Always ten steps ahead, that Shaka Zoom. Plans within plans, a web
of contingencies and feints that are nearly as impossible to
comprehend as they are to predict. Proclaimed as the world's greatest
mind, and not just self-proclaimed, at that.
EIGHTFOLD COMICS GROUP PRESENTS
A HIGH CONCEPT ADVENTURE
JOURNEY INTO # 13: THE FIVE GRAPH TRAP!
BY TOM RUSSELL
A year ago, Shaka Zoom took over the world for the third time. His
rule lasted nearly two whole days- surprisingly long in the world
domination game; the second iteration of his holographic "Shaka-
troopers" kept the world's conventional militaries occupied and the
general populace properly frightened, while his handpicked baker's
dozen of elite black capes took care of the various four-colour heroes
who insist on making their presence known whenever someone attempts
to, let alone succeeds at, taking over the world- took care of them,
that is of course, for only nearly two whole days and not a moment
longer. His thirteen black capes defeated, his holograms blipped out
of existence, the opulent glass minarets of his upside-down Reflected
Palace shattering into sand as it was violently pulled right-side-up
through the shimmering waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Shaka Zoom
himself only evaded capture because he had planned for it: planned for
the possibility of it all coming down about his head, planned on the
appropriately rag-tag group of costumed adventurers pushing their way
into his meditation chamber, designed its floor to crack along a pre-
determined fissure which would throw those heroes off balance but
leave him standing and close to the escape hatch, programmed a pseudo-
random algorithm that would make him impossible to follow while still
eventually bearing him to his new secret Antarctic base, and, finally,
through one of his many dummy corporations he inserted the long-
distance virally-amplified signal required to awaken his mutant
sleeper agents into the opening cinematic of a certain Triple A multi-
platform console title, the long-awaited third in a highly profitable
and critically-lauded franchise, that will have its midnight release,
after two delays which he himself has ensured will take place, on the
very eve those sleeper agents will develop the cochlear nuclei they
need to hear it (some ten months from today).
Always ten steps ahead, that Shaka Zoom. Plans within plans, a web
of contingencies and feints that are nearly as impossible to
comprehend as they are to predict. Proclaimed as the world's greatest
mind, and not just self-proclaimed, at that. His nemesis Fahrenheit
Man often said that if only Shaka Zoom would apply his mind to some
altruistic end, to curing disease, eliminating hunger and poverty,
inventing some technology that would benefit mankind, he would be
remembered as one of history's greatest men, instead of being reviled
as its would-be slave master. It was just like Fahrenheit Man, that
blinkered simpleton, that reactionary scold, that stiff near-sighted
dullard, to consider the two things mutually-exclusive. No, only
Shaka Zoom has the brains to see that the two impulses were one and
the same, that the only way to usher mankind into that hypothetical
golden age was to destroy the broken systems that allowed the strong
to prey on the weak; the only utopia that could ever be could only be
under the yoke of a benevolent dictator; of the five percent of the
population that was worthy to rule, only Shaka Zoom was willing. Or,
at least, he had been.
That was yesterday. Today, he changed his mind, and not for the
first time. Like all the times before, he awoke with an unbecoming
sense of melancholy; he regarded the future not with the joy of the
hawk or even the fright of the hare, but with a bizarre alchemy of
apathy and despair. All these plans: why was he even making them?
The weight of his failures bore down upon his heart, and though he
knew in his brain that he was in fact no failure at all, that he was
merely playing the long game, his plots nested and knotty, even the
soundest argument was of no utility, as was often the case when the
cranium made war with the cardiac. This predictable battle would
consume him for a few hours or days, and then his doubts would pass
and his brain would assert its rightful dominance, zig-zag-zig. This
time, however, it was different; this time, his brain and his heart
found themselves in complete agreement. For as his mind turned his
knowledge to wisdom, and his wisdom into understanding, he understood
that once he had achieved complete rule over the globe, he would not
hold onto it for long. Longer than a few days, certainly, as his
ultimate plan would humble the heroes once and for all- perhaps even
long enough to put into place the system of reforms that could save
the world from itself, with Mother Africa restored to its place as a
Mecca of cultural and military might. But he would not live long
enough to hold it all together, or to give one of his heirs suitable
instruction; Shaka Zoom is old already, grows a year older every time
the earth completes its orbit around the sun, as does every man. His
brain, aided by the Supreme Alphabet and Supreme Mathematics, follows
every plan, every timeline, every possibility, meditating intensely on
the problem for six solemn hours, and when he is done, he is faced
with the reality that his efforts will be truly futile. He will never
bring about a meaningful and lasting utopia, and, indeed, his short
and curious rule might inspire such hatred and derision that it would
deter future generations from following that same path. Better to not
succeed, so that his work might not be unduly tainted, so that another
might see the example of Shaka Zoom and follow it without the petty
prejudices of history.
The problem, of course, is that his brain and heart will not be
allies for long. His doubts will pass in time, and his heart will
grow covetous; deviously, his thinking would twist to support the
fanciful premise that he has enough time after all, or that he might
even find a way to conquer death. He knows himself, knows his
covetous heart, and knows that he is weak enough to follow it. No
matter what resolutions he makes today, no matter how he might try to
sabotage the plans he has already set into motion, he knows that the
day will come when he will want it so badly that he shall commit
himself to its path anew, with results disastrous for both himself and
his dream. He knows that he cannot trust himself to be strong in the
future, just as an addict, committed though she might be to cast off
her affliction, will once she is in the throes of withdrawal wither
and weaken and succumb. No, Shaka Zoom cannot trust himself, and so,
while his will is still strong enough to do it, he must trap himself.
The point of his death trap is not to kill- for he could not bring
himself to end his own life- but to contain with the threat of death:
try to go outside, Shaka Zoom, and the laser wall will electrocute you
to a stain; try to send for a henchmen to free you, Shaka Zoom, and
these machine gun turrets will do the rest; try to activate your army
of on-the-grounds Shaka-troopers, and they will rend you limb from
limb. But it is not as simple as that, for if Shaka Zoom knows
himself, he knows himself to be devious. Faced with those lasers, he
would find a way to deactivate them, and so he must find a way to keep
them active. Armed with the knowledge of how he powered those lasers
so that they couldn't be deactivated, he would find a way to interrupt
the power source, and so he must find a way to intercept his future
self. He must anticipate his own every move; he must look for the
loopholes he knows he will look for. If there is an answer to the
problem he is constructing, if he makes the slightest mistake now, he
will exploit it then, his brain driven to unfathomable levels of
cunning and complexity by his mad and desperate desire for world
domination. He knows that the more time he spends considering a
problem, and the greater the pressure, the craftier he will get, the
more things will come to light; the ordinary and seemingly harmless
will become devastating once within his grip. He must be more
brilliant in this week, this day, perhaps even this hour, than he's
ever been in the past. And indeed, more brilliant than he ever could
be.
NOTES.
The problem with being the sort of chap who sometimes fusses over a
story for weeks and months is that all that fussing isn't conducive to
finishing a story in a timely manner- that is, say, before a high
concept contest deadline. Having missed the last deadline for
precisely that reason, I said, to hell with it, it's gonna be a little
messy, but let's get the damn thing done this time around. Having
just finished proofreading said story, I'm not too deeply unhappy with
it; I think the idea's reasonably clever and the ornate execution
somewhat appropriate for such an ornate thinker.
This story doesn't only reflect the death trap theme in its substance,
but I also consciously trapped myself formally in writing it by using
The Five Paragraph Strait-Jacket, as we used the standard format for
both essays and creative writing back in high school. Granted, I
adhere more to the letter of it- five and only five paragraphs, each
with a clear theme or idea- than to the spirit- sentences with
triple digit word counts not exactly being concise- but there you
go. (The Five Paragraph Strait-Jacket is also what inspired me to
make my villain a Five-Percenter, so I think the form also influenced
the substance.) I might try writing a more "traditional" five
paragraph story in the future, partially just for the hell of it, and
partially because it did reign in my natural tendency to over-plot and
over-develop and just plain bite off more than I can chew.
Anyway, I hoped you enjoyed it.
Also: I decided to drop the ellipses from the series title.
Also also: apparently, accordingly to that wildly inaccurate textual
analysis website, this is written like David Foster Wallace. Well,
that's better than Joyce, that's for damn sure.
(C) COPYRIGHT 2010 TOM RUSSELL.
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:33:06 +0000 (UTC), Tom Russell wrote:
> He must be more
> brilliant in this week, this day, perhaps even this hour, than he's
> ever been in the past. And indeed, more brilliant than he ever could
> be.
Ooooooh. Very, very nice. Sort of like a reverse Ozymandias, but far more
difficult.
> NOTES.
>
> The problem with being the sort of chap who sometimes fusses over a
> story for weeks and months is that all that fussing isn't conducive to
> finishing a story in a timely manner- that is, say, before a high
> concept contest deadline.
Oh, do I ever know that one. (Looniverse Chronicles #1 was only thirteen
minutes before the deadline - or it would have been, had Dave not been a
time zone over from me.)
> Having missed the last deadline for
> precisely that reason, I said, to hell with it, it's gonna be a little
> messy, but let's get the damn thing done this time around. Having
> just finished proofreading said story, I'm not too deeply unhappy with
> it; I think the idea's reasonably clever and the ornate execution
> somewhat appropriate for such an ornate thinker.
I was going to say it felt a bit rushed, but then I realized...
> This story doesn't only reflect the death trap theme in its substance,
> but I also consciously trapped myself formally in writing it by using
> The Five Paragraph Strait-Jacket, as we used the standard format for
> both essays and creative writing back in high school.
...that it had a length limitation. With that in place, I saw how cleverly
it had been used; it felt longer than it was.
> Anyway, I hoped you enjoyed it.
I did!
> Also: I decided to drop the ellipses from the series title.
Aw, man, I loved the ellipsis! More punctuation in series titles, I say.
> Also also: apparently, accordingly to that wildly inaccurate textual
> analysis website, this is written like David Foster Wallace. Well,
> that's better than Joyce, that's for damn sure.
I kept getting DFW. I've never read anything he's done; suppose I should
try it out, eh?
Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, apparently getting more
Lovecraft-esque
over time.
Andrew Perron
On Jul 21, 6:32 am, Andrew Perron <pwer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:33:06 +0000 (UTC), Tom Russell wrote:
> > He must be more
> > brilliant in this week, this day, perhaps even this hour, than he's
> > ever been in the past. And indeed, more brilliant than he ever could
> > be.
>
> Ooooooh. Very, very nice. Sort of like a reverse Ozymandias, but far more
> difficult.
>
> > NOTES.
>
> > The problem with being the sort of chap who sometimes fusses over a
> > story for weeks and months is that all that fussing isn't conducive to
> > finishing a story in a timely manner- that is, say, before a high
> > concept contest deadline.
>
> Oh, do I ever know that one. (Looniverse Chronicles #1 was only thirteen
> minutes before the deadline - or it would have been, had Dave not been a
> time zone over from me.)
I think I'm sitting out this contest again. I pretty much got rid of
my last death-trap specialist last year, and right now I am just
stumped for things that look like death traps.
> > Having missed the last deadline for
> > precisely that reason, I said, to hell with it, it's gonna be a little
> > messy, but let's get the damn thing done this time around. Having
> > just finished proofreading said story, I'm not too deeply unhappy with
> > it; I think the idea's reasonably clever and the ornate execution
> > somewhat appropriate for such an ornate thinker.
>
> I was going to say it felt a bit rushed, but then I realized...
>
> > This story doesn't only reflect the death trap theme in its substance,
> > but I also consciously trapped myself formally in writing it by using
> > The Five Paragraph Strait-Jacket, as we used the standard format for
> > both essays and creative writing back in high school.
>
> ...that it had a length limitation. With that in place, I saw how cleverly
> it had been used; it felt longer than it was.
Hmm. I forgot everything I learned about writing in high school, so I
don't recall if I ever learned about five-paragraph form.
> > Anyway, I hoped you enjoyed it.
>
> I did!
>
Yeah, me too. I found the short length refreshing, and that run-on
sentence in the first paragraph actually sounded great from a villain.
Scott Eiler
> > > This story doesn't only reflect the death trap theme in its
substance,
> > > but I also consciously trapped myself formally in writing it by using
> > > The Five Paragraph Strait-Jacket, as we used the standard format for
> > > both essays and creative writing back in high school.
Er, that should be "as we used to call the standard format" or,
alternatively, "as we used to bristle at the standard format".
> Hmm. I forgot everything I learned about writing in high school, so I
> don't recall if I ever learned about five-paragraph form.
For essays, it was one paragraph of introduction, three paragraphs of
development or support, and a final concluding/summarizing paragraph.
Earlier than High School, the form was even more restrictive, with
each paragraph containing only five sentences: an introduction, three
supporting details, and a conclusion. Twenty-five sentences, each
with absolutely no mystery or surprise, and all the teacher had to do
was skim the paper, check them off her list, and scribble a grade up
top.
For fiction, it was looser, but the basic restriction- five
paragraphs long, nothing more and nothing less, remained in place when
dealing with less creative creative writing teachers.
> > > Anyway, I hoped you enjoyed it.
>
> > I did!
>
> Yeah, me too. I found the short length refreshing, and that run-on
> sentence in the first paragraph actually sounded great from a villain.
Thanks, gents.
Though in my defense, I will say that that sentence is not a run-on,
as a run-on consists of two-plus complete/independent clauses without
conjunction or the correct punctuation. That sentence, while long, is
comprised of two lists, joined by a colon; the first list details how
things fell apart for the villain, ending with the revelation that he
had planned on this all along. The second lists how he made that
escape, emphasizing how he planned for it (hence the joining of the
two lists by the colon, the second list being an explanation for the
finale of the first). The final item in the second list is a
deviation; rather than reveal how he planned for escape, it reveals
how he's already set into motion the plan for his next attempt. One
could mount the argument that that particular clause is out of place
(though, given the use of coordinating conjunction, it would still not
make the sentence a run-on), but it's intended as the "surprise" of
the list, the final item punchline/revelation, and thus the whole
point of the sentence itself: this is how far ahead he plans. The
final item is intended, then, as the pay-off not only for both lists,
but for the sentence's length.
I'm not disputing, of course, that it is a long sentence- some 207
words, if I'm not mistaken- and perhaps even a difficult one (using
difficult in the best sense of the word), and that, yes, it does I
think mimic the villain's line-of-thinking pretty well. And so I'm
very glad to accept the compliment, and I hope I don't appear
ungracious or a nitpicker.
It's just that I take very great pains to avoid run-ons in my
narrative description (dialogue is another matter) and it's something
I'm more than a little pendantic about. No offense intended, and I
hope none is taken.
==Tom
Tom Russell, IA
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:25:30 +0000 (UTC), Tom Russell wrote:
>> Hmm. I forgot everything I learned about writing in high school, so I
>> don't recall if I ever learned about five-paragraph form.
>
> For essays, it was one paragraph of introduction, three paragraphs of
> development or support, and a final concluding/summarizing paragraph.
> Earlier than High School, the form was even more restrictive, with
> each paragraph containing only five sentences: an introduction, three
> supporting details, and a conclusion. Twenty-five sentences, each
> with absolutely no mystery or surprise, and all the teacher had to do
> was skim the paper, check them off her list, and scribble a grade up
> top.
You know, back when I was learning that format, I assumed I'd actually
*use* it for something someday. Still, I suppose learning in a
straightjacket helps give you the ability to work within the restrictions
of real-life formats.
> Though in my defense, I will say that that sentence is not a run-on,
> as a run-on consists of two-plus complete/independent clauses without
> conjunction or the correct punctuation.
Yeah, an actual run-on sentence would have almost certainly pinged my
grammar-sense. It felt a lot more natural and smoother than that.
Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, pondering starting up a
freelance
editing service for self-published authors...
Andrew Perron
On Jul 21, 8:25 am, Tom Russell <milos_par...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I will say that that sentence is not a run-on,
> as a run-on consists of two-plus complete/independent clauses without
> conjunction or the correct punctuation. That sentence, while long, is
> comprised of two lists, joined by a colon; the first list details how
> things fell apart for the villain, ending with the revelation that he
> had planned on this all along. The second lists how he made that
> escape, emphasizing how he planned for it (hence the joining of the
> two lists by the colon, the second list being an explanation for the
> finale of the first). The final item in the second list is a
> deviation; rather than reveal how he planned for escape, it reveals
> how he's already set into motion the plan for his next attempt. One
> could mount the argument that that particular clause is out of place
> (though, given the use of coordinating conjunction, it would still not
> make the sentence a run-on), but it's intended as the "surprise"
of
> the list, the final item punchline/revelation, and thus the whole
> point of the sentence itself: this is how far ahead he plans. The
> final item is intended, then, as the pay-off not only for both lists,
> but for the sentence's length.
>
> I'm not disputing, of course, that it is a long sentence- some 207
> words, if I'm not mistaken- and perhaps even a difficult one (using
> difficult in the best sense of the word), and that, yes, it does I
> think mimic the villain's line-of-thinking pretty well. And so I'm
> very glad to accept the compliment, and I hope I don't appear
> ungracious or a nitpicker.
>
> It's just that I take very great pains to avoid run-ons in my
> narrative description (dialogue is another matter) and it's something
> I'm more than a little pendantic about. No offense intended, and I
> hope none is taken.
Aww, Tom, just say it. Rules against run-on sentences are meant to be
broken when it helps the story. 8{D>
Scott Eiler
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:34:36 +0000 (UTC), Scott Eiler wrote:
> Aww, Tom, just say it. Rules against run-on sentences are meant to be
> broken when it helps the story. 8{D>
GRAAAAAH *burning torch, pitchfork, laser rifle*
I mean
No, seriously. There's a difference. >>
Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, stickler.
Andrew Perron
On Thurs 22nd July 2010 Scott Eiler replied to Tom:
> Aww, Tom, just say it. Rules against run-on sentences are meant to be
> broken when it helps the story. 8{D>
Yeah, but, I'm not sure they helped in this case. When I reached the
end of the first paragraph, I realised I'd lost track of what it was trying
to tell me somewhere in the second half, and had to go back and reread
it (only *then* noticing that it contained massive run-on sentances).
-
Saxon Brenton
_________________________________________________________________
View photos of singles in your area! Looking for a hot date?
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/
Saxon Brenton
On Jul 23, 11:54 pm, Saxon Brenton <saxonbren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thurs 22nd July 2010 Scott Eiler replied to Tom:
>
> > Aww, Tom, just say it. Rules against run-on sentences are meant to be
> > broken when it helps the story. 8{D>
>
> Yeah, but, I'm not sure they helped in this case. When I reached the
> end of the first paragraph, I realised I'd lost track of what it was trying
> to tell me somewhere in the second half, and had to go back and reread
I'm sorry about that. I knew I was kinda pushing it this time, but it
looks like I may have pushed it a little too far. :-O
> it (only *then* noticing that it contained massive run-on sentances).
But but but- they're *not* run-on sentences. Long, yes. Maybe too
long. But it's not a run-on this is a run-on there are three complete
sentences here that are not joined together by a conjunction or
adequate punctuation. That's a run-on. Whereas if we render it like
this:
But it's not a run-on; this is a run-on: there are three complete
sentences here that are not joined together by a conjunction (or
adequate punctuation).
Or like this:
That's not a run-on, but this is a run-on, as there are three complete
sentences here and they haven't been joined together by a conjunction
or adequate punctuation.
- Then it's still a single long sentence, if now a highly inaccurate
one, as it is no longer a run-on.
Run-on sentences are ugly, grammatically-incorrect, and poorly-
written. One might not care for my sentences when they go long or
when they use the list-form; one might be irritated by my over-
reliance on semicolons, colons, and parentheticals (especially in
dialogue); several people, though I haven't heard much in that respect
around these parts, consider my usage of British spellings and words
like "electric torch" to be affectations: there are a lot of things
about my writing style that might turn someone off or leave me open to
criticism. And I think, on the balance, I'm open to that criticism,
and have on several occasions said, "yes, so-and-so, you're right" and
"I could've done that better". If someone thinks my writing, either
in part or in toto, is poor, then they're welcome to say so, and- a
complete lack of understanding how the American justice system works
aside- after explaining the effect I was going for and expressing
remorse that it didn't work, I don't think I'd take umbrage.
But I put a lot of time, thought, and care in my writing. And so
being accused, even inadvertently, of carelessness- which is
essentially what a run-on sentence is emblematic of, along with a base
ignorance of the workings of the written English language- is
something I'm going to bristle at when I think the accusation is
unfounded.
Again, I don't mean to be overly bitchy or pedantic here, but it
really and truly is an incredibly important distinction. Elsewhere
when this topic came up, Dvandom said that it was more like a ramble-
on sentence. Which stung, but was not completely inaccurate. And if
you want to call it that, sure, I'll accept that criticism.
Of course, should I ever write an actual run-on sentence, I'm hoping
someone would call me on it I think in that case you'll see my
reaction would be far more contrite, at any rate thank you everyone
for the feedback.
==Tom
Tom Russell, IA
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:00:10 +0000 (UTC), Tom Russell wrote:
> But I put a lot of time, thought, and care in my writing. And so
> being accused, even inadvertently, of carelessness- which is
> essentially what a run-on sentence is emblematic of, along with a base
> ignorance of the workings of the written English language- is
> something I'm going to bristle at when I think the accusation is
> unfounded.
I've gotta agree here, and I wish more people knew these distinctions. The
rule Tom broke (if rule he did break) was one of style, not of grammar.
Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, or syntax.
Andrew Perron
On Jul 24, 3:33 pm, Andrew Perron <pwer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:00:10 +0000 (UTC), Tom Russell wrote:
> > But I put a lot of time, thought, and care in my writing. And so
> > being accused, even inadvertently, of carelessness- which is
> > essentially what a run-on sentence is emblematic of, along with a base
> > ignorance of the workings of the written English language- is
> > something I'm going to bristle at when I think the accusation is
> > unfounded.
>
> I've gotta agree here, and I wish more people knew these distinctions. The
> rule Tom broke (if rule he did break) was one of style, not of grammar.
Okay, I'm sorry I called it a run-on. Wikipedia has confirmed, you
just now taught me what high school grammar class didn't. 8{C>
Scott Eiler
Thank you, Andrew; don't worry about it, Scott. I'm sorry, too; I
probably should have modulated my tone a bit better.
==Tom
Tom Russell, IA
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:15:31 +0000 (UTC), Scott Eiler wrote:
> Okay, I'm sorry I called it a run-on. Wikipedia has confirmed, you
> just now taught me what high school grammar class didn't. 8{C>
Heh heh heh. That's what I'm here for! ^-^
Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, the Grammer Lad of
Looniearth-5!
Andrew Perron
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 02:17:09 +0000 (UTC), Tom Russell wrote:
> Thank you, Andrew; don't worry about it, Scott. I'm sorry, too; I
> probably should have modulated my tone a bit better.
Eh, I thought you took about the right tone. Not too recriminating or
bitter.
Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, noogles.
Andrew Perron
On Jul 25, 6:33 am, Andrew Perron <pwer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:00:10 +0000 (UTC), Tom Russell wrote:
> > But I put a lot of time, thought, and care in my writing. And so
> > being accused, even inadvertently, of carelessness- which is
> > essentially what a run-on sentence is emblematic of, along with a base
> > ignorance of the workings of the written English language- is
> > something I'm going to bristle at when I think the accusation is
> > unfounded.
>
> I've gotta agree here, and I wish more people knew these distinctions.
The
> rule Tom broke (if rule he did break) was one of style, not of grammar.
>
> Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, or syntax.
Yeah, a long sentence is not a run on or even grammatically wrong if
the clauses are connected with conjunctions or punctuation. On the
other hand, this sentence is a run on it is a mistake I see a lot it
makes writing hard to read. :)
Martin
Martin Phipps
[2nd post, 24 hours later ;
Critical comment: fsck, I must have been high on flu medication when I
composed this]
Okay, I'm back from dying hideously of the Lurgi. Here, let me use the
internet to infect you with my virus. Wha? Wrong type of virus for a
computer network? Well, you probably didn't want it anyway.
Hmm, what's this? I contributed to a flamewar? Gosh.
On Sun 25 July 2010 Tom Russell wrote:
> But but but- they're *not* run-on sentences. Long, yes. Maybe too
> long. But it's not a run-on this is a run-on there are three complete
> sentences here that are not joined together by a conjunction or
> adequate punctuation. That's a run-on. Whereas if we render it like
> this:
-reads with interest-
Okay, I'll take your word for it. Bluntly, a lot of the stuff I know
about writing isn't from high school English classes (which I probably
learnt and then forgot) but from what I (re?)taught myself later when
I became interested in writing as a hobby. I doubt if I'd recognise
the definition of what a run-on sentence if it tore of it's clothes
and danced naked before me in an unseemly manner. So, yeah, definately
bad phrasing on my part.
So, to paraphrase a quote from alt.fan.pratchett back in the early 1990s:
My proverbial gazelle was in a tundraic environment because I didn't
know how to recognise a run-on sentence. But now, after wandering in
the desert of ignorance, the raincloud of pedantism has united me with
the axolotl of happiness.
-
Saxon Brenton
tV trOpes wiKi *HUnGeRS* and wAnts to EaT all yoUr frEe tiMe
_________________________________________________________________
If It Exists, You'll Find it on SEEK. Australia's #1 job site
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/
Saxon Brenton
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:31:02 +0000 (UTC), Saxon Brenton wrote:
> So, to paraphrase a quote from alt.fan.pratchett back in the early 1990s:
> My proverbial gazelle was in a tundraic environment because I didn't
> know how to recognise a run-on sentence. But now, after wandering in
> the desert of ignorance, the raincloud of pedantism has united me with
> the axolotl of happiness.
Tintinnabulations!
Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, prestiturgy.
