Cole Parker

And therein lies the humor.

I'll stop putting two spaces after a period when someone gets Picasso to stop putting two eyes on one side of a nose. C

Jan's remark is the perfect one on the issue. Covers it completely. C

The practice of putting two spaces after a period by some writers persists. It's just not right any more and it irritates me. I thought I'd make a thread. The Chicago Manual of Style (and the others) no longer recognize the double space. I thought I'd rail against it here. Ah, these young whippersnapper, comin' along and screwin' up the ways we be doin' our bizness fer as long as they's been here after crawlin' outs they's mama's bellies and bawlin' like wee little piggies. They don't know nuthin', yet persist in tellin' us hows to do our stuff. I'm gettin' dern tard of this bull*&^%^$&%, I ken tells ya! Two spaces makes the page look better. That's all there is to it. Now I unnerstand why you cover up that face a yourn with that sillyass mask. I always thought it was just cuz you were so ugly ya were protecting us from lookin' at ya. Now I sees it's cuz you don't want to be recognized. I don't blame ya, comin' up with damn fool notions like this. Silngle spaces indeed! Hey, do whats ya want. The rest of us who care what the page looks like will continue to do it right! Ha! So much for yer high falutin', modern ideas. I don't give a fart in the wind fer 'em. C

But we all have to hope he doesn't now have the ear of God. If he does, it would certainly be the right ear. There was absolutely nothing the slightest bit to the left about Mr. Falwell. C

They always ask at the doctor's office why you are there, and you have to answer in front of others what's wrong and sometimes it is embarrassing. There's nothing worse than a doctor's receptionist who insists you tell her what is wrong with you in a room full of other patients. I know most of us have experienced this, and I love the way this old guy handled it. An 86 year old man walked into a crowded waiting room and approached the desk. The receptionist said, "Yes sir, what are you seeing the doctor for today?" "There's something wrong with my dick", he replied. The receptionist became irritated and said, "You shouldn't come into a crowded waiting room and say things like that." "Why not? You asked me what was wrong and I told you," he said. The receptionist replied, "Now you've caused some embarrassment in this room full of people. You should have said there is something wrong with your ear or arm and discussed the problem further with the doctor in private." The man replied, "You shouldn't ask people questions in a room full of strangers if the answer could embarrass anyone." After saying that, the man walked out, waited several minutes and then re-entered. The receptionist smiled smugly and asked, "Yes?" "There's something wrong with my ear", he stated. The receptionist nodded approvingly and smiled, knowing he had taken her advice. "And what is wrong with your ear, sir?" "I can't piss out of it," he replied. The waiting room erupted in laughter. Mess with us seniors and you're gonna lose!

I heard this a long, long time ago and probably don't have it quite right, and certainly don't remember who wrote it, but, here goes: A canner exceedingly canny One morning remarked to his grany A canner can can Anything that he can But a canner can't can a can can he?

You might find this interesting: Right and wrong is in our genes By ROBYN BLUMNER Published May 6, 2007 http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/06/News/Rig...ong_is_in.shtml A young couple engaged to be married is slain by a bunch of religious fanatics because the intended are seen walking together. The Iranian Supreme Court approves. That was the verdict issued last month by the Islamic republic's high court. It found a group of six vigilantes were justified in slaughtering five people they viewed as morally corrupt. Such a backward judgment makes me feel entirely divorced from the Iranian court's understanding of right and wrong. Does their moral compass and our own really share the same essential human instincts for discerning ethical conduct? Yes, say modern evolutionary biologists, who claim that human moral intuition is largely inherited, as opposed to a cultural acquisition. And the evidence seems to suggest they are right. Marc Hauser, a Harvard professor of psychology, organismic and evolutionary biology and biological anthropology, interviewed in Discover magazine, says that all humans have "some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection." Hauser gives the example of five people who are in need of organ transplants and a healthy man walks into the hospital. Nearly everyone asked if it is morally acceptable to kill the healthy man to provide life-saving organs to the five others, answers no. But in another example, where a speeding trolley is about to kill five people, most people agree that it is permissible to flip a switch and reroute the trolley so that it will kill only one person. The outcomes are the same, one person sacrificed to save five others, yet people of all types of backgrounds come up with the same contrasting judgments for the two examples and they often can't explain the distinction. Humans have an inherent sense of fair play and the idea that hurting someone intentionally, such as strapping them down and harvesting their organs, is worse than doing so as collateral damage to a larger rescue (hence the use of that phrase by modern warmongers). In his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, Hauser fleshes out his thesis, that moral philosophy - the realm of Sir Thomas More, Immanuel Kant and other great thinkers - is really a matter of genetic science. The rules that govern society are culturally variable, Hauser says, but they generally emanate from an innate moral grammar that has evolved through the process of group selection. In other words, what we understand as morality is not so much a learned system of conduct but a Darwinian adaptation - a mechanism for our species' survival. The argument goes that humans are social animals and depend on group interactions for food and other necessities. Groups work better when members can trust one another and practice reciprocity. Because humans can quickly identify a breach of trust, they can readily punish a transgressor. Over time, those who demonstrate more cooperative and trustworthy tendencies can build a more cohesive society and will have a survival advantage. Now, as to the Iranian honor killings, Hauser believes that while humans across societies innately understand concepts of fairness, gratitude, sympathy and other basic moral values, how a culture translates those into social norms is idiosyncratic. "Depending on the cultural climate," Hauser writes, "killing is not only permissible but justified, excusable, and expected." A crime of passion, such as killing a cheating spouse in the act, is partially excused because humans see it as an uncontrolled reaction to a serious breach of trust. In other cultures, this is taken to such an extreme that any perceived sexual transgression, including the most innocent immodesty, invites a violent response. As an atheist, I find this research intriguing because some religious people think that the only source of morality is faith. Yet, given the same objective tests, researchers have found that people come to the same moral conclusions regardless of religious background or lack of one. According to Hauser, "the system that unconsciously generates moral judgments is immune to religious doctrine." The primary principles of morality are coded in our DNA. Kant thought that the human capacity for reason and choice was the source of each person's moral sense and worth. What he didn't realize was the way tens of thousands of years of human evolution had molded our brains. What we believe to be a reasoned moral choice may really be an electrical impulse designed to help our ancient ancestors survive. Imagine that. ?? Copyright 2002-2007, St. Petersburg Times

Des: Yeah, I remember that one! Great joke. Thanks for the reminder. C[/size][/b][/color]

So speaketh the Raccoon! C

Harry is getting along in years and finds that he is becoming unable to perform sexually. He finally goes to his doctor, who tries a few things, but nothing seems to work. So the doctor refers him to an American Indian medicine man. The medicine man says, "I can cure this." That said, he throws a white powder in a flame, and there is a flash with billowing blue smoke. Then he says, "This is powerful medicine. You can only use it once a year. All you have to do is say '123' and your maleness shall rise for as long as you wish!" Harry then asks, "What happens when it's over, and I don't want to continue?" The medicine man replies, "All you or your partner has to say is 1234, and it will go down. But be warned -- it will not work again for another year!" Harry rushes home, eager to try out his new powers and prowess. That night he is ready to surprise John. He showers, shaves, and puts on his most exotic shaving lotion. He gets into bed, and lying next to his partner, he says, "123." He suddenly becomes more aroused than anytime in his life ... just as the medicine man had promised. John, who had been facing away, turns over and asks, "What did you say 123 for?" And that, my friends, is why you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.

And a wonderful job he did in arranging it, too! C

Which Ave Maria are you talking about, Camy? The Schubert or the Gounoud? I prefer the Gounoud, myself. Cole

I hate to see this spot inactive. There are lots of fine stories to be hailed. Of course, the last time I recommended one, it seemed to stir up a hornet's nest. I suggested others might like a story I liked, and was lambasted for it, or the story was, along with its author, which I found indelicate to say the least. But enough of that. I am currently reading the second part of a trilogy by Draginacht, found at http://www.crvboy.org/authorsam.html I guess to defer outcry, I'll say out front, the writing isn't impeccable. Of course, neither is mine, or most anyone else's. However the story is quite enjoyable, and I'd recommend it. It's at least respectable novel length, probably longer, so it isn't an afternoon's read, but if you start it, you'll probably keep reading. Oh, and it's in 3rd person, if anyone's interested. Cole

Pecman: As you might guess, I can't agree with everything you say. That's not to say it doesn't make sense. But as with almost everything that's been written on this subject, you're talking about one thing, I'm talking about another. The difference between what you're discussing and what I'm discussing is captured in the first two paragraphs of your note. First is what you quoted me having said, and then second is your response. If you'll look, I'm talking about art in general. You're talking about what appeals to you. Those are completely different things, and that has been the basic difference in our two viewpoints. The rest of your message continues in that vein, continues to discuss what you like and don't like to see in a story. That's also what your previous posts have been about. And of course, I have no arugment there. You can set whatever rules you want for what you read. And I don't find anything at all objectionable in any of them. I have my likes and dislikes, too. Your list didn't include one of my pet favorites. I can not abide stories where the author gushes on and on, using esoteric words and mind-befuddling metaphors and stream of consciousness blather to the extent I have no idea what he or she is talking about. I find a lot of this literary nonsense gets published. I don't know why, but it does. I really need to be able to decipher what the author is talking aobut to be able to enjoy a book. But that's personal prejudice, and others don't agree with me because this stuff DOES get published. A lot of books get published that I won't read. However, I won't go so far as to call them bad writing, or to say they violate some rule of writing. I know when prejucides are mine, and don't hold them against the author. I, almost certainly like you, read a lot, and have read a lot. Having done that, I can point out things I've read that violate the rules you pointed out, all of them. The thing is, you didn't say those rules separate good writing from bad. You said they determine whether you'll read and like a story or not. Who could complain about that statement? I certainly can't, as I have my own rules for what I read and what I enjoy. But, as successful (whatever that means) books have been published that break all these rules, perhaps you'd be willing to acknowledge they are not rules that define acceptable art, but instead are simply rules you can use for your own benefit. You don't like multiple POV first person writing. It doesn't bother me to the extent it does you. Again, this is personal prejudice. I see this being done on the Net much more than in published fiction, but I've seen it there, too. Like most art, it is created, it is put before us, and we can enjoy it or not as we see fit. There's a lot of modern painting I don't get at all. I look at it, scratch my head, and simply move on. Some of it is arresting, and I sort of see something in it. Other peole can look at something I just walk by and find it compelling. That's more of less the nature of art. Cole

Thanks for that, EleCivil. You support what I was saying. There are no hard and fast rules when creating art. There are generalities, principles that usually hold true, but almost nothing that I can think of is absolute. Some of what is thought of as our greatest literature breaks many of the conventional rules, even the most catholic of them, like capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, like paragraphing at ordingary intervals, like using quotation marks to designate dialogue. There is no question, for most writing, following standard practices works better. There is also no question, at least not for me, that "rules" and conventions can be artfully ignored and a work can still have merit. It's probably best if a new writer wouldn't try to go off on his own and invent new conventions and styles. He should become comfortable and test his mettle with tired and true, with accepted, methods. But even that isn't a rule. EleCivil says of a book with multiple first person narrators, "It works in this case because. . . ." And that's the point. That style can be made to work. That "rule" can be successfully broken. It's art, and it's difficult to come up with any rule that can't be successfully, inaginatively, creatively broken. So, to me, it's more cogent , when considering a work, to speak to whether it was good, rather than whether it broke a rule. Old Ralph Waldo Emerson, a pretty bright fellow, said A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I'm NOT suggesting here that anyone on this forum is defined by that statement, but am indeed suggesting that trying to apply a set of rules to the creation of art is asking, no, begging, for disagreement. Cole

Des: Thank you so much for making me remember Somerset Maugham. It was so many years ago I read him, I'd forgotten. Both The Razor's Edge and Of Human Bondage were remarkable books. I hope kids today put down their video game controllers and TV romotes once in a while and look into books like that. They and so many other wonderful books were an integral part of my growing up years. Sounds like they were for you, too. Cole

Actually, I don't wnat to take undeserved credit. I think it was Des that recommended Terry's blog. I wasn't responsible for that comment. I could have been. The comment has my approval seal<g>. I probably should have endorsed it. He does have an excellent blog. Cole

In response to James, let me say: I agree entirely. It's so difficult to try to come up with "Best" when looking at something as varied as writing. Even if we were to narrow the field by using modifiers such as best erotic writing, best teen writing, best psychologically-based writing, best whatever, we'd still stumble over whether a writer was best because of one illuminating story, or whether it was a body of work that was being adjudicated, or whether he excelled in the short story or the full-length novel. I just don't think it's possible to call anyone the "best" author. There are a lot of extremely good writers working, and who have been working. Certainly Driver and Freethinker belong in that category. They have skill and craftsmanship and neither disappoint at all. I can add several others to the list. But by doing so, I'd be leaving others out that I simply didn't think of, and why should I even attempt to go there? In any event, I read for enjoyment and education, not to judge whether one writer is better than another. Any story I stick with to the end, I will find things in that are great, things I can say, "I wish I could have written that," and others that I think could probably have been done better. That's the nature of the beast. Cole

I think anyone who has read that story has to agree it's incredibly powerful and ties your emotions into knots. Anyone who hasn't read it is missing a wonderful example of truly moving writing. Cole

Well said, Jakob. Cole

Hilarious, and it's exactly how I feel most of the time on computers. Oh that my tech support was so kind and patient. Cole

I'm trying to visiualize how this happened. The fact is, most people, engaged in this activity, even ardently engaged, don't do a lot of pulling out and putting back in. One tends to stay home throughout the act as that seems to work better. So I've been told. Then one starts to think of the vigor involved in trying to return home and doing it hard enough so as to break up a good thing. It's difficult for me to imagine how this worked. Let's say this guy somehow slipped out; let's make believe he was so incompetent, such a novice at the deed, that somehow he left the field of endeavor inappropriately. Now, how far out do you think he would come? The physics of the situation would suggest not very far, unless he was doing somethihg else wrong beside misplacing his efforts. So, to be generous, should we say, perhaps, he left the pitch (we're speaking English here, so we want to use the correct terminology) by, uh, one inch? So he's now out and about, one inch from home. It couldn't have been more than that, could it? Really, could it? I don't see how, unless he physically got up and moved about at that point, and somehow that seems unlikely. Why for goodness sakes should he? So he's an inch away from heaven, and he decides, as the Brits say, to get on with it. Now it simply seems to me, logically thinking and all that, that from an inch away, he'd have to be awfully, awfully vigorous in trying to reestablish his position to actually break himself. I'm getting the idea, trying to visualize this, that the guy had absolutely no idea what he was doing, and his approach to the entire affair was much closer to driving piles than making love. But that's just my opinion. Cole

I appreciate the kind words, and the one hand clapping! Cole