CritterKeeper

4. CDs make a pretty sparkly show if you bring a row of them close to a giant singing Tesla coil! (see video here ;-) )

Time for another story in the comic shop, where some ten-year-olds get to make Justin feel ancient and out of touch....

Eats -- Drinks -- Scenic views -from the billboard for Twin Peaks restaurant (let's just say Tedd would approve of the scenic views in question)

I thought all of the books had some merit, but they suffered from 1) too much graphic violence and other misery, which I'm not opposed to in general but found wearing given so much of it, and 2) a desperate need for a good editor to tell GRRM to quit adding so many new characters, places, etc. The later books reminded me of the later Harry Potter books, when J. K. Rowling was so in demand that no one could tell her what to do any more. A good editor is vital to help a writer tighten up their story. To tell a writer "I know you put your heart and soul into every one of these characters, and this new one is a particular favorite, but you've got too many characters already -- give the action here to these other characters you already have who you haven't used in half a book, and cut the page count for this section in half." "Got that page count cut in half? Okay, let's see.....hmm, I think you can lose another twenty pages, and these two scenes are redundant, take out one of them and put the good bits in the other." "Four more Greyjoys? You don't really need that many, combine them into two at most. And why on earth are you sending a total stranger fake-Stark to Winterfell when you aren't really doing anything with one of the real Stark girls for this huge section here?" That's one thing I've really appreciated about the TV series, the writers have done a lot of the editing to bring down the character count to something a lot more manageable and reassign plots in ways that make a lot more sense.

I think Dan has either forgotten about the Tumblr, or decided it isn't worth the bother but didn't bother to post anything saying it's closing down.

Some series are easy to follow more than one version at a time, others it doesn't work so well. I've never had any problem keeping separate Lois & Clark, Smallville, etc. The Sookie Stackhouse series, on the other hand, I couldn't watch the TV series and read the novels at the same time. I was already committed to the novels; I'll have to pick up the TV series someday in the future.

Ellen is (sort of) bisexual, but Nanase is definitely straight-up lesbian. She never felt any physical attraction to Elliot even when they were dating and making out regularly. Nanase would have no reason to want any sort of physical relationship with Elliot.

Either that, or work with a colorist.

The shiny object may have a momentary edge, but for real, solid distraction, you need a professional!

Should be the other way 'round. Diane has a "platonic woman-crush" on Nanase. They've been part of the same group conversations a few times, but I don't recall offhand any one-on-one other than in crisis mode.

Note: this post wil bring up subjects like rape, abuse, and torture. People do misuse the term. Usually either people who don't care whether someone else suffers, and don't think they should have to be courteous or respectful either, and therefore should be able to say anything they want to anyone they want; or people who enjoy seeing someone else in distress, and deliberately troll them. Putting "Trigger warning: Food" likely is someone who is deliberately trying to distress people for whom the term is an important tool in coping with their trauma. Or, perhaps, it's somone who know that there *is* someone within the group they're talking to who is recovering from anorexia nervosa or bulimia, both extremely serious life-threatening illnesses. Why on earth would you assume they're not "trying to fix their problem"?? Do you honestly think that someone who has been raped, or abused, or a veteran with PTSD, is going to be able to learn how to cope with their problem while shut away, and shouldn't be allowed out in the world unless they somehow achieve perfect mental health first? I hope you're prepared to pay a heck of a lot more in taxes to pay for all these people you want locked away for the rest of their lives! A trigger warning isn't a way to avoid a problem completely, it's a way to get yourself mentally prepared for having to cope with something that might cause serious distress if you come across it without warning. It still causes distress, but it's easier to cope with if you have some sort of warning it's coming. If someone's story involves describing how they were raped, there are likely women in the audience who were themselves raped, and for some of them, it was recently enough or bad enough that they need that chance to prepare themselves mentally, or even remove themselves from the situation, before the description starts. No one it doesn't apply to is harmed by including the trigger warning, so why are you so offended by them? And what business is it of yours? You have the right to demand that someone dealing with a trauma has to tell you all about it before you'll believe that they were traumatized? Sometimes people aren't ready to share their private mental health issues with the entire world. Some people are so freshly traumatized by what they saw and did in the war that they can't talk about it except with their therapist(s). And some people haven't told anyone that their father raped them every night from age six to fourteen, and they certainly shouldn't have to start wth you! Putting a note like "Trigger warning: rape, incest" or starting a radio program with "This program contains graphic descriptions of torture" is not so heavy or unreasonable a burden that anyone has the right to dismiss and ignore it just because they don't feel like bothering. It's like people who think they should have the right to light up a cigarette in the middle of a crowd any time they feel like it, and anyone with allergies, emphysema, COPD, or other respiratory problems, or who just wants to avoid getting cancer, well, that's just too damn bad for them, even if the smoke puts them in the hospital or the morgue. (And yes, there are people with medicalconditions that bad, and they should be able to enjoy life just as much as anyone else. I attended a convention back before the ban on smoking indoors or near doorways was quite so universal, with Wil Wheaten as a guest, in which he mentioned that he had a lung problem that serious, that tobacco smoke could kill him, and that was why the venue would be enforcing especially strict smoking rules.) Now, if someone really does reply with "I'm triggered that you're triggered," then that person is a troll and a jerk. It's that person you should be directing your ire at, not people who are doing their best to live with horrors in their past.

So Bad It's Good is better than what he's put out lately....Who would have thought they could so thorougly ruin such a good graphic novel as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

Hmm....*if* a wizard can learn spells by reading someone else's spellbook, then could they *steal* someone's spellbook, and carry on learning their new spells? They'd know more about a new spell than the book's rightful owner, since the rightful owner would not be able to read about their new spells and would have to learn to use them by trial and error. Could someone have assigned Justin a spellbook, and just not given it to him? We have precedent in Pandora Marking and later Awakening him without telling him, and a new magic-user who doesn't know what spells he has is sure to be less boring than one who studies up every night....

A fascinating article on all the things that had to come together for the Apollo 13 mission to end with all three astronauts safely back home again.

Hmm, when I came to this thread, it opened up at the post, and the fact that there is a poll up above it was completely hidden. I even started to write a reply asking why you didn't just do it as a Poll before remembering that had happened once before and scrolling up to check. Are poll answers anonymous in this system?

Based on his reputation and esteem, I know Sean Connery must have been in good movies at some point in his career....

Am I the only person here whose definition of a "argument" can include friendly exchanges, not just bad ones? You give your argument on a point, then I give mine, then we back-and-forth about it, As long as you don't start using fallacies like Straw Man or Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, then a good argument can be quite enjoyable. A "debate" is more formal, a "discussion" doesn't cover each taking and supporting a side the way argument does.

"Crystal Gayle Killed Frank Herbert" by Tom Smith So me and my mother ran away across Dune, Got found by the Fremen, not a moment too soon They said it was easier to leave us behind But if we went with them it would stillsuit them fine!

I have a cousin (by marriage, met her at my aunt's wedding) who is basically allergic to all animal protein. Her family had to do the equivalent of a very strict kosher kitchen, with utensils and pans for her that *never* come into contact with meat, milk, cheese, etc. When we played a board game, her sister asked me to move her pieces for her, because she'd been eating cheese and she didn't want to risk getting any on a piece and her sister then touching that piece and getting it on her fingers. It was *that* bad an allergy. The official photographer for the local Mensa chapter is extremely allergic to wheat. A few years ago, he had a salad that someone had sprinkled wheat germ on and didn't label as such, and he wound up in the hospital for several days. I used to bring my little dog to some of the local conventions. There have been two opposing trends....I've been told twice now that a con couldn't allow him in because of other members who are allergic to dogs. On the other hand, the last one I went to had three different service dogs attending with their humans. (One had a mother and daughter with seizures who each had a seizure alert dog.) I'm not sure what the solution will be to that one. I'd be jealous, but I don't *want* any of the conditions that would allow me to bring a dog with me wherever I go! [Public service announcement -- for anyone running a business or event, be aware that you are required to allow service dogs, as long as they behave themselves. If a dog is jumping on people, or chewing stuff up, or showing that they're not fully housetrained, then you *are* allowed to kick the dog out! You are *not* required to allow emotional support dogs....a service dog is trained to *do* at least one action related to the disability, and while you aren't allowed to ask for details of someone's medical condition(s), which is private, you are allowed to ask them to tell you at least one specific action the dog is trained to do related to their disability. These two points can help weed out the people who just bought a vest online because they didn't want to have to board their dog. ;-) ]

The point is in the title of the thread -- speculation!

I need new shock absorbers in my suspension of disbelief.

Just a reminder, the intent is that the actual Words Of Dan be put in the Word Of Dan thread, with this thread being used to discuss things he's said so that the other thread doesn't get cluttered up and we don't have to scroll through pages of discussion to find the Dan quotes. Perhaps the Word of Dan thread should be pinned to the top of the page? Only question then is whether to pin this one, too....

Hmm, how difficult would it be to include links to the relevant strips for things like the Magic's Emissary dream, or the scene in Raven's hospital room where she declares her new apocalyptic goal?

Isn't she? Abby is already adorable, so it's hard to cross anyone with her and not get an adorable result. I'm just wondering on what basis you make that conclusion. How do *you* know whether a given person is actually prone to genuine psychological harm? Must you actually *see* them have an externally visible panic attack before you'll believe them? If so, that seems like a rather harsh requirement; if not, then how do you decide who you believe and who you don't? Because frankly, I see an awful lot of people whose criteria seems to be either whether they like or dislike the person in question, or whether they themselves are bothered by the thing that the other person is triggered by. And if you are disbelieving people who have genuine psychological harm, that's probably causing them even more harm. Again, how do *you* know whether someone is actually allergic to something or they "just strongly dislike it"? Do you only count people who have an *immediate*, visible, life-threatening anaphylaxis to have "real" allergies? Or would someone who is, oh, just for an example, allergic to tobacco smoke but suffers scratchy throat, itchy eyes, and clogged sinuses for a couple of *days* after exposure but doesn't actually collapse in front of you turning blue, count as an "allergy" in your book? I missed those tweets! I had to avoid Twitter for a bit until I could catch up with GoT, and even at the best of times I'm a sporadic tweet-reader. It's a pity no one seems to be keeping up the Word Of Dan thread, which was designed to collect stuff he says elsewhere....

Start of opening your car door and it's an oven inside until the breeze or A/C clears it