as I discovered, I can get my teeth just as clean with extra soft as I can with soft, so I stuck with it.
Third, it was time to increase how often I brushed.
I now brush way more often. Instead of twice daily, it's now 3 to 5 times. Basically any time after I eat anything, even if just a snack. Flossing is included.
When that upper gum abscess formed, I had one goal. Stop the growth of it and see if it goes away on its own.
The growth of it did stop and it stayed small, but after a month it wasn't showing any signs of going away, which is why going to the dentist was required to get rid of it.
HOWEVER... there's still the question of whether the abscesses were my fault in the first place for not using toothpaste.
I believe the answer is yes and no.
The upper gum abscess was fairly close to where I had some root canal work done in the past. Sometimes it just happens where something on the inside of the gum just decides to get infected near where root canal work was done before, even if it was years ago.
But, sometimes an abscess can happen from something as stupid as a piece of spice that got stuck in the gum and was never cleared out, such as a tiny peppercorn flake. Something that small is something you can't see nor feel, and if it stays there, yeah, an abscess can form just from that.
That abscess I had on the upper gum was fairly high up there, so what I think happened is that it was a combination of a reaction from prior root canal work, not brushing extra high up on the gum, and not using a mouthwash to really clear out everything up there (I had used just water prior).
For all I know, it might have very well been a piece of spice that got stuck up there, and the reason the growth stopped is because I was finally cleaning all the gum area properly.
I am now all-in with toothpaste, flossing, mouthwash, and modified brushing technique that covers everywhere. All the teeth, all the gums. Brushed, flossed, rinsed, and done often.
Heck, I might even get a copper tongue scraper and probably will, because supposedly that's good for the mouth also.
I'm probably.. correction.. I know I'm taking better care of my mouth better than I ever have before in my life. Abscesses suck, and I intend on never having one ever again. True, there was no pain involved with either, but that's because I had them both fixed before they became a problem.
3 weeks in with the squier sonic stratocaster
Some people think I keep all the guitars I've ever bought. Not true. The personal rule I've been using for years is for any new guitar that comes in, one must go out. If I didn't do that, I'd have a big pile of guitars that would never get played.
So it's been 3 weeks in with the Squier Sonic Stratocaster. The guitar is technically still within the return window period, so I could return if it I wanted. Will I? No, I'm keeping it, because it is the good "happy place" guitar I was looking for. Very familiar, very comfortable. Like I said recently, this guitar is home to me.
I've come to realize something in owning this guitar that I'm still trying to wrap my head around.
I absolutely have no desire to own a Fender guitar.
Does this have to do with price? I'll answer that in a minute.
I feel no magic with the Fender brand anymore. There is absolutely no guitar they make where I feel even a passing interest in it.
Part of this has to do with the fact I've met all the heroes, so to speak. This included what was formerly a dream guitar of mine, the 1969 Fender Stratocaster. At the time I strummed on a real-deal one back in 2022, it was selling for $18,500.
Why is it no longer a dream guitar? Simple answer, I held and played it. I met the hero. As the old saying goes, don't meet your heroes. Well, I did, felt the CBS cheapness of the time it was made and said well, that's that. Nice to see one and experience it, but like hell if that thing is worth 5 figures.
Then Squier released the redesigned Affinity Stratocaster that absolutely has that late-'60s/early-'70s big CBS headstock, and I bought one. Had my fill of that, then traded it out later. No desire to go back to the big headstock since, even if it still does look cool as hell.
Also throughout the years I've picked up and played (but not bought) a bunch of different Fenders, with the most recent being a boat-anchor-weight '79. Prior to that, a brand new Player II in British Racing Green.
Not once have I ever felt the magic from playing any Fender I picked up, new or old. And there has never been an instance where I tried one and then regretted not buying it later.
However, that has happened with Squier. One of my sorta/kinda regrets was not buying a Squier Classic Vibe Stratocaster years ago that was discounted deep because of its color, Burgundy Mist, with color matched headstock. Absolutely nobody wanted it. That thing was in the store for weeks, had dust on it, but was new. Everybody gave it a miss because of the color. When I played it, it was one of those ultra rare instances where the guitar played and sounded great in the store, but I didn't commit to it. Why? It was actually the headstock that turned me off the most. A gold Squier logo on a purple headstock was doing nothing for me. Were it a silver logo, I'm pretty sure I would have committed and bought it.
And there was one other sorta/kinda regret that was much more recent. Playing a Squier Sonic Stratocaster HT in Arctic White and not getting it. White-on-white Strats with maple fingerboard usually look weird, but not that one. Since the neck on the Sonic I have now is the same goodness that was on that HT, I really don't feel any regret passing on that one. Well, maybe a little, but I'll get over it.
Oh, and I did find out something else recently. Not a regret but a possible future buy. I've not tried this one yet, but Squier does have a Classic Vibe HT in Surf Green. Never seen one in person because not too many guitar stores carry it, but I'm sure that's a great player.
That CV HT is a great example of how Squier has got the stuff where I think yeah, cool, I'd love to have that guitar. I get genuinely excited. There's some actual magic there. But for Fender, I feel nothing...
...and this is where I talk about price.
I have tried, many times, to like Fender. This is why I keep trying out guitars made by them. In the back of my mind, whenever I pick one up, I'm thinking, "Okay. This will be the The One and it's totally gonna happen this time", and... nope. Disappointed again. Then I see the price tag. "They want four figures FOR THIS?!" Back on the hanger it goes.
If the Fender had the look, feel, sound and most importantly the magic, as in that thing that makes you want to play guitar in the first place, then it would be worth it. But it doesn't.
Sure, I'll still try a Fender here and there whenever I'm in a guitar store, because why not. But these days, I only do it just because FeNdEr, OoOoOOoo AaAaAhh, play for a minute or two, get disappointed, see the price tag, feel disgust, and then I buy a Squier that looks right, feels right, sounds right, is priced right, and go home happy. That's the routine.
It's almost like I need to be reminded periodically why not to buy Fender brand.
And in all honesty, it's not really an issue of how much a Fender is. If the Fender had the magic, then a four-figure price tag would be truly be a small price to pay to get it. But that magic just isn't there.
Then I pick up the cheapest Strat Squier makes and whammo, there's the magic I was looking for.
Why do certain Squiers like the Sonic have the magic for me and not Fender? It's not just the low price, although that is a factor and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't. The larger factor (in fact, much larger) is guitar playing life experience.
Given how many electric guitars I've owned over the years, at this point I know well in advance what would annoy me with just about any guitar on the wall at the guitar store before even touching it. I may write something up about that later and probably will.
In the end, the Sonic is good and it's staying with me.
incredibly stupid customer survey email
Remember how I said that Google and banks do dumb stuff with email?
Other companies do this crap too, and oh wow, did I receive a doozy of one.
I go to an office to do a thing, and get the thing done. No problems.
Three days later, an email comes in that went straight to spam, but the subject line suggested it might not be, so I took a look at it...
...and oh, yikes, no wonder this thing went straight to spam.
This is what the email had going on:
- Used a From: address that was the company name even though the company obviously wasn't the one that sent it.
- Sent using amazonses.com mail servers instead of the company's mail servers.
- Mail headers reveal an X-Envelope-From that absolutely and totally does not match the company name at all.
- Mail headers reveal the email was sent using a very sketchy sounding Perl script.
- Email contains insecure http:// links to a .co domain FOUR TIMES.
- Email contains two insecure http:// image embeds that are mail beacons using a separate mystery .com domain.
So then.
This email has got spoofing, insecure links all over the place, mixed content, and insecure image calls to mail beacons.
Oh, and this at the end:
(Company name I've never heard of) is committed to protecting your privacy.
Yeah, I doubt that.
That office I went to obviously sold my personal data, which all companies do these days even if they say they don't. That data gets in the hands of some other company who flew out one of the worst emails I've seen in a while.
I looked up that other company. It's an outfit not even based in the US, but rather in the UK. And on their home page is this crap:
Navigate disruption with AI-enabled insights and expert advisory
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER, WE GOT SOME AI SLOP GOING ON.
So then.
A US company sells off personal data to a UK company whose "tools" are nothing but vibe coded AI slop, who then in turn sends out ridiculously insecure customer survey emails that are guaranteed to land in spam folders.
For a company that is "committed" to protecting my privacy, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
If that doesn't say 2026, I don't know what does.