Writing Errors

Oh my. I love editing other people's things.

I'm editing topic guides right now. The content is mostly sufficient, but there are a few things where... the rules aren't always obvious, but they're there.

1. Semicolon! It's not a comma. And a comma is not a semicolon. When making a list, separating each item with a semicolon normally doesn't work. Separating every other item with a semicolon looks whimsical.
2. They're doesn't equal their doesn't equal there.
3. As important as they are, the world's oceans are not the World's Oceans.
4. Wikipedia is great. Wikipedia is awesome. Don't cite Wikipedia. I guarantee they'll use it for their research. Cite something more specific, please.

That being said, I'm really looking forward to some of the topics. There's one for Midwivery. And with that, I'm going to keep mum.

Twilight Zone

So they're having a marathon, didn't you hear? The sci-fi channel has basically gone down the tubes, but at least they have two days of the year where they aren't awful. (Point that they jumped the shark? Arguably when Farscape went off the air, or else when I was watching TV with Chris and Ian (they introduced me to tabletop roleplaying) freshman year before a session and there was a plane going down a runway with perfectly stacked barrels of oil. The plane ran into it, and destruction ensued. If only they hadn't stacked those next to the runway!)

I've only been watching a few episodes, but the best one was the one where William F'in Shatner is a superstitious man in a newlywed couple compelled to ask a penny fortune teller about everything. It keeps giving vague answers... and he trusts it because it was correct about a job promotion.

I'm not *that* flexible

I Am A: True Neutral Elf Wizard (3rd Level)


Ability Scores:

Strength-13

Dexterity-17

Constitution-12

Intelligence-15

Wisdom-12

Charisma-14


Alignment:
True Neutral A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.


Race:
Elves are known for their poetry, song, and magical arts, but when danger threatens they show great skill with weapons and strategy. Elves can live to be over 700 years old and, by human standards, are slow to make friends and enemies, and even slower to forget them. Elves are slim and stand 4.5 to 5.5 feet tall. They have no facial or body hair, prefer comfortable clothes, and possess unearthly grace. Many others races find them hauntingly beautiful.


Class:
Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.


Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

Detailed Results:
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Evil ---- XX (2)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaos --- XX (2)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Evil ---- (0)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Dwarf ---- XXXX (4)
Elf ------ XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Gnome ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Halfling - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Half-Orc - XX (2)

Class:
Barbarian - (-2)
Bard ------ (-2)
Cleric ---- (-2)
Druid ----- (0)
Fighter --- (-4)
Monk ------ (-17)
Paladin --- (-19)
Ranger ---- (-2)
Rogue ----- (-2)
Sorcerer -- (0)
Wizard ---- XXXXXXXX (8)

I had a tasty dream last night. I was at UT... so there's Presidential, which was all swoopified up into academic buildings and good food. Then there was church row, which had several ice cream places all about it, and a new one started up for Skittles! Skittles ice cream! So I walk through a computer building near there (nonexistent in real life) to pick up my stuff. I have trouble keeping my mouth shut with a retainer in there. I'd earlier met Leslie there but she had something to type up (she was still working for the paper).

Then I go to Hess, which is this great big open space, with a quadruple-decker hotel bus that nearly just looks like a hotel, Hess all swoopified up with a cathedral wedged between it and Melrose... and when I enter the library, for all six stories up, it has an open center and escalators. As I go up one a chair is blocking my way (as I'm wearing a heavy back-pack), with a professor resembling an aged Professor from Gilligan's Island and his visitor wearing a bright red shirt. "Oh, are you having any trouble?" "Just trying to get through." "*chuckle* These academic types are amazing. Blah blah blah stentorian blah..." Eventually I work myself down to the bottom, go through a door that leads outside, and come to the docks. I end up going on a camping trip with Leslie, Susie, and two random people who were like Smeagol and Deagol from Lord of the Rings, the two hobbits that fought over the ring. Fun ensues, including being unable to find a place to go to the restroom.

I've been having vivid dreams lately.

The Scariest Fortune Cookie Ever

"You'll meet your big cheese today (in bed)."

Incidentally, this happened to Margery Kempe. Several times. Sweet scents and other allusions of God.

Routines

This winter break is not so much a break because I'm doing nothing, but because I can afford to put in only a half-day. Believe me, that matters a lot. An afternoon and part of an evening is a huge chunk of time. Add up over 5 days, include the weekend afternoons, and... yes. Relief.

Basically I'm spending my mornings either reading Le Morte Darthur (I'm managing about 40 pages per day so far at about 25 pages an hour ... notetaking + nightmares for strict modern spellers), doing applications, or taking care of Model UN stuff.

Le Morte Darthur cracks me up. I'd read parts of it in class before (Leslie has too), and Sir Thomas Malory has a quite vibrant way of telling stories. Today I read Balyn's tale, for example. There's a lady that comes to court with a sword tied to her waist. Arthur's eyebrow quirks up, and he says, "That's unbecoming of you." She then reveals that the sword is there until a good knight can pull it out, and she was over at King Royns' place, and his men all failed at it. Ever looking for a great adventure, Arthur tries quite hard and fails to pull the sword from the scabbard. Others try. Then Balyn wanders in and watches from afar, fresh from prison, bristling with muscle. When the lady is leaving, he struts up and pulls her sword out with little effort. She thanks him and asks for the sword back, but he keeps it, causing her to reveal that the sword is terrible, that it will kill someone most dear to him and make him miserable.

So from there hijinx ensue. Balyn has a penchant with beheading people with his sword, starting with the Lady of the Lake. (To be fair, the Lady did ask for his head.) We learn through Merlin why the lady with the undrawable sword wanted the sword back - it's a brother-killing sword, and she wanted to kill her brother for him killing her paramour. More intrigue, more plotting, lots of descriptive tombstones, but I skip to my favorite part.

There's an invisible knight killing people! Balyn is escorting a knight back to King Arthur, when suddenly he is smote with a spear from an invisible man. His damsel ends up carrying the truncheon thereafter. Then shortly after the invisible knight does it again, this time when Balyn and he were about to have an honorable fight. Much perturbed, the damsel and he run across a gentleman who has had his son wounded by an invisible knight. But they find out that the invisible knight will be at a feast being held by King Pellam, couples only. So Balyn brings the damsel.

They go there, and Balyn's looking around, and he sees this invisible knight, a big, dark looking guy. Balyn forbears killing him, because it would make such a scene. Then the invisible knight comes over. "Knyght, why beholdist thou me so? For shame, ete thy mete and do that thou come fore," he asserts, and slaps Balyn across the cheek. Balyn, short-triggered Balyn, immediately cleaves the invisible knight in two, and stabs him with the truncheon that the damsel offers up.

Needless to say, everyone is aghast. King Pellam tries attacking the offender, and he knocks Balyn's sword away. They proceed in a chase through the castle, with Balyn racing in a search for some sort of weapon. Finally he finds this "mervaylous spere strangely wrought" in a gold room and faces off against the king. The king gets stabbed, and with that stroke, the Dolorous Stroke, the entire castle falls down. Most of the people are crushed. King Pellam lies in a stupor for years, until Sir Galahad revives him on the grail quest. All of this is because he dared use the spear that Longius used to pierce Jesus's side on the cross. Whoops.

And of course the brothers end up slaying one another and the long questing arc gets resolved. But I just... love how outrageous the stories can get. And I have 600 pages more of this!

Finally, I should keep a count of how many ladies kill themselves after their lover has died. And what percentage of those kill themselves on their lover's sword. It happens a fair bit. >_<

"How can we find a roadmap without having a target, without having a goal?" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139676.stm)

That was Germany's Environmental Minister Sigmar Gabriel, talking about the US and Canada and their refusal to enforce numerical standards for gas emission reduction.

I disagree with the US's stance in this case. But that's not what I want to talk about. It's the quote that's interesting. It applies to so many of our policies going on now: Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, Social Security, Medicare, the national debt, civil liberties limitations... what are our goals in these instances? You can't say victory; what is victory? For the first two, what situations would mean that we could safely withdraw, and what situations would mandate our withdrawal? For climate change, what are we going to do about it, if you refuse set numbers? Will that result in cutbacks, or foot-shuffling? For Social Security and Medicare, how are we going to make them financially solvent? If we're going to have to reform them, what are our options, and what are we going to choose soon before the choices become more dire? For the national debt, what are we doing to reduce it? What are we doing to reduce costs? For our civil liberties, when are we going to get them back? What guarantee, other than a promise, do we have that the information gathered on us will not be mistreated? Are we really considering everyone as people, or are we saying that citizens are better people? In general, what priorities are we setting, and what are their eventual results going to be?

What I want are answers to these questions. I haven't seen any really convincing ones. I don't think a Democrat or a Republican has the right answer to all of them. I haven't found a third party that meets the criteria.

And blanket statements do not work. Blanket withdrawal or blanket staying both lack a plan. The answers may not be easy. But I'd rather there be answers.

Guess What I'm Trying to Convey!

... okay, there is a dearth of pictures otherwise. I'm happy to say I'm engaged. To Leslie. ^_^

It happened on Saturday, and it's a new and wonderful feeling with all of the good that's already there.

And Altruda's has some of the best rolls ever, drizzled and dipped into garlic butter. It's a simple choice, but a rich taste.

Gifts!

I went Christmas shopping today. I thought I'd get out there around 12:30 and everything would be cool. It mostly was... it was like a busy weekend normally, rather than a busy weekend around Christmas. That's good, right?

A few notes:

I encountered quite a few stupid drivers. The three most memorable ones:
1. The one where we were at a 4 way stop, and I stopped just after one car. So that car got to go. Apparently the second car thought that since they'd technically stopped, they could also go. Or maybe I hesitated too long and didn't take advantage of the small gap between the two cars. In any case, it was off too. Good thing I was paying attention.
2. The clumsy. I was getting into the turn lane on a four-lane road. I start coasting into the turn lane, signalling dutifully as usual, when a car starts crawling out from the road I want to get to, intending on a left turn. I've got a couple of seconds, and think they'll turn into the middle lane, look a bit, and then merge. No. They stop. In the middle of the road. With traffic a few seconds away. I have to pass my turn so that they can pull their senses together and get out of the way. Scared the pants off of me... not because I was in any danger, but because they were.
3. The indignant. When you make a turn with two turn lanes, and you're in the right lane, you're supposed to turn so that you're securely in the right lane before you make any presumption for going into the other lane. Sometimes people make a two-lane swing, and that's alright, I suppose, but it's technically not right. So when I make my turn, I get to a decent speed, check the other lane. All clear. So I signal and switch. Then I get a honk from the car that was a car behind me in the turn lane, which had just rounded the turn aiming straight for the left lane and had presumed he'd have a clear shot. Sorry! I'm just where I need to be. And I'm going the speed limit.

And of course I can't say what everyone got. Suffice to say that they aren't pimped out Corn Poppers.

Wuh Woh Wodehouse

This has been an author I've been meaning to get to since high school. I think Diana was reading him at one point, and I'm sure Mom has. Then I saw Leslie with one of the Jeeves books checked out from the library last night.

We've got our one study day today. (We should have two, except the administration has apparently decided that a weekend counts as a study day. Because, y'know, having the first two days of exams before that "study day" sure encourages good study habits... now more than ever I'm doing a study-as-you-go system, which I ordinarily spurn.) When I got reasonably done with my studying, paper editing, and presentation honing, I felt like getting a book to read. It was between Wodehouse and Pratchett. Poor Terry Pratchett, with only one book that I could find in the PR section. There may've been more in the children's lit section (where a lot of fanciful but otherwise adult literature ends up), but I was pretty set on Wodehouse. So I got Cat-Nappers.

I've encountered the Jeeves archetype in other places. Trading Places (the butler, played by Marcus Brody from Indiana Jones) comes foremost to mind, but he's often there, bright and efficient, overlooked at times and then granted pittances that probably mean nothing. The same for Jeeves. The smallest smile, the most minute eyebrow quirk, and Wooster is set off on fantasies about what his servant (and keeper) is about. And the literary allusions, which Jeeves has more spot on than I do (he pulled a Sir Walter Scott reference involving Lochinvale that was aptly applied) Wooster misses entirely. He's also fond of attributing the most random things to Shakespeare, which I get a kick out of. When talking to one woman who wants to reform him, she says,
" 'I don't suppose you have read Lord Chesterfield's Letters to His Son?' "
Well, of course I hadn't. Bertram Wooster does not read other people's letters. If I were employed in the post office, I wouldn't even read the postcards." (88)
And on and on.

I guess I'm preaching to the choir, so I'll just end by saying... I should've read him earlier. He wins.

Done!

Well, I'll be doing edits tomorrow, but other than that, my last (and by far most demanding) paper is done. It certainly took enough time. Having the paper (and accompanying presentation) in place of an exam did not mean two hours of free time. It meant mercy.

I remember in elementary school being fascinated with postscripts. They always taught us how to write a letter sometime... I want to say near one of the breaks, either Christmas break or summer break (school was more timeless then, and it's pretty far back in time). Anyway, there was always the top with the name and the address. Then space, and then Dear Mr. Johnson, and then the indention which meant you started writing your body under the a in Dear. Then the body. Then some sort of farewell, normally "Sincerely," then the name. Then, after you'd written all of that magical letter which you would send to the teacher for a grade, there was a postscript. If there had been something that you'd forgotten to write in the letter and you didn't want to have to rewrite it, that was the place to do so. Then there was the post-postscript, if you had worked too hastily there too.

Of course they weren't really referred to like that, so much as it was just known that they could occasionally exist. Elusive beasts that some person would put at the end of their letter in haste. We never really had need of one. It was a novelty. We put it there because it was a funny thing. A P.P.S. was funny due to its redundancy. And a P.P.P.S. ... well, one could hypothesize about its existence; certainly the book said nothing, but if you're allowed to go as far as P.P.S. ... surely three can't be that big of a crowd?

If I remember right, writing letters isn't really a taught skill anymore. Certainly I don't adopt all of the forms that come with writing letters. Most of the time, I write e-mails anyway. It's more fluid, and though I try to be proper in an official capacity, I've seen professionals use it without any distinguishing formal characteristics. I wonder if they teach that at any level of school.

I miss writing paper letters sometimes. Even if the other person had to have patience with my handwriting.

P.P.P.S.

"Thing" is not a good word most of the time. There's nearly always another word that can be used, even if it's also general, like "action."

And I'm closing this window now. Before I get utterly distracted from my paper.

Hohehum.

P.P.S.

I really want to say "spiritual bling" instead of "spiritual wealth." It involves a precious jewel called penance.

Must... not...

Dear Self

When you're writing papers, you are making the sentences too circular. It is okay to be definite, for that is what the professor is asking for. If you put in one more indefinite article in the following manner, I will cause spell check to not recognize "a" as a word at all:

"Representing a spiritual understanding..."
"Holding a special significance..."

It's not wrong in itself, but it's little superfluous things like that which are making me cringe rewriting my paper. I know what you mean, that there could be other significances and other spiritual understandings. In that case, say "one." Or go into them in your paper. But I'm really trying not to make a thirty-page argument here. I can't explore everything. And with my most recent escapade, I've gone from a page short to one or two pages over (the recommended but-by-no-means-a-ceiling) limits.

Respectfully yours,
Me

P.S. I like pizza.