David, #359: I'm not seriously arguing that there must be a cover-up; my concern is that it's a small town, where the people doing the investigating might not be so anxious to prosecute as all that, depending on who looked as if they might have done it. However, with a strong motive for suicide, I'm not as concerned as I might have been otherwise.
Jacob, #22: Thank you. Given that the rest of Rick's post is made up entirely of right-wing talking points (including the trendy and elitist victim-blaming), I strongly suspect the phrase "we liberal types" of being a smokescreen.
Not buying anything is one way to protest, of course. Another way, if you feel up to it, is to go out and do some of your holiday shopping with local independent merchants instead of giant chain stores. When I do that, it always makes me feel as if my money is counting twice -- once that I'm not spending it for the benefit of an amoral corporation, and then again because I'm re-investing in my community in a very direct way.
Follow-up to something that was discussed here a few months ago: the census worker who was found hanged in KY with the word "FED" scrawled on his body has been ruled a suicide, who staged his death scene to look like a homicide so that his survivors would get insurance benefits.
On the one hand, I'd rather believe this, because it's less frightening than the alternative. On the other hand... cover-ups have happened before.
Allen, #65: That's one advantage I've found to abandoning the purse for a belt-pack. Because you're wearing the belt-pack, it seems not to count as a carry-on item.
(The other advantage is that it forces me to keep the stuff in it pared down to what's genuinely necessary. My purse always ended up weighing 10 pounds or more. And I didn't believe in carrying huge purses!)
VERY effective commercial.
Damn, that gave me the creeps! Which is exactly what it's supposed to do.
Xopher, #323: It's our annual party, which is themed around chocolate. We haven't picked a date yet, as it has to fit around our con-going schedule, but it generally occurs in late March or early April. We have some limited crash space, and there's a Courtyard by Marriott a block from our house.
Anyone who has ever had to deal with convention dealer rooms, crafts-show booths, or anything similar needs to read today's Two Lumps. Scroll down slowly for full effect. My partner howled so loudly from the back of the house that I had to go ask what the hell was going on!
Paul & Jacque (317-318): Wow. Both of those links are mind-bogglingly cool!
Xopher, #300: Holy chocolate, Batman! What would it take to get you down here for Chocolate Decadence this coming year?
green_knight, #167: I think Paula's analysis is correct. It's the scammer's version of the same reason that our Move Along T-shirt continues to be a good seller rather than saturating its market: every year there are new potential customers moving into the age-group that buys it. And on the scale of ASI/Horizons, it doesn't take a very high penetration percentage to yield a worthwhile ROI, especially with Harlequin doing the kickback referrals.
John A, #255: "Burglar" doesn't seem to be available as a charm from any of my regular sources. "Pirate", however, is; would that be an acceptable substitute? If so, drop me a line (fgneqernzre@zvaqfcevat.pbz) and we can negotiate.
Serge, #36: Janet Kagan beat you to it, in Return of the Kangaroo Rex. (Note: this is one of the stories featured in the collection Mirabile.)
Linkmeister, #37: Oh, dear. That just begs to be Photoshopped, doesn't it?
Also, if they're talking about the first MI movie, it doesn't focus on a "rogue" but on a traitor -- a highly-placed one. Is that REALLY the association they want us to make?
Teresa: Your response, OTOH, is epic win.
Maya, #110: I suspect that Thomas Nelson is getting away with this because most of their writers have nowhere else to go. I also suspect that the lack of critical commentary about that venture is one of the reasons Harlequin thought they could get away with doing something similar.
AKICIML: I have a large (about 5" long) half-shell that I want to make into an art-jewelry pendant. The back side, which will be hanging toward the wearer, is... as rough as natural shells tend to be; that's not terribly rough, but I'm still thinking that I'd like to put some sort of coating on it to smooth it out a bit. Can someone suggest a transparent coating substance that won't damage the shell, flake off with wear, or be toxic/irritating to the wearer if the pendant is being worn with a low-cut neckline?
Just to clarify -- when I said I wondered how established Harlequin authors were going to feel about this, I was thinking more about Harlequin having established a vanity-publishing arm than the RWA announcement. If I were a non-vanity Harlequin writer, I would certainly feel that this had damaged my credibility in the market, and would be looking to change publishers forthwith.
I'm impressed.
What I now wonder is how Harlequin's established authors are going to react? They can't be thrilled about this.
Birth of a new species observed.
How cool is that?
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 899 |
| 2008 | 989 |
| 2007 | 576 |
| 2006 | 78 |
| 2005 | 1 |
Total: 2543 comments. View all these comments on a single page. (May take a frightfully long time to load.)
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Lee:
Show all comments by Lee.