The site being behind the name and in the post says it all.
This looks a lot like the 'Camping Pancakes' recipe a roommate taught me lo, many moons ago now.
The differences: oil instead of butter, the addition of a dash of salt, and the fluid can be anything--buttermilk, milk, water...
Called Camping Pancakes because you would mix the dry ingredients and take them camping, adding the wet ingredients on site. I know from experience that you can forget the egg and still get a good pancake. (Actually, I know from experience you can do all sorts of dreadful things to this recipe and still get a decent result. This probably says equally dreadful things about my cooking, all of which are true.)
Will have to try your version, though.
Xopher @ #317: You probably were 5'8". You might yet be again. People get shorter as they age because the disks in their backs compress (I've lost at least an inch over the last twenty years myself.)
I'm told you can stretch and 'decompress' your back with exercise (yoga, maybe?) but I don't know how effective it is.
"You asked for it/had it coming/deserved it." Or, more colorfully, "I have the right to slap your face after someone else has broken your arm."
"Is English your first language?"
"But if you only look at it like this..." (Followed by detailed explaination of blatantly slanted world view in favor of the speaker. Extra points if physical laws and/or rules of the RPG must be broken to accept said world view as true.)
(Convoluted logic train by which I 'prove' your point supports mine.)
Any pop comment by a non-expert in psychology.
"If you don't like it, get out!"
"Yeah, yeah. YOU'RE right. I'M wrong. Satisfied, yet?"
"Your (spelling, grammar, paragraphing, etc.) sucks, so I'm going to ignore the truly good points you have raised." (Especially effective when the problem is minor, such as a missed apostrophe.)
"You started this. I'm finishing it."
Dawno @125: Your story is one of Patricia Cornwell's novels featuring Andy Brazil. The character collecting the trivets was the mayor's (?) wife, who had some sort of obsessive-compulsive thing going about acquiring them.
Spatula: any long, handled kitchen thingie for flipping things in pans, on grills, or onto plates. Also rubber scrapers. The long, metal dull knife-like thing was a cake froster.
Square cloth thingies for protecting one's hands against heat: potholders. Square things with pockets for the hands were also potholders.
Thick fabric gloves for protecting one's hands against heat: oven mitts.
Solid flat things, footed or otherwise, used to protect countertops from hot pots and pans: a word I've spent a couple of days now trying to remember, but haven't. It was not 'trivet', because that's something other families had. Probably hotpad. Possibly potholder. Cloth potholders got used for the purpose a lot, too.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Duh.
I have Vietnamese cilantro duking it out next to peppermint, and the two seem to be evenly matched.
The chives, however, look to be seriously intimidated.
*With glowing hearts we see thee rise,*
*The True North strong and free!*
And where it's not free, 7% GST (6% after July 1, assuming the retailers can figure out Revenue Canada's regulations on their own.)
Plus provincial sales tax. Which Alberta doesn't have! (Hint, hint.)
candle: 'hds crtr' is probably 'hideous creature'.
I made the front page? EEP!
Another one from the local writer's group: "Don't tell Jane! Shed freak!"
This one annoyed a friend so much that she made a slew of LJ icons around it and passed them out hither and yon. If you see one ('Could it be... SHED FREAKS?') that's what the joke is.
Re: heiroglyphic/hieroglyphic: dagnabbit. Another one for the personal "Check this" list.
On look-say and phonics: I was taught both ways. It left me with superior reading skills, but no obvious superpowers--I don't spell like lightning, for instance.
I can, however, spot the one typo in a piece of someone else's prose, even if that prose has already had three other people spell and/or grammar check it. It's embarrassing.
Yeesh. Lots of traffic on this topic.
Lenora Rose: OG answered your question about 'why read fanfic before the original'. I'd like to add that when everyone around you is gushing "OMGit'sthebestthingsinceslicedbreadwithpeanutbutter!" you begin to a: feel left out, and b: find the culture changing around you. People refer to characters you've never heard of, let alone are familiar with, and events/places/things which you have no access to. It can be like walking into a room that you think is full of friends and find them all speaking Merovingian French. You end up with a strong incentive to find out what's up for sheer survival's sake. In my case, without a TV, the only ingress to the Buffy-verse I had was through fanfic.
It wasn't a good ingress. The signal to noise ratio in fanfic is crappy (I blame the lack of editorial oversight, not any individual works.) Your later comment about imprinting is cogent here; the fanfic was my introduction and therefore was my strongest impression of the 'verse... and it wasn't a positive one. Also, by the time I actually saw any episodes much of the character suspense had been spoilered out for me (Who is this mysterious handsome stranger? That's just Angel who's gonna be Buffy's SO and she'll stab him and he'll come back to life for his own series....)
I agree with Greg London that reading fanfic after you've seen/read/experienced the original is much less damaging. That's what I want for original authors: I want them to have the right of the first impression. I want them to have the opportunity to show their audience *their* take, unfiltered through other people's preconceptions and wish-fulfillments and blather. It's theirs; they thought it up. Let the audience see their creation as it was intended to be seen. That's fair.
Fanficcers are wannabes. Their draw is reliant on the original creator's draw--without that crutch, would anyone read them? Should anyone? Just because you want to practice your writing with an audience doesn't mean you deserve one--especially one that someone else has assembled. It isn't truly fair to the original author--even if it doesn't damage him.
All this said, no, I don't advocate banning fanfic entirely. It has its good sides--bringing fans together, keeping them interested in the fictional world between books/movies/whatever, letting them practice writing skills. I refuse to take it seriously though--it doesn't matter how good the piece is. It's cribbed.
I don't take cribbed essays seriously, either. YMMV.
John M. Ford: I don't think 'Wife of Bath' when I see the word 'coulter'; I think 'B grade high school movie villain'.
Dear none:
What Bill Higgins said.
Incidently, thalidomide is a perfectly good medication--when it's used for leprosy, instead of morning sickness.
PJ Evans:
You're not thinking like a corporation. 14,000,000 ADHD sufferers... and only 10,000 of them use Cylert? That's only ... uh, about .007 percent of the possible customer base. Considering the amount of time the drug has been on the market already, expansion of that percentage is unlikely (especially in light of the liver issues. We are talking mostly children, here.)
Narcolepsy is better; at 200,000 potential patients, one quarter of which have been diagnosed, you have about 20% using the drug. There's a potential to sell to 40,000 patients, there.
Except you don't; the 10,000 number is total users for all therapies, and some unknown number of those users don't require Cylert per se to get the relief they need. So, say half of the 10,000 are dedicated users who need Cylert as opposed to other therapies, with half going to ADHD and the other half to narcolepsy. At 5,000 users, you're getting really close to that orphan disease average of 4200. Taken separately, the numbers fall well short.
It's probably economical for a small company serving a niche to make the drug, but it needs a decent market environment (no ban) to interest one despite the distribution/advertising costs.
My sympathies to Teresa, Xopher, and other affected by this drug ban.
I have to wonder about the economics of the ban. Others have pointed out the legal implications re: lawsuits and Abbott's vulnerability to accusations of uncooperative behavior, and that certainly looks like a good reason for them to not fight a ban, but I haven't seen people crunch numbers on a dollar-per-person basis.
10,000 patients looks like a lot, but it isn't, in international pharmaceutical terms. This is especially so when some portion of those patients do *not* require the drug specifically banned, but have recourse to other treatments that will work adequately well for them. I've seen anecdotes in this thread for half a dozen patients; only Teresa and Xopher specifically give reasons why Cylert and only Cylert will work for them. At least one other patient has said that she gets adequate relief from a different drug combination.
Below a certain number of patients, it becomes unprofitable for a company to manufacture a drug (see 'orphan diseases' on Google for a list.) One article I skimmed mentioned 6000 such diseases, affecting 25 million Americans. Simple math gives a number of roughly 4200 sufferers per disease... except I recognize progeria on the list (about 10 sufferers per year) and Alzheimer's (at about 1,000,000).
I suspect that the ban did not get serious opposition from Abbott because a: it was in a vulnerable position regarding litigation; b: Nader's group was in a position to take advantage of that vulnerability, and c: the drug was not and had not been profitable for some time. Another company making a generic version is going to be in the same profitability position, if not the same litigation position; even if the FDA reverses its decision, the drug may not become available again simply for that reason.
If the FDA reverses, AND a generic is available, I would expect a price increase. The ban is going to chase some current users away, never to return, and is going to discourage new users from coming on board. Ergo, the customer base is going to be even smaller than it was, with everything that implies for the economics of production.
Best of luck; I think you're going to need all the luck you can get.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is dressing to the way *you* live. It's all well and good to get the best pair of gloves out there, but they won't do you any good if you--like me--can't stand to wear them for longer than 30 seconds in a row.
I live in Calgary, where the temperature will normally dip below -40 C at least once each winter, possibly for a week or more. For years, I've dealt with cold hands--blaming it on poor circulation, mostly, because I'd have thick mitts or heavy gloves on and would be walking wherever (I have no car) with my hands balled up in the palms because pain was spiking through my fingers. (A-V shunt in effect, maybe?)
Part of this is due, no doubt, to the fact that I fidget. A lot. I'm constantly going through my pockets or my bag for stuff, and that often means taking off a glove or two, for the sake of manual dexterity. That means heat loss, though, and heat loss means pain.
Now I wear those cheap poly/Lycra gloves, the ones you can buy for a buck or so just about anywhere. I keep several pairs in my pockets (three, at the moment). They're thin enough that manual dexterity isn't a big problem, AND... I can put my hands in my pockets without fighting the pockets or taking the gloves off. They aren't particularly warm, but for the way I live? They're warm enough.
YMMV.
Reading the conversation between Carrie S. and those questioning her statements, I'm reminded that I didn't list one of my central reasons for my opposition to the death penalty in my earlier post. I don't know why I omitted it; maybe it was just too personal.
I can imagine no worse torment than to want life and to have it taken away, as in murder, save to appeal to society itself and have it tell me I am not fit to live ... because it has decided I have done a thing, which I know I have not. I might escape a serial killer who attacked me, prevailing against all odds, but how to defend myself against the depredations of the well-meaning and the morally certain? There would be years of hoping, agonizing, praying for rescue that never came.
The worst of killers don't string their victims along for so long. Only a death-penalty society can--or does.
To say, "It is appropriate to kill human monsters to stop their depredations," is one thing. To say, "It is appropriate to kill human monsters to stop their depredations even if non-monstrous humans also die sometimes," is something I find monstrous in its own right. But then, I believe in the saying, "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man languish under the law."
I'd walk away from Omelas and I'd never look back. YMMV.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 8 |
| 2006 | 10 |
| 2005 | 21 |
Total: 39 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Renee:
Show all comments by Renee.