h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just having a nice quiet weekend sleeping late and reading through some boring old newspaper articles...

Also trying to breathe a little life into those Guide entries I started writing the other week. The hardest thing is finding the right balance - writing in an accessible way without making too many sacrifices to simplicity. The worst thing is to insult the intelligence of the reader by not telling them anything new. On the other hand, nobody really *likes* reading on screen - if something looks too involved we tend to skip through it or possibly just ignore it altogether. Thus, writing for the Web generally needs to be shorter and more to the point than more traditional forms of writing...

A difficult balancing act, but a useful discipline to learn, bearing in mind that this is a medium that is obviously here to stay. I find that many of the articles in the Guide tend to err too much on the side of simplicity - too much seems to be sacrificed, to the point where there is often not a great deal of substance there. Then again, I normally find myself tending to the other extreme - 'over-writing', in that amiable, discursive way that works so well on paper but doesn't always quite seem to come off on the Web...

Just a couple of comments here about my perspective on the Guide...

I like the many simple articles. Just because they are so fair in their representation of the ordinary person's voice. Having said that, I can now say the one thing that makes me nuts about the Guide.

Reading over the submission guidelines I was *very* surprised to find "color" "favorite" and something else that escapes me at the moment, *must* be spelled the British way. My instant reaction was indignation. That reaction was compounded by what seems to be a thinly veiled sometime blantant dislike of Americans in more than a few bios and many articles. The use of the term "Merkin" for American completely surprised me since real meaning is quite vulgar. I understand many believe it to be just a way of pronouncing "American," but I think most know the real meaning, too.

I'm rambling. What I am getting at is that I accepted the requirement to spell those "or" words with "our," but grudgingly. Then I read accepted articles with gross spelling and grammar errors. It is one thing to make a spelling error in a journal post or forum entry, but quite another in something that can be edited and even if not edited by the author, should be caught by the ones accepting the piece. That's what makes me nuts. First I am required to spell words in a particular way, but care is not taken to correct obvious errors.

And I will probably catch flack for expressing this opinion. I already opened my mouth once in a forum and complained about a spelling error and I think I forever doomed myself to the doghouse with a particular editor and his/her (I have no idea) friends. But, you started me, Lear.

Zmrzlina,

When I made that comment about 'simplicity' I was referring to simplistic articles, rather than simple ones. I didn't really make that distinction clear. I like to try to keep things simple myself - I'm certainly not arguing in favour of unnecessary complexity, merely that a little more substance would often be nice. After all, it's not often that the 'ordinary person' gets the chance to discourse so freely on a subject they know a certain amount about, so it would seem natural to think they would want to put as much of that across as possible when they get the chance...

As for the submission guidelines... The stipulation re: British English only applies to Approved articles - you still have the rest of the Guide to write in American English or indeed another language altogether, I imagine. Furthermore, I think those guidelines are really there to help the editors, rather than as something we have to pay religious attention to while we're writing. Obviously, it would save them time if you were to submit an article in British English rather than American, but (while I might be wrong) I don't think it would lead to rejection if you didn't - they would simply make the necessary alterations while they were doing the editing.

I think the ruling is fair enough. I know h2g2 has a nice global-wide community - and I must say my own experience has been that people do generally make an effort to foster this - but there has to be some 'standard' language for the more 'official' stuff and I don't really see why it should be American English. After all, it is a British website put together from an idea by a British writer. It's hard enough as it is, in these 'globalised' days, to maintain a sense of one's cultural identity, without giving away such an opportunity...

Besides, I don't remember ever seeing an American website that published text in anything other than the US version of the language, but you don't hear the rest of the world complaining about this. We don't really have a choice but to get on with it... The unfamiliarity of h2g2 is probably more noticeable to you, as an American, simply because the Web is by and large so dominated by US sites - possibly, therefore, when you come across a specifically British one it looks strange to you for this reason. But it's up to those of us in the rest of the world to make sure we don't get completely engulfed by the USA's dominance of global culture...

I agree with you about the variable standard of the editing, though. Someone had a good article on Atheism approved the other week, but when it came out it was hardly recognisable from the original Guide entry - they then had to spend a lot of time trying to clear up misunderstandings that had arisen in forum postings as a result of this, and effectively in the end seems to have more or less disowned the piece. This, it seems, is not an unusual event...

Still. Que sera sera, as they probably don't say in Prague...

Point taken on the British English spelling requirement. It is a British Web site. I do not belong to any other online community like h2g2, so I don't know if there is a US equivalent and if the submission requirements are similar.

However, at the university I attend, it is completely acceptable to use either varitaion of the British or American spelling of "favorite" and "color." This question was raised in an introductory composition class my first semester at the university five years ago. The debate about *not* allowing the British version infuriated me so much, I nearly walked out of the room. I could not believe people would be so narrow-minded as to not allow either spelling of the word since both are perfectly correct. So perhaps this better explains where my thoughts originated from about the use here.

I knew I would open myself to criticism when I posted to your journal entry. I am constantly hearing how no one wants to be "completely engulfed by the USA's dominance of global culture." While I agree on principle that US interests are pervasive and often perverse, I would like to find someplace where the rhetoric aimed more to understanding and less to blame. The majority of US citizens may not be as aware as I hope I am on the subject of globalization, but I do have hope that it will change. Swaying the majority to seeing how destructive globablization _could_ be is not made any easier when the majority is forever on the defensive.

I don't know what they say in Prague, but in Slovakia the mantra is often, "Hope dies last."

I must admit I'm finding it slightly challenging from the psychological point of view, carrying on these conversations on different threads - I almost feel like I'm 'talking' to two different people! So I'll try to reply to both your postings here if I can manage it...

I understand what you mean about defensiveness re : American cultural influence, and I agree it doesn't help matters to take a negative view of things. Resentment doesn't help anybody, and there's no denying that we take a lot that is beneficial from America - most of my favourite writers are American, for example...
But all the same the bottom line is that strength and stability come as much from cultural self-awareness as from economic well-being. Actually, culture can be a kind of 'defence' against hostility from outside, and societies tend to be stronger when they are self-aware and have a sense of themselves. Take the French, for example - I admire the way they take a stand to protect their own language against 'cocacolonisation'. And they are far less susceptible to American-style junk food than we are over here, because of their own sense of themselves as a nation of chefs. That's just one example that comes to mind while I'm sitting here typing away...

I'll keep an eye open for this Anne Plumptre. Is she classed as a Romantic writer? I took a course in Romantic Poetry as an undergraduate, but it focussed mainly on the obvious choices - Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, and the other usual suspects. To tell the truth, as far as literature goes, I come in around the middle of the Nineteenth Century, when people like Dostoyevsky were beginning to gain a sense of the darker side of modernity - this is just around the point where the English novel was beginning its decline, I think. Most of my favourite writers are non-English European (Kafka, Beckett, Joyce), or American writers from the latter part of the Twentieth Century (Burroughs, Pynchon, DeLillo).
Which sort of doesn't do much for my above argument re: 'cultural awareness', now I come to think about it...

Perhaps I can ask a question about American English. The use of the word 'gonna'. Obviously, I hear this often in American film and so forth, and the word has slipped into general usage in this country too, despite the best efforts of English teachers across the country. But would it be correct to use it in written form, say in an exam paper or whatever? I'm a bit confused, as I know Americans tend to pride themselves on their informality, but at the same time I'm not sure that this would be found acceptable on a more 'formal' level...

I've just finished re-reading 'The Dharma Bums', and I would certainly recommend it. There's less of the tortuously long sentence (non)structure and general verbal pyrotechnics than you find in the earlier Kerouac. Actually, I find it a saddening piece of work, because the narrator seems to become increasingly aware that his efforts to attain 'enlightenment' will end in failure (as they did, really). I read it about ten years ago, when I was a miserable teenager, and along with Bob Dylan's 'Blood on the Tracks' it nearly inspired me to pick up roots and do some 'Dharma bumming' around myself. Something made me change my mind - cowardice or common sense, I've never quite established which...

Anyway, have a nice Easter if you're bothered about that sort of thing.

Ahoj, as they almost certainly *do* say in Prague...

Oooo...I'd never use "gonna" in academic or formal writing unless it part of a dialogue. And I am sad to learn it's becoming popular in England. I think using it in a paper here is just asking for the English professor to sharpen the red pencil extra sharp and find every tiny fault. Another bit of slang I don't like is "wanna." One of our exchange students loves both these words and uses them frequently in his letters to me. He even corrected me once when I used "wanna" incorrectly. I had written something like "I wanna dog!" and he wrote back that it didn't make sense because "wanna" means "want to." I do use slang in email and letters, but only when I am quite certain the recipient will understand my meaning, or ask about it.

I did not get to Dostoyevsky or Kaftka in my literature studies. I did get a smattering of non-English speaking European and Japanese writers, but not in traditional literature classes. I took a wonderful class on the Political Novel. The book from that class that comes to mind immediately is Karel Capek, "War With the Newts."

Do I come across as a split personality when I am writing on political matters as opposed to literature?

Now I am feeling a bit like the 'ol "ugly American" because of my rant on the spelling. I still think either spelling should be accepted as standard since both are correct, but I have moved far away from the soapbox and I am not going to push the point again. And I admire the French in their resistance of American junk food, too. I type that as I am drinking a Diet Pepsi and considering pizza for dinner. I am so weak.

We don't "do" Easter in my house. Even when I was a church-going mouse, I didn't get into the whole ritual house cleaning and big family dinners for Easter. I used to buy bunches of daffodils and send the girls out Easter morning delivering them to neighbors, but they are way too old for that now We will just have a regular Sunday. In fact...I will be working.

Cau!

No, you don't come across as a 'split personality' at all. I was talking more about my own difficulties tying up all these different points into one reply...

Karel Capek - is he the fellow who coined the term 'robot', in a play written around the 1910s or 1920s? A sort of expressionist diatribe on the 'dehumanising' of people by technology, something along the lines of 'Metropolis' I suppose - a recurring theme at the time, and ever since for that matter. Or am I thinking of someone completely different? I seem to remember 'robot' is a Czech word that basically just means 'worker' - but once again I might be barking up the wrong tree. I'm in a speculative mood this evening...

I must say you sound a long way removed from the arrogant old 'ugly American'. Anyway, we all know what a dreadful old stereotype that one is. I don't know how you can drink that toxic waste stuff, though. Still - at least it's a diet pepsi...

Adios (thought I'd try something different)...

I don't know how I can drink this toxic waste either! And add to that the buckets of coffee I pour into my system and it's a wonder I am still alive I have promised myself that once school is finished, I will dump the pepsi. At least unitl I start graduate work.

I know "robot" is Czech, but I don't know if it is associated with Capek, but it sure could be. I'll have to investigate that. I love factoids like this!

Oooo...as silly as this may sound, I am so happy I am able to prove the stereotype false. Though...I do think arrogance is awfully strong here. I still hear people saying things like "Those Europeans...don't they know WE saved their asses in the War!" Makes me shudder. But I usually bit my tongue since I am not good with sharp retorts. There should be a political science class called Sharp Retort 101. I have already requested a class called Question Asking 101 that would be required of ALL freshmen.

Back to work for me. Caio!

I have two contradictory pictures, garnered from careful research in the British tabloid media, of the average American. One is of a fanatical health-watcher who gets up at 6am to go jogging, makes a religion out of calorie watching and goes around having people executed for so much as looking at a cigarette. The other, of course, is an overweight, junk food addict who refuses to even walk to his/her car, preferring to stay in and watch bad horror movies...

Just two more of the colourful stereotypes that some of us British have of Americans. But I think it's interesting that we seem able to hold both images in our minds at the same time. Some kind of Orwellian 'doublethink' going on there, perhaps. Coupled with a certain amount of resentment...

Toodle-pip

Toodle-pip? Oh Lear! That is awful. Sounds like something a parent would say to a toddler..."Do you have to toodle, pip?"

About those stereotypes...let me see...I do get up at 5:30 a.m., but not to jog...just a quick walk to the lighthouse and back. I only count calories when they total under 10. And I am trying real, real hard to be much more tolerant with smokers. Of the other stereotype, I love pizza, which is junk food only because it comes in a cardboard box.

Colorful stereotypes of Brits...hmmm...I can only think of two extremes. Eliza Dolittle and Henry Higgins And I have been told British men have a terrible time talking to women. Something I am tempted to believe after reading a mostly funny bunch of forums involving a "cult" of Venii. Do a search on the acronym "N.A.V.A.L." and you'll find it. But don't think you can read through it quickly 'cause it goes on and on and through many forums. I wish I had been around when it was in full swing. I would have really enjoyed masquerading as a Venus

I'm looking into this N.A.V.A.L. thing... I'll get back to you another time, with that one...

Contrary to the dreadful reputation we English males seem to have abroad, Zmrzlina, I don't think that communication between the genders is worse here than anywhere else, to be honest. I belong to the quiet, reflective type myself, but then I notice that many women also belong to this category, so what's the problem. Plenty to go round on either side, as far as I can see, for those that can be bothered...

I see there's been another shooting in America, this time in Washington, though mercifully it seems no one's been killed this time. It's at times like this that I'm glad to live in a country where handguns are banned. Not that it stops *all* of the idiots in the country (eg, mad Norfolk farmers) from owning and using them, of course - just most of the idiots...
I also notice that Presidential hopeful Gore is very much in favour of tighter gun regulation, while the other fellow hums and hahs on the subject but everyone knows he's basically funded by the gun lobby anyway... Do you think there's been a general shift of opinion in America towards gun control, after all these awful events over the last year or so? I mean to say, it can't be too much of a vote loser otherwise Gore presumably wouldn't be speaking out on the subject at all. But I have an idea that in America people don't take too kindly to too many restrictions from central government...

(Toodle-pip was a feeble attempt at humour that didn't quite come off. It's not exactly a contemporary British expression, not around these parts anyway. I wouldn't recommend using it...)

Lear...I was only teasing about the British male thing. I hope I didn't offend.

I am so frustrated with the gun law issue in this country. And no one will talk about it without ending in a screaming match. The shooting in Washington may prove to be an interesting twist on the usual. These are black kids and I am willing to bet there will be a great deal less coverage and rhetoric than what came from the Columbine shooting. I hope I am wrong, but I have an awful feeling this will be a 7 hour wonder and we won't hear much more about it.

The Second Amendment is yet another example of US citizens demanding their "right" without understanding what rights entail. The "right" to bear arms has jeopardized the common good of this country. I am not saying all guns should be outlawed, although I would love to see that happen. What I am saying is the time has come to stop being so damned individualistic. No one needs handguns. If society has become so bad that people do not feel safe without a handgun, then change society and don't crawl into the "protect my own" attitude. Guns are a symptom of a society withdrawing from seeking solutions with public discourse. Not debate. We have debated this to death. I want to see a discourse where no one is allowed to use the word "right." We have too many "rights" in this country and not enough responsibility.

I think the average citizen wants tighter gun control, but the right always flashes their trump card...you have the "right" to bear arms. Threaten an American's rights and s/he will back down quick. And gun control is a flash issue in the campaign. I don't think it will be a deciding factor. These shootings happen in other people's towns and even though there are more and more incidents, in a country this big it will always be someone else's problem. I am not usually so cynical. This is just one of those problems that can't be solved by addressing the obvious. It lays much deeper and unfortunately, neither of the candidates seem likely to want to tackle something that requires a basic change in attitude.

I have rambled. And reading over what I wrote, I am not even sure I make any strong points at all. Just more of the same. ::sigh::::

No, Zmrzlina, I wasn't offended by the English male comments, but it *is* a tired old stereotype and I like to put people right when I get the chance. I may have been a bit heavy-handed in my response - if so, I apologise. Anyway, I suppose I was asking for it with those comments about American fitness and dietary habits...

I sympathise with your views on gun control, but do you think this is still a minority view in America or is there not a growing consensus that something needs to be done about the problem? Obviously, I'm speaking as an 'outsider' here, but I get the impression that people in America *are* broadly in favour of some kind of gun legislation, but that the debate gets stifled at the level of government and the mass media by people / organisations who have political / economic interests in doing so. I don't want to sound cynical about your democracy, but it seems to me that the problem is more at the institutional level rather than the level of popular opinion. Then again, as I say, mine is an outsider's perspective...

But I agree absolutely with what you say about rights, etc. What a great line there - 'We have too many rights in this country and not enough responsibilities'. Tony Blair's speechwriter couldn't have done better... (Joke )... Really, if we don't approach our 'rights' with a reasonable level of enlightenment and maturity, and try to use them reasonably intelligently, then we scarcely deserve to keep them at all - in fact, 'rights' used irresponsibly can be a positive menace to other people, to the environment, to life on earth generally...

This is where education comes in, I suppose. But I think we have a responsibility to educate ourselves into positive attitudes and out of tired old mindsets, and that it's basically a waste of time waiting for our governments to do it for us. We're the ones who need to be educating *them*, if anything...

I don't understand the Tony Blair speechwriter joke. Please forgive my ignorance of UK politics. I should be much better informed, but I spend too much time reading about what is going on in transitional European states and I tend to backburner the UK. Anyway..do you mean that rights and responsibilities are a political issue in the UK, too?

I hear the people in this country saying they want tighter gun control, but I don't think they are willing to actually make the move from saying it to doing it. Everyone wants to prevent the bad people from having guns, but they will turn around and say "That means it is fine for me because I am not a bad person." And it goes all the way to nuclear weapons. We don't want anyone else to have them, but the government is fighting to break an international treaty so that we can build a warning system in Alaska. Granted...that is not a weapon system, but it does put the Russians at a disadvantage. And I have no doubt at all that this "small" warning system to prevent "rogue" states from attacking will be increased in very short time. Give the government an inch and they will take it all. It is continued zero-sum game, our gain at another's loss. And gun control is zero-sum game on the national level. Those who gain the right to "bear arms" do so at the expense of those who do not want guns. The cost of the good people having guns is that the bad have more guns. I just don't believe this issue is going to make any difference at all in the campaign. More children will die. More women will be stalked and murdered. More men will argue with bullets than words and end up dead. And people will say it is horrible, it has to stop, but they will close their doors tighter and retreat into isolationism.

There very well may be political/economic interests in keeping the majority voice down on gun control. I tend to not go for that theory, though. I work in a tiny little convenience store while I am in school so I talk to lots of ordinary people and I really do think they are afraid. If this "right" is removed, what will be next. Now that I write that, I can see how the media feeds that...and how politics feeds the media. And the economy feeds everything. So I guess you do have a point in saying the debate gets stifled. However, I still feel the people in this country have retreated from politics and it is just easier to say, "It doesn't concern me."

Education...yes, that is what has to change. Politics *are* everyday life and that's where the education needs to start. Individual initiative in *wanting* to know more is not something that can be taught, though. How does one motivate people to want to know about things that don't seem to have anything to do with their everyday lives? I don't know. I have an extremely positive attitude on how to make the world a better place. It is strange that I don't have the same positiveness about my own country, isn't it? Maybe I am beginning to listen too much to what others say about the US and I am giving in.

I read your most recent "life less laboursome" entry and I like what you have to say. It plays into the responsibility theme here, too. I refuse to thank any supreme being for the accomplishments of my life. If I am to accept the failures, I sure as hell will take full credit for the successes! At least that is what I remember thinking when I read the piece (and if I am remembering the entry all wrong I'll come back and post a disclaimer )

I used to think I was the only person on h2g2 who actually bothered to read other people's journal articles. Now I know at least there are two of us...

If you have a sceptical turn of mind why don't you pop along sometime to the elegantly named Freedom From Faith Foundation, a sceptics corner and general resource for the thinking researcher @ http://www.h2g2.com/A254314 They're always on the lookout for new members - you even get to name your own 'chair'. I'm the Minister for Silence, as a matter of fact, which is a bit ironic bearing in mind the length of some of these here postings...

I think there are reasons to be optimistic about people's motivation for self-education and so forth. The Internet obviously has great potential to let us all 'open out' onto the world rather than using technology to 'escape' from it, as has often been the case with technologies like film and TV. I like the fact that the University is no longer the only place where people can develop sophisticated and well-informed world views - we can do this nowadays simply by communicating with one another across the world via email and so forth...

It seems to me that people today are better informed about the world than ever before, and one senses a general co-operative mood in the air, a will to get along with one another, which is partly the result of the fact that capitalism and global telecommunications today actually *force* us to be liberal-minded and more open to alternate realities, and to other people's points of view. There is no longer any possibility of hiding away in some obscure ideology or dark corner of the world - naturally, that's difficult for some people to accept (eg fundamentalist Christians; socialists, if there are any left; hardline rightwingers), but essentially such people seem to be in the minority and very much against the general grain of the times.

I find that educated people ten years younger than me (I'm in my late twenties) know far more about subjects like ecology than I ever did at their age, and movements against racism and other forms of discrimination (eg gender, disability) seem to have become 'mainstream' in a way which was not the case even as recently as a decade ago. And, obviously, they leave old(ish) farts like me standing when it comes to contemporary technologies such as this stuff we're using here...

Who knows, maybe we could be on the brink of a new, more democratic world order populated by independent-minded individuals who know how to take their chances and do their little bit to help one another when they get the chance. But then again I've just had a good dinner and I'm in a nice easy-going kind of mood this evening. Last week I was reading Samuel Beckett and trying to come to terms with the inevitability of global disintegration and destruction. So, who knows...

It does seem like the journals go pretty much unread, doesn't it? Or when they are posted to, it is more of a hello and that's that. I like the idea of taking journal entries into a discussion.

I've seen the FFFF and read a bit there. It is something I will look more at when I return from my trip. I am not all sure I would have anything to contribute as an official member, though. My chair would be something like Minister of Wallflowers

Careful with comments like "old(ish) farts like me" when you are late twenties and your reader is 42 But you are right about technology and youth. They do amaze me. And most are awful patient with me while I am trying to learn.

Samuel Beckett is yet another author I should have read but haven't. My literary career at the University of Massachusetts was less than sterling. I have a huge list of books to read and I will never get to the bottom, but I will sure enjoy working my way down.

Hello, me again. I seem to be doing a lot of apologising this evening. I'm sorry about the 'old(ish) farts' comment - I hope you appreciate it was meant in jest. Ageism always seems to me the most irrational of all irrational prejudices, simply because it affects everyone sooner or later...

If you ever feel like trying to get to grips with Samuel Beckett, I would recommend a series of short stories he wrote around the late forties, when he was sort of 'warming up' for the three novels that eventually became known as the 'Trilogy' - they're generally published together under a title like 'Four Novellas'. They have much the same kind of style and world-view as the 'Trilogy', but I find them rather more readable and I think they serve well today as an introduction to them. Beckett generally tends to be regarded as a pessimist, and I can see where people get this view from because his writing can be a bit sombre sometimes, but I personally think it's more accurate to see him as something like a 'radical agnostic' - he seems to have been trying to show that ultimately nothing can be known for certain. But that's just my view...

Closer inspection of the other thread reveals that today is / was the day for your presentation. (It *is* Thursday today, isn't it? I've been off work for a few days, seem to have lost track of time a little)... Anyway, I hope it went / goes well - you should certainly have enough background knowledge to knock 'em dead, so to speak. (Now I feel bad about making all those long postings - if I'd noticed before, I would have waited a few days before bombarding you with all that stuff)...

I'll stop here before I get carried away - I'm writing one for the other forum as well...

Goodness...h2g2 looks much better in Explorer! I usually use Netscape but it is being grouchy tonight. The reply window in Explorer actually fits without needing to use the horizontal scroll bar.

Oh yes! I understood the age thing was in jest. And I was not seriously warning when I mentioned it. I am perfectly happy with my age. I am 42, and 42 is the answer to everything, right? At 42 I am getting my first degree; found a direction for my lifelong interest in international relations; and will have my dream vacation. Not bad at all

I have a tiny cloth covered notebook I carry with me at all times that is filled with titles of books I want to read. I keep it with me in case I run across a used bookstore. I've added the Beckett short story series. Thank you, Lear. The books I've most enjoyed are ones recommended by friends.

And my presentation went well, thank you. My professor is trying to convince me to research Christianity as the very first global civil society (those forum topics of the IMF and globalization are only parts of the main paper). He says Christianity was "beautiful" in the beginning and not at all like it is now. I don't doubt his opinion, but I am not so sure I could get my heart into researching it. There is another professor writing a book on the topic, though, and if she wanted to pay me...well, that would be a different story I worked with her last year on another book she wrote and ended up seeing my name on the cover, right under hers. Very cool.

Off to the next post...

Well, 42 sounds like the perfect age - I'm looking forward to it already. And, yes, I forgot the Douglas Adams link - is that why you joined h2g2?

I'm glad to hear the presentation went well... But if I actually *was* in that class ( ) I think I'd agree with your classmates in the general counsel against burn-out. After all, one has to be in a strong(ish) position oneself before one can do anything for others. No use being a martyr...

I didn't get that 'whitewashed fences' joke, by the way - is that a Mark Twain reference? I've never read him at all, but from what I've heard he sounds like a bit of a soul mate - satirist, heretic, all-round foolish wise person. And he sounds like someone who didn't have too many illusions about humanity...

I've been playing chess online all bloody afternoon, and I'm starting to see boxes in front of my eyes. Won 3 lost 3, one aborted - about as 'average' as an average could be, really. I thought I'd quit while I wasn't behind, so to speak. This is how obsessions begin...

I think I'm getting my forums mixed up a bit here, but no matter. Better get this sent off before it all decides to delete itself again...