Greg and Danielle got primary custody of anthony. the mother has visitation rights every other weekend.
The woman with the hurting back is no more. I don't mean that she died, just that her back is better, her medical insurance covers her, or she is just a very nice woman. In any case, this means that I won't be forced to pay her medical bills.
darrrr. the rain has arrived.
if i were writing a poem, i think i'd use the title 'yet another sunset in golgotha' as my inspiration. however, the cluster of trees on the hill is much too busy for a literal golgotha and this literal incongruity might dissuade viewers from pursuing the picture any further. my only hope would be if they happened to be sitting in my living room at this very instant. in that case, they'd be privy to an unusual experience; that of my flatmate (we'll call him Mark) crooning gabriel faure's libera me (take a browse at http://www.emusic.com/album/10827/10827503.html). yep, i think a requiem (and a dark title) might be just the thing to spark interest in my nearly ordinary photo.
in the meantime, here's a pic of the mug behind the voice:
hey, instead of using a really clever segue to the second installment of secrets, i am posting this picture. i bet you already dismissed it as yet another picture of a sunset. after all, its simple and a bit lacking in photographic prowess. yet after a moments reflection, i find something striking in the silhouettes, some pictoral essence that demands a defense. but how would i begin such a defense? 'you should like this picture because...' hardly.
once a picture has survived the purifying flames of photoshop, it is in the public domain and my powers of influence are nil. still, i may have one last resort: the title. But where do you stand - could an engaging title impact viewer perceptions? better yet, should an engaging title influence critism or should the art speak for itself? as an english major rather than a photography buff, i'm all for titles. so here are my initial title ideas: 'yet another sunset,' 'yet another sunset in mordor,' 'golgotha,' or 'roman polanski.'
more later; the wind is blowing and i should go to bed...
So, in a few weeks, I'll be looking at grad schools.
Anyone have any opinions on Boston U?
Perhaps their English/Theology/Philosophy programs?
Or any English program for that matter.
Any comments would be nice.
Even a simple 'you need to learn to rotate your picture'
would be nice.
Though an explanation of how to do that
would be even nicer.
PS
I used this garbage can.
1. my aunt and uncle (Greg & Danielle) are meeting this morning with a judge re: the adoption of their grandson, Anthony. His parents (including my cousin) are not stable (past or possibly current drugs, alcohol, hate each other, etc) and it hasn't been a good situation. Anyway, the meeting is this morning. Please pray that it goes well (and really going well would be if G&D got custody)...
2. i might have to pay for someone's injuries for a rear-ending last week. pray that they're okay (and thus, my pocketbook is okay). Her name is Mary or Marriam. She's seeing a doctor today.
thamks
here they are (w/a bit of my parents thrown in)
Any linguist will tell you that there are several universal steps in language acquisition. Like puberty and death, speech (and sign language for that matter) progresses in a relatively similar fashion for everyone. This should be no surprise; monkeys, marmots, and your aunt's cursing pet parrot all learn to communicate in a predictable fashion. However, humans are unique. We lack feathers, fur, and a universal ceiling for language acquisition. (per linguists, we also have the uncanny ability for infinite creativity; that is, rather than mimicing others or reciting a preprogrammed response to certain stimuli, we string thoughts together in our own independent way. there, if you get nothing else from this blog, you've at least learned enough linguistic fundementals to obviate the horror of an actual linguistics class). Thus, some folks stay at the plateau of language fluency. These unlucky souls never experience the birth of language consciousness, the appreciation (or lack thereof) of language mechanics. Unfortunately, many of those that consider language get stuck questioning the comma. So many rules and restrictions -- put a colon here, capitalize this, check your tense there. But there is life-changing news for all but the most hard-core language anarchists: the minutia of grammar is sensible. It is poetic logic that supports grammar, not some powerful coalition of grammar gods making senseless decisions in their ivory thrones. And I have proof...
On September 16th, I referred to my blessed moment with the AMA Manual of Style. While there I (re) discovered the following procedures:
1. Spell out all numbers at the beginning of sentences
2. Spell out all numbers less than 10 in literary writing
3. Spell out no numbers in scientific writing (unless there is some other reason to do so, like #1)
Okay, why the strange rules regarding numbers? Why does Andrew think this isn't simply a stupid random decision by grey-bearded academicians? I suggest taking a look at the AMA MoS cause I feel like a bit of hack spoiling their tasty tidbits. Oh well, I suppose it took a number of well-meaning monks to pass down the original Bible, and perhaps they didn't get every word in its original most eloquent self. Then again, they probably did. But they were God inspired and in case you couldn't tell, I'm defnitely AMA inspired
In literary writing numbers function as yet another building block to the sentence. Authors intend for words to flow into sentences to flow into paragraphs to flow into pulitzer prize winning pieces. In contrast, the scientist reads/writes with attention focused on the particulars -- how many patients participated in how many procedures? The words are necessary only in a secondary function, to convey the meaning behind numbers.
I'd give a link to the AMA Manual of Style, but I doubt you can find it for free online...
so, if i were really writing a blog, i'd have something witty to say. some hooker to draw you in. a clever analogy or personal antidote. or maybe you might just like me, and to humor me, you say 'yeah, andrew, i'd love to be the 1 person to read your blog this year.' actually, i tend to edge my way off the sidewalk and into traffic when i see hookers. apparently it takes someone of quite strong character to walk freely and unihibited in hookerland. the judgmental phobiacs teeter on sidewalk cornices, risking automobile rub, while the sexually enthusiastic leer or creep into the waiting arms of wantonness. okay, besides quaffing a gallon of verbosity juice, i'm also stretching the truth a bit. i doubt that i really alter my course perceptibly, but my steps might fall a shade quicker as i tunnel away. in any case, i hope that my blog won't cater to any particular sidewalk style. almost all are welcome here. doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?
ummmm...so, today at work i was faced with the intriguing dilemna of numbers. Is it three chickens or 3 chickens? perhaps one of the more pressing questions of science. that is, when submitting a manuscript to the archives of neurology, do you spell out 'three' or leave it in numerical form? After a frustrating google search, I visited our delightful VA librarian (ex-technical writer, ex-Navy recruit, ex-Nepal peace corp vet) to acquire the bible of scientific writing: the AMA Manual of Style.
Christmas list:
One manual of style, 1 ipod, and 1 piano
