You may notice that there's a new blog in our stuff we're reading sidebar.
Misty, long time reader and commenter here, is busting out on her own. She's the Joni Loves Chachi of this blog.
her blog is called ambient life, which, i think, is a reference to a sleeping pill or something.
read it early and often. that girl crazy.
another blog, which won't be linked on the right is http://callingkettle.blogspot.com
It's titled "Calling the Kettle Black" and it's written by this anonymous journalist who talks about stuff other people write. the first two posts likely sound familiar.
we must never speak of it again.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
I'm here because they're paying me to do my thing
I've become enamored with nit-picking other people's writing. I even considered nit-picking my own writing, but remembered that it would be considered giving an opinion on material published by my employer and that is not allowed (most people would say 'verboten' right there, but i won't).
This jumped out at me from a story I read this morning about a firefighter rescuing a person who had driven his car into some water.
The writer tells the reader that the firefighter "stripped to his pants and T-shirt" before getting in the water. There are a couple of things that i find interesting about the use of that phrase, and I'll be surprised if i can present this in any sort of way that makes sense.
So to help keep things moving along as best I can, I'll break it down into two separate but parallel but also intersecting points: A. The use of the verb stripped and B. Relevance of the verb stripped relative to its location in the story.
I hate to ruin the ending and all, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up being OK with how the writer uses the phrase.
A. The use of the verb "stripped."
Let's look at the phrase "stripped to his pants and t-shirt." I wouldn't be writing about it if it didn't initially strike me as odd.
To me, that could be reworded to mean "the firefighter took off his shoes, socks and possibly an outer-layer shirt." That to me, is not an act that would qualify as "stripping."
Then I thought about it for a second -- the writer did exactly what every journalism student is taught to do: use strong verbs.
"stripped" clearly moves the action along better than "took off his shoes..."
And how many people besides me are going to be anal retentive enough to actually catch something like that?
So i started to congratulate the writer for doing a pretty good job and i congratulated myself for being able to admit i was wrong.
But then I thought about it further.
Maybe the writer meant that the firefighter had gear on when he reached the scene, so he had an additional layer of clothing to take off, which would amount to stripping.
That, in turn, created another question in mind. How come when I read the article I assumed that the guy who made the rescue just happened to be a firefighter and not that he had been called to the scene as part of his job?
B. Relevance of the word stripped relative to its location in the story
While the rescuer is referred to in the headline and first paragraph as a firefighter, it's not until the third paragraph ('stripped' appears in the second graph) that it becomes evident (but not completely obvious) that the firefighter was called to the scene and was not a convenient witness to the accident.
So why didn't i immediately make the connection that "stripped" indicated him taking off his fire suit?
I was taught by Dee Dee Thurston (who stressed this to me until her eye balls bled) that "real people" go early in the story, officials go later.
My default mechanism told me that since the firefighter was mentioned early, that he must be a "real person." Had he been acting in the scope of his job, he would have been a firefighter first and, thus, the person who drove the car into the water should lead the action of the story with those acting in the scope of their profession being secondary to the story. Ergo (what?), since he was in the lead, he was not acting as a firefighter in an official capacity, and wouldn't have been wearing anything additional that would have necessitated "stripping."
But upon further reading, it is noted that the water temperature was in the mid-40s and that the firefighter was without feeling in legs for some time following the rescue.
That meant that the rescue was made under extraordinary circumstances and thus justified both 1)using the firefighter in the lead and 2) the verb stripped.
nice job by the writer (although a bit more explanation would have saved us all from the headache of this post).
Incidentally, I think this will inspire me to begin a second blog to write about stuff like this, while saving you from having to read it.
This jumped out at me from a story I read this morning about a firefighter rescuing a person who had driven his car into some water.
The writer tells the reader that the firefighter "stripped to his pants and T-shirt" before getting in the water. There are a couple of things that i find interesting about the use of that phrase, and I'll be surprised if i can present this in any sort of way that makes sense.
So to help keep things moving along as best I can, I'll break it down into two separate but parallel but also intersecting points: A. The use of the verb stripped and B. Relevance of the verb stripped relative to its location in the story.
I hate to ruin the ending and all, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up being OK with how the writer uses the phrase.
A. The use of the verb "stripped."
Let's look at the phrase "stripped to his pants and t-shirt." I wouldn't be writing about it if it didn't initially strike me as odd.
To me, that could be reworded to mean "the firefighter took off his shoes, socks and possibly an outer-layer shirt." That to me, is not an act that would qualify as "stripping."
Then I thought about it for a second -- the writer did exactly what every journalism student is taught to do: use strong verbs.
"stripped" clearly moves the action along better than "took off his shoes..."
And how many people besides me are going to be anal retentive enough to actually catch something like that?
So i started to congratulate the writer for doing a pretty good job and i congratulated myself for being able to admit i was wrong.
But then I thought about it further.
Maybe the writer meant that the firefighter had gear on when he reached the scene, so he had an additional layer of clothing to take off, which would amount to stripping.
That, in turn, created another question in mind. How come when I read the article I assumed that the guy who made the rescue just happened to be a firefighter and not that he had been called to the scene as part of his job?
B. Relevance of the word stripped relative to its location in the story
While the rescuer is referred to in the headline and first paragraph as a firefighter, it's not until the third paragraph ('stripped' appears in the second graph) that it becomes evident (but not completely obvious) that the firefighter was called to the scene and was not a convenient witness to the accident.
So why didn't i immediately make the connection that "stripped" indicated him taking off his fire suit?
I was taught by Dee Dee Thurston (who stressed this to me until her eye balls bled) that "real people" go early in the story, officials go later.
My default mechanism told me that since the firefighter was mentioned early, that he must be a "real person." Had he been acting in the scope of his job, he would have been a firefighter first and, thus, the person who drove the car into the water should lead the action of the story with those acting in the scope of their profession being secondary to the story. Ergo (what?), since he was in the lead, he was not acting as a firefighter in an official capacity, and wouldn't have been wearing anything additional that would have necessitated "stripping."
But upon further reading, it is noted that the water temperature was in the mid-40s and that the firefighter was without feeling in legs for some time following the rescue.
That meant that the rescue was made under extraordinary circumstances and thus justified both 1)using the firefighter in the lead and 2) the verb stripped.
nice job by the writer (although a bit more explanation would have saved us all from the headache of this post).
Incidentally, I think this will inspire me to begin a second blog to write about stuff like this, while saving you from having to read it.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
slip away, i can feel it all slip away from me
Ok, check this out. She's old, right? Read that lead again...
A Connecticut woman born to former slaves in the decades following the U.S. Civil War has become the world's oldest person, at 114, according to Guinness World Records.
See that?
The lady is 114, she doesn't need some lame-ass attempt from some writer to make her sound older. She's 114!
2007 (now)-114 (her age)=1892 (her birth year)
Civil War: 1861 to 1865
Never mind the fact that she was born in (Wayne Campbell voice) "a year" not "decades"-- choosing the Civil War as the point of reference was bullshit. She was born nearly 30 years after it was over. Just lame (unless, of course, her amazing longevity truely can be attributed to her multi-decadenal gestation). (i'm also reasonably certain i misspelled several words in that last sentence.)
That's like saying "Seth, who was born in the decades following the Kennedy assassination..."
1892(her birth year) - 1865 (end of war) = 27 years
1980 (my birth year) - 1963 (Kennedy assassination) = 17 years
I was born a full decade closer to the Kennedy assassination than she was to the end of the Civil War. How many people associate Kennedy with the 19 flippin 80's?
Things that happened in 1892 that would have been a better comparison than that lame-ass Civil War shit:
-Rules of basketball published
-Ellis Island opens
-Columbus sails the ocean blue
-Lizzie Bordon chops up stuff...people mostly
-Grover Cleveland elected president
Just crappy writing. and if anybody knows crappy writing, it's me.
A Connecticut woman born to former slaves in the decades following the U.S. Civil War has become the world's oldest person, at 114, according to Guinness World Records.
See that?
The lady is 114, she doesn't need some lame-ass attempt from some writer to make her sound older. She's 114!
2007 (now)-114 (her age)=1892 (her birth year)
Civil War: 1861 to 1865
Never mind the fact that she was born in (Wayne Campbell voice) "a year" not "decades"-- choosing the Civil War as the point of reference was bullshit. She was born nearly 30 years after it was over. Just lame (unless, of course, her amazing longevity truely can be attributed to her multi-decadenal gestation). (i'm also reasonably certain i misspelled several words in that last sentence.)
That's like saying "Seth, who was born in the decades following the Kennedy assassination..."
1892(her birth year) - 1865 (end of war) = 27 years
1980 (my birth year) - 1963 (Kennedy assassination) = 17 years
I was born a full decade closer to the Kennedy assassination than she was to the end of the Civil War. How many people associate Kennedy with the 19 flippin 80's?
Things that happened in 1892 that would have been a better comparison than that lame-ass Civil War shit:
-Rules of basketball published
-Ellis Island opens
-Columbus sails the ocean blue
-Lizzie Bordon chops up stuff...people mostly
-Grover Cleveland elected president
Just crappy writing. and if anybody knows crappy writing, it's me.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
And i ain't seen the sunshine since I don't know when
I was going to devote this entire blog to television shows, but there was a glare in my rearview mirror on the drive to work this morning.
This was literally (and i mean literally as in "literally," not literally as in "figuratively" like some people like to use it much to my chagrin) the first time in two weeks i had seen the sun. Just thought it warrants a mention.
And now on to television.
Started watching "Deal or No Deal" the other day. Really like the premise of the game, and enjoy factoring the odds and all that while watching.
But, bobdamn, do i hate the contestants.
I don't know how they find such annoying people and their very annoying friends and family. I start out interested in the game and playing along, but by the end i'm rooting against the contestant more than anything.
i don't know how long i can keep watching with such a high annoyance level.
Not much for reality television, but i rather enjoy Top Chef on Bravo. The two people i was rooting for were booted last night (althought i wasn't awake to see the end). Now i don't know if i want to watch next week's finale because i'm going to drop-kick a puppy if Marcel wins.
One of my favorite series of books, Jim Butcher's Dresden Files, is now a tv show on Sci-Fi.
don't like the dresden character. too rugged/macho looking. not nearly clumsy/funny enough. definitely a noticeable lack of humor in the show. to be an hour long, the first half should be a lot funnier.
not enough incidental magic stuff (yes, it's about a wizard). he needs to do more of the little stupid spells instead of just blabbering on about the high council then using some lame doom box at the end.
too much father/flashback stuff.
it was basically a detective show with a cop-out "blow the bad guy up" ending. needs to boost the cleverness factor a lot.
otherwise, it was watchable.
I made the mistake of letting Courtney watch Friday Night Lights several weeks ago. Now that I'm ready to quit watching it because of the unbelievable football stuff (although last night's episode was infinitely better as far as that goes), Courtney is addicted to all the soap opera crap involved.
This was literally (and i mean literally as in "literally," not literally as in "figuratively" like some people like to use it much to my chagrin) the first time in two weeks i had seen the sun. Just thought it warrants a mention.
And now on to television.
Started watching "Deal or No Deal" the other day. Really like the premise of the game, and enjoy factoring the odds and all that while watching.
But, bobdamn, do i hate the contestants.
I don't know how they find such annoying people and their very annoying friends and family. I start out interested in the game and playing along, but by the end i'm rooting against the contestant more than anything.
i don't know how long i can keep watching with such a high annoyance level.
Not much for reality television, but i rather enjoy Top Chef on Bravo. The two people i was rooting for were booted last night (althought i wasn't awake to see the end). Now i don't know if i want to watch next week's finale because i'm going to drop-kick a puppy if Marcel wins.
One of my favorite series of books, Jim Butcher's Dresden Files, is now a tv show on Sci-Fi.
don't like the dresden character. too rugged/macho looking. not nearly clumsy/funny enough. definitely a noticeable lack of humor in the show. to be an hour long, the first half should be a lot funnier.
not enough incidental magic stuff (yes, it's about a wizard). he needs to do more of the little stupid spells instead of just blabbering on about the high council then using some lame doom box at the end.
too much father/flashback stuff.
it was basically a detective show with a cop-out "blow the bad guy up" ending. needs to boost the cleverness factor a lot.
otherwise, it was watchable.
I made the mistake of letting Courtney watch Friday Night Lights several weeks ago. Now that I'm ready to quit watching it because of the unbelievable football stuff (although last night's episode was infinitely better as far as that goes), Courtney is addicted to all the soap opera crap involved.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
i used to love it, but i don't believe in school no more
Besides the obvious events like my wedding and...well, my wedding, i guess...the happiest I've ever been around a female was at the LSU-Ole Miss football game in 2003 in Oxford, Miss.
World-famous douchetard Eli Manning was supposed to lead the Rebels to the promised land. but ended up on his butt and all was right in the world as they lost again.
Right after the deciding play. i turned around and saw a woman in ole miss garb crying. It was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. To quote Cartman after he cooked Scott Tenorman's parents in chili and fed it to him: "Yes, yes, oh let me taste your tears. your tears are so tasty and sweet. oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness. yummy! yummy!"
If you could ever enjoy watching another person's suffering on the level i did that night, you're going to love this video from NBX Sports :
Why do people insist on calling hypothetical places of perpetual solitude "desert islands?"
how in the hell do you have a desert island? an island, by it's definition is surrounded by water. it's kind of hard to have something that is both a desert and an island.
it's "deserted island," people. as in, there's no civilization on it. dumbasses.
speaking of calling things stuff, i heard someone refer to Les Miserables as "Les Mis" today.
how many times do you have to read or see that to call it Les Mis?
I've never read it, seen it, or have any clue what it's about. So do i have to pronouce it by its full name?
or even worse, am i allowed to pronounce it "Lay Mizerahb" even though i know nothing about it, or do i have to call it "Less miserables?"
any help would be appreciated.
World-famous douchetard Eli Manning was supposed to lead the Rebels to the promised land. but ended up on his butt and all was right in the world as they lost again.
Right after the deciding play. i turned around and saw a woman in ole miss garb crying. It was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. To quote Cartman after he cooked Scott Tenorman's parents in chili and fed it to him: "Yes, yes, oh let me taste your tears. your tears are so tasty and sweet. oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness. yummy! yummy!"
If you could ever enjoy watching another person's suffering on the level i did that night, you're going to love this video from NBX Sports :
***
Why do people insist on calling hypothetical places of perpetual solitude "desert islands?"
how in the hell do you have a desert island? an island, by it's definition is surrounded by water. it's kind of hard to have something that is both a desert and an island.
it's "deserted island," people. as in, there's no civilization on it. dumbasses.
***
speaking of calling things stuff, i heard someone refer to Les Miserables as "Les Mis" today.
how many times do you have to read or see that to call it Les Mis?
I've never read it, seen it, or have any clue what it's about. So do i have to pronouce it by its full name?
or even worse, am i allowed to pronounce it "Lay Mizerahb" even though i know nothing about it, or do i have to call it "Less miserables?"
any help would be appreciated.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Freecos?
man, it's been almost a week already. where to begin?
Of course, I was obviously pleased with the results of the sugar bowl.
and i'm not real happy with saban taking the alabama job. i can understand leaving LSU for the NFL if it's truly your dream. and i can understand leaving the NFL because it's not what you expected/wanted. but if you leave LSU for the right reasons, you don't take a job with a school in their freaking division.
i had insomnia pretty bad over the stretch of a few days between christmas and new year's. Check out this joke i thought of while drinking wine at 4 a.m. to try and knock myself out:
What vegetable goes best with extra duck?
Asparagoose!
oh man, that's awesome. if you look closely, you'll see that there are actually two jokes in there.
I kind of thought the whole House-drug arrest problem worked itself out a little too nicely on House last night, but all-in-all it was an excellent episode. i chortled a couple of times. easily the best show on television right now.
i can't promise i will be there on opening night, but i will see this movie...
and just because i'm so happy about it, a little classic lagniappe...
Of course, I was obviously pleased with the results of the sugar bowl.
and i'm not real happy with saban taking the alabama job. i can understand leaving LSU for the NFL if it's truly your dream. and i can understand leaving the NFL because it's not what you expected/wanted. but if you leave LSU for the right reasons, you don't take a job with a school in their freaking division.
i had insomnia pretty bad over the stretch of a few days between christmas and new year's. Check out this joke i thought of while drinking wine at 4 a.m. to try and knock myself out:
What vegetable goes best with extra duck?
Asparagoose!
oh man, that's awesome. if you look closely, you'll see that there are actually two jokes in there.
I kind of thought the whole House-drug arrest problem worked itself out a little too nicely on House last night, but all-in-all it was an excellent episode. i chortled a couple of times. easily the best show on television right now.
i can't promise i will be there on opening night, but i will see this movie...
and just because i'm so happy about it, a little classic lagniappe...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)