I never turn down a dare, so I have to try this paragraph:
A world where anything is possible but not everything is possible. Anything can happen, but not all things can happen at once.
He does, actually, prove the first sentence with the second here. You can't have anything but not everything possible. Words don't, in my (admittedly limited) experience, work that way. Anything allows for everything. Everything includes anything. Perhaps he meant, 'A multitude of possibilities, but each occuring in their order and place.' (It is more likely that he meant, 'I am verrry deep. Go me!')
That is what time is for, to keep all things from happening at the same moment.
Because without time, things would be happening, like me moving the stapler on my desk in the next five seconds... oh, wait.
That shall be the only rule of our new fantasy world. That an event happens only once.
He really prefers one-night-stands?
What has been done, cannot be undone.
He's afraid to take his shoes off, because he may not remember how to retie them. Thus he justifies the smell.
There is no turning back the sands of time.
Metaphores to mumble... mix 'em and cook 'em up in a pile like gumbo.
You can review the past but you cannot change the past.
Since what he's just written was written in the past, he can't go back and fix it in an attempt to make more sense. That's what time is for: to justify letting pseudo-stream-of-consciousness unintentional sophism.
No, no, no!
I mean, the Ohio thing. You're thinking of 'Good Morning!'
Because most people don't seem to want a voice--it's way too dangerous. Easier to blame those in power, as if our silence hasn't given them carte blanche.
It isn't about not wanting a voice. It's about finishing the day with enough energy to do something so abstract and stressful as speaking truth to power. And then being heard, of course... well, let us say it's a very uncertain way to expend your limited individual power if you really want, you know, any certainty of accomplishing something.
it's my semi-uninformed understanding that Mormons focus on ancestry to posthumously convert their forebears. Is this really the case? Somehow, I can't shake the image of deceased Norse warriors carousing in Valhalla being whisked off to someone else's paradise, only to discover that they can't even get a cup of coffee, let alone mead by the flagon...I'm relatively (heh) sure that's the drive behind it. Incidentally, if you go to the LDS family history site, you can find lines that claim heritage back to the mythical Norse (anyone whose family runs back to the Saxon kings in England, for example).
(You can also see a few records dubiously marked "living" - I seem to recall a woman's record which denoted her marriage in the fifth century. As she's remarkably still alive, they didn't list this especially hardy woman's name, so I couldn't do a google search to see what she's up to.)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 4 |
| 2005 | 1 |
Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Painini:
Show all comments by Painini.