Pet peeves of mine this morning. God, I hate that SF Chronicle radio ad for classified ads, only because it bugs me that the woman answering the phone says “chello”? I mean who the hell says “chello” Isn’t it Hello? Is this some new way of saying Hello that I’m blissfully unaware of?
I hate when people say “often” and they hard pronounce the “T”. This is a relatively new phenomenon. No one in England says often with an over annunciated “T”, and no one said the word this way ten years ago. Why are people saying it now? I asked my acting speech teacher, who was a stickler for speaking correct English, and he said it was so totally wrong and people are over annunciating the “T” to sound intelligent. Whenever I hear someone saying it, and everyone seems to be saying it lately, I think of that person as snooty and snobby, and trying to prove to other people that they’re intelligent. And if they’re trying to prove they’re intelligent, it must mean they think they’re stupid. And you know what, they’re right.
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Monday, November 25, 2002
I'm at 41,881 words for Nanowrimo and back on schedule. Unlike last year when I only was behind a couple of times in my word count, I've spent most of this year's Nanowrimo always being behind and having to play catch up. The loss of a fully functioning computer for three weeks didn't help me either.
So many participants have already passed the 50K mark. I have half a mind to write more every day, just so I can finish early. My writing limit seems to be 5,000 words. I think Stephen King said in his book "On Writing", that he wrote 10K words a day. I don't know how he does it, and the only explanation I can come up with is 1) his only job is to write and 2) he's been doing it so much longer than I have.
Working a full time job really does take up alot of my energy, energy that I could be devoting to writing. Still, 5,000 words a day isn't that bad for a day's worth of writing, but those 5,000 words don't come easy. The first 3,000 words pretty much flow out, and the last 2,000 I have to really figh to get out. 1,667 words a day is by comparison relatively easy compared to the 5,000 word days I've been forced to do.
And on November 30, I still won't be done with my novel. I think the Nanowrimo folks wanted a fully completed novel, and my novel will be completed, but the story just isn't finished yet. By November 30, I will have finished the the first part of the story, but I still have parts 2 and 3 to go. Part one of this story could stand on its own as a mini novel or be part of serial novel. Dickens wrote this way I believe.
I definitely intend to finish parts two and three though, only because I'm curious to see how it all works out. I mean I know how the story ends, I just don't know the details and it's the details that I'm most interested in knowing.
So many participants have already passed the 50K mark. I have half a mind to write more every day, just so I can finish early. My writing limit seems to be 5,000 words. I think Stephen King said in his book "On Writing", that he wrote 10K words a day. I don't know how he does it, and the only explanation I can come up with is 1) his only job is to write and 2) he's been doing it so much longer than I have.
Working a full time job really does take up alot of my energy, energy that I could be devoting to writing. Still, 5,000 words a day isn't that bad for a day's worth of writing, but those 5,000 words don't come easy. The first 3,000 words pretty much flow out, and the last 2,000 I have to really figh to get out. 1,667 words a day is by comparison relatively easy compared to the 5,000 word days I've been forced to do.
And on November 30, I still won't be done with my novel. I think the Nanowrimo folks wanted a fully completed novel, and my novel will be completed, but the story just isn't finished yet. By November 30, I will have finished the the first part of the story, but I still have parts 2 and 3 to go. Part one of this story could stand on its own as a mini novel or be part of serial novel. Dickens wrote this way I believe.
I definitely intend to finish parts two and three though, only because I'm curious to see how it all works out. I mean I know how the story ends, I just don't know the details and it's the details that I'm most interested in knowing.
Interesting article from the National Revie Online about The Possible Collapse of the Government in Iran. There are many whispers around the net, that the true source and supporter of the all the muslim terrorists and Bin Laden, is Iran.
The following was taken from a DOD transcript of Secretary Rumsfeld En Route to Prague, Czech Republic. It's interesting to hear Rumsy speak about what other countries are offering to do, in the event we go to war with Iraq.
I love reading the DOD transcripts whenever Rumsy speaks. You learn so much more about the Iraq situation by reading these transcripts, than you do reading or listening to the news. My college profs were right when they said, always use original source materials and never trust secondary sources.
<[Q: Mr. Secretary you said you'd been getting offers every day from other countries to help disarm Iraq by force could you talk at all about the details of those offers? Do you expect further such offers at the NATO summit]?
Rumsfeld: I don't know that I've said we're getting offers everyday. I may have, if I did, I think we're getting more accurately to say we're getting responses every day. And they fit into a variety of categories, one category is That we would like to be helpful and start planning now in the event that force is used with or without the UN resolution. Another category is we would like to be helpful and begin planning now but only if there is a UN resolution indicating that it's appropriate for member states to use appropriate force. Still others are saying we are not in a position to cooperate with Iraq but on the other hand we would be willing to provide assistance in other ways. That might be force protection in a host country. It might be back-fill and support for some of the things we're doing elsewhere in the world where as they don't feel they'd like to be involved in the event force is used in Iraq but they could be helpful to us and free up some of our capabilities.
A forth category would be we don't want to help. A fifth category would be in the event force is used and the regime is changed we would like to cooperate with a coalition of the willing after the fact to assist Iraq from a humanitarian standpoint, and that type of thing, like so many countries are doing in Afghanistan. So they're these various baskets and a large number of countries have responded to those and a recently some additional inquiries have gone out and there are a number of countries that are in the planning process.
I think one of the reason so many countries are currently involved with planning that they recognize that there would not have been a UN resolution absent the potential of the use of force. That the build up that's taken place and the cooperative arrangements that are being fashioned among a coalition or the willing reinforces the diplomacy and creates a much better environment for the united nations because it ought to persuade the Iraqi's that the united nations and the coalition countries are serious. >
I'm dying to know which country is in what basket. Like who would volunteer to rebuild Iraq in the case of a regime change, but wouldn't to get involved in the war? To the victor goes the spoils? Who is the victor in Iraq's case, and who would have the most to gain by being involved in Iraq's rebuilding. My guess is Iran, Saudi Arabia maybe.
I love reading the DOD transcripts whenever Rumsy speaks. You learn so much more about the Iraq situation by reading these transcripts, than you do reading or listening to the news. My college profs were right when they said, always use original source materials and never trust secondary sources.
<[Q: Mr. Secretary you said you'd been getting offers every day from other countries to help disarm Iraq by force could you talk at all about the details of those offers? Do you expect further such offers at the NATO summit]?
Rumsfeld: I don't know that I've said we're getting offers everyday. I may have, if I did, I think we're getting more accurately to say we're getting responses every day. And they fit into a variety of categories, one category is That we would like to be helpful and start planning now in the event that force is used with or without the UN resolution. Another category is we would like to be helpful and begin planning now but only if there is a UN resolution indicating that it's appropriate for member states to use appropriate force. Still others are saying we are not in a position to cooperate with Iraq but on the other hand we would be willing to provide assistance in other ways. That might be force protection in a host country. It might be back-fill and support for some of the things we're doing elsewhere in the world where as they don't feel they'd like to be involved in the event force is used in Iraq but they could be helpful to us and free up some of our capabilities.
A forth category would be we don't want to help. A fifth category would be in the event force is used and the regime is changed we would like to cooperate with a coalition of the willing after the fact to assist Iraq from a humanitarian standpoint, and that type of thing, like so many countries are doing in Afghanistan. So they're these various baskets and a large number of countries have responded to those and a recently some additional inquiries have gone out and there are a number of countries that are in the planning process.
I think one of the reason so many countries are currently involved with planning that they recognize that there would not have been a UN resolution absent the potential of the use of force. That the build up that's taken place and the cooperative arrangements that are being fashioned among a coalition or the willing reinforces the diplomacy and creates a much better environment for the united nations because it ought to persuade the Iraqi's that the united nations and the coalition countries are serious. >
I'm dying to know which country is in what basket. Like who would volunteer to rebuild Iraq in the case of a regime change, but wouldn't to get involved in the war? To the victor goes the spoils? Who is the victor in Iraq's case, and who would have the most to gain by being involved in Iraq's rebuilding. My guess is Iran, Saudi Arabia maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)