I'm just going to flat out say this...
Jul. 21st, 2009 07:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Anybody should feel free, when I'm blogging obsessively on a subject in the middle of the day and there are no stories out yet, to leave a comment saying words to the effects of, "Do you realize how much time you're spending on this?" or "Um, shouldn't you be writing?"
Because the answer may very well be no on the first and yes on the second. My reminders-to-self only work if I pay attention to them, and if I get really focused on something I may not notice them, or I may tell myself "I'll spend five more minutes on this", which might work if not for the fact that if I could tell when I'm spending "just five more minutes" I wouldn't need the reminder regimen.
There's no reason to be nasty about it, but you don't have to do a lot of bowing and scraping about it, which is probably going to come off with the opposite effect of what you intended. Just being upfront. I'm trying to be upfront about the issues I have. I won't snap and bite anybody's head off for noticing that I'm distracted and giving me a short and simple reminder.
Because the answer may very well be no on the first and yes on the second. My reminders-to-self only work if I pay attention to them, and if I get really focused on something I may not notice them, or I may tell myself "I'll spend five more minutes on this", which might work if not for the fact that if I could tell when I'm spending "just five more minutes" I wouldn't need the reminder regimen.
There's no reason to be nasty about it, but you don't have to do a lot of bowing and scraping about it, which is probably going to come off with the opposite effect of what you intended. Just being upfront. I'm trying to be upfront about the issues I have. I won't snap and bite anybody's head off for noticing that I'm distracted and giving me a short and simple reminder.
Re: So random
on 2009-07-22 02:11 am (UTC)"Last night I met my fiance's parents, the president of the United States[,] and a hooker."
Without the comma after the second item, it might read a bit differently.
But I am of the school that contends that if a comma is not the standard practice then the ambiguity remains because we'll all be using different standards to figure out what is or isn't ambiguous.
In my quote (which is a song lyric by Liz Phair), the qualities of "vulnerable and luscious" aren't paired together any more explicitly than "vulnerable and cool" or "tall and cool" or any other combination. I can't think of a single good reason to group them together by omitting a comma.
Re: So random
on 2009-07-22 05:39 am (UTC)