Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

When you eat all your home cooked brownies because they were so delicious but lack the motivation and money to make more....

And IIRC, Cap'n Jack was described as an Omnisexual once

 

I've heard him described as both Pansexual and Omnisexual. I think Moffatt once tried to retcon him into being bisexual, but he was roundly ignored. 

Posted

Histories that are so biased they're useless. Listen, random college professor from Kentucky, I don't care about your opinion of this thing I'm researching; I care about facts. And if you're taking pains to remind me of your slant, then that's the first sign you're only giving me the facts that support your view.

Everybody is biased; by pointing out his own biases I'd actually say he's being honest. Even about something that happened yesterday, you might not get all facts and no opinions in an investigation.
Posted

Everybody is biased; by pointing out his own biases I'd actually say he's being honest. Even about something that happened yesterday, you might not get all facts and no opinions in an investigation.

But thats just the thing--he didn't present his bias as a bias, but rather as fact. Every time he introduced evidence that could've refuted his point, he was quick to say that while it might've seemed like a good thing, it was actually done for this negative reason, with no evidence introduced or otherwise used to support this claim.

Posted

I'll PM you, since the subject I'm researching is pretty controversial right now.

 

I am verra curious, myself.

Posted

I think we all are!

Controversy? I'm all ears

Twi you might have opened Pandoras Box here. :rolleyes:

 

 

Ah, to heck with it. :rolleyes: 

 

So, my WIP is requiring me to do some substantial research on the history of police and police departments in America, primarily during WWII. (Well, maybe not super substantial, but I want to do this right, so I'm learning everything I can.) Trouble is, the police are a….somewhat controversial topic in the US these days, and everyone has an opinion. Now, I don't think this controversy is unfounded in the slightest, and I don't begrudge people for feeling strongly about it. The problem is that anyone who's written about police history within the past few years doesn't even pretend to keep their opinions out of it. Either the history is all sunshine and roses, glossing over the bad and painting cops and their history as something more wonderful than a field full of kittens; or it's extremely negative, painting police departments as nothing more than a means by which the wicked upper classes oppress the peasants. 

 

And the thing is, there are elements of truth in both extremes. But I want to portray as accurate and nuanced a picture as I can, warts and all, and I can't do that if ugly truths are glossed over or positive truths are qualified. 

 

Basically, I'm sick of modern police historians holding my hand and guiding me to the conclusion they want me to draw. I don't want their conclusions. I want facts. Give me the facts, and let me draw my own conclusions.

Posted

Dunno if this is a pet peeve, exactly, but I don't like when people shout.

Cheers and stuff...i don't like that, exactly, but I can deal with it. But people shouting in anger bugs me.

(Even though I kind of have a bad temper sometimes myself...)

So... pet peeve. Loud noises.

Posted (edited)

New pet peeve: The word lush in book descriptions.

 

From the inside jacket for Red Queen by Victoria Aveyard: 

 

 

 

From debut author Victoria Aveyard comes a lush, vivid fantasy series where loyalty can tear you apart and the only certainty is betrayal.

 

From the Amazon summary of Defy by Sara B. Larson: 

 

 

 

A lush and gorgeously written debut, packed with action, intrigue, and heart-racing romance.

 

I've read portions of both of those books. Not the whole thing, but enough to know that, in their case, "lush" is code for "overwritten and leaning too heavily on an improbable, eyeball-rolling romance." Take this quote from Red Queen:

 

 

 

Our backs are bent by work and unanswered hope and inevitable disappointment with our lot in life.

 

 

The first two clauses are fine. Bent by work is a nicely evocative image. ​Unanswered hope adds a good note of despair. Inevitable disappointment with our lot in life is overkill. It sounds like something I would've written when I was 14 and thought you could never have too much angst. This is not "lush" prose. This prose is purple.

Edited by TwiLyghtSansSparkles
Posted

New pet peeve: The word lush in book descriptions.

From the inside jacket for Red Queen by Victoria Aveyard:

From the Amazon summary of Defy by Sara B. Larson:

I've read portions of both of those books. Not the whole thing, but enough to know that, in their case, "lush" is code for "overwritten and leaning too heavily on an improbable, eyeball-rolling romance." Take this quote from Red Queen:

The first two clauses are fine. Bent by work is a nicely evocative image. ​Unanswered hope adds a good note of despair. Inevitable disappointment with our lot in life is overkill. It sounds like something I would've written when I was 14 and thought you could never have too much angst. This is not "lush" prose. This prose is purple.

Lush is a word to describe grass and magic jungles. Not literature. It makes me think of pages covered in moss at the bottom of a river.

My precioussss

Posted

Lush is a word to describe grass and magic jungles. Not literature. It makes me think of pages covered in moss at the bottom of a river.

My precioussss

Or energy bars or perfume or cosmetics companies. Or an Australian law firm.
Posted

When the squirt nozzle on my lotion bottle is partially obstructed so that when I pump it, the lotion squirts all the way across the room and splatters on the wall. *facepalm*

Posted

I am confuse. You must apology with explanation!

Apology with explanation+ white boots in a snowstorm below.

Those is things which name is be Lush Inc./Consolidated/Associated. Here below is white boots in snowstorm. I apology now.

Posted

When I get a friend request on Facebook that appears to be from someone I know, but then I go and check my friends list and I'm already friends with that person. Stupid fake accounts.

Posted (edited)

Trying to sing songs in the tenor range. If I go an octave higher, it's too high. If I stay in the original range, it's too low. I have to randomly switch between octaves and it sounds weird.

 

It's especially hard with 

a ) Billy Joel songs

b ) Musicals, because all the good guys are tenors

 

This is the biggest struggle in my life.

 

Edit: Youtube ads, especially ones that are very different in theme from what you're trying to see. I don't care about your hair, Selena Gomez, I'm trying to listen to Javert's Suicide.

Edited by Mistrunner
Posted

Trying to sing songs in the tenor range. If I go an octave higher, it's too high. If I stay in the original range, it's too low. I have to randomly switch between octaves and it sounds weird.

 

It's especially hard with 

a ) Billy Joel songs

b ) Musicals, because all the good guys are tenors

 

This is the biggest struggle in my life.

 

Edit: Youtube ads, especially ones that are very different in theme from what you're trying to see. I don't care about your hair, Selena Gomez, I'm trying to listen to Javert's Suicide.

 

The good news: most karaoke KJs have a way to toggle the tuning of the backup tracks, allowing you to move the range around.

Posted

Edit: Youtube ads, especially ones that are very different in theme from what you're trying to see. I don't care about your hair, Selena Gomez, I'm trying to listen to Javert's Suicide.

I know! They're the worst!

It's bad enough when they're at the beginning of the video, but once I was watching RWBY (a web-series, highly recommended) and smack in the middle of a quiet, powerful and emotional moment a loud McDonald's ad starts playing.

Storm you, Youtube! *shakes fist*

Posted

The new Ghostbusters movie. 

 

Or rather, the arguments surrounding the new Ghostbusters movie. 

 

I'll make my opinion clear: It looks like a terrible movie, a shot-for-shot remake of the original, but with an all-female main cast and 2016 special effects. Neither of those two things are bad; to the contrary, they're things I would like very much to see more of in movies. But why remake Ghostbusters to do it? The original movie was fantastic. Why fix what isn't broken when you could make an entirely new movie with an all-female main cast and 2016 special effects? 

 

But to hear some people across the interwebs (not here, mostly on a site that begins with T and ends with "umblr"), this is the most important moment in the history of feminism, and if you oppose this movie, you are anti-woman in every sense of the term. And if you oppose it, you oppose it because you are anti-woman. There is no middle ground. You either support the new Ghostbusters because it stars four women, or you oppose it because you think women should remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen for all eternity. 

 

Gah. I left Tumblr weeks ago and they're still in my head. <_< 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...