It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Whereas those who are making the effort to
stick around seem to be genuinely capable
of writing--and the purpose of the group is to
elicit good original writing.

So I wondered if anyone remembers the old
party game where you fold some paper in 3
and different people draw different parts of
outlandish figures.

As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
game where people speak until the bell
sounds, and then the next person carries
on, only with however many people as can be
bothered to collaborate.

I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
the first instance, if someone wishes to
start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
1500-2000 words. And if we do start it'd
be nice, perhaps, to have an idea of who's
up for it. With maybe 3-5 people it could
be quite a laugh.

But with the charter as it stands it seems
there's almost a Kafkaesque council of
willing critics to post feedback to work
but without any of them having made too
much effort to show any writing ability in
this forum.

I was just thinking that maybe if a bunch
of us actually started doing some writing
then some of the aspirinbg bards out in
cyberland might be more forthcoming with
their homework for us to mark, so to speak.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 30 Apr, 17:30, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message
>
> news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> >> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> >> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives
> >> >> were,
> >> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> >> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> >> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's
> >> way
> >> too silly).
>
> >> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> >> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> > to be worth answering?
>
> What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?

I don't know, iyt would depend what was
encasing your poor bugger bugger bum.

> > Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> > stanza.
>
> Any idea what the price of tea in China is?

Nope. Lapsang Souchong?

> Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
> DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

"Oh, bugger bugger bum"

such gems as some

for all their flames and misgrasped
meanings

blame the world for retentive leanings?

You mean that site? which I saw from
the URL you posted? Erm, either last
weekend or the weekend before?

Doubt away.


> > Thus none of it was worth writing.
>
> How about the price of beef in Bolton?

Now, either you're trying to trap me into
using the word "rhetorical" or it's one you
may benefit from looking up, particularly
in its context of The Rhetorical Question.

As, however, you appear to have answered
the question which didn't need one and in
a way which suggests that, actually, I may
have over-rated your efforts.

> That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.

I'm talking about your poetry, and what seems
to be a fetish for hanging around groups about
writing whilst trying to cunningly dissuade people
from actually doing any.

Typing is a skill in the writers' canon. If 1500
words at a time is too much for you then I do
wonder why you bother considering you're a
writer rather than someone who just tries to
put words which sound alike into infantile
frameworks and calls it poetry.

There was something about cats too I recall.

I shall have to google "cats" sometime. I had
not unil now considered it was a particularly
original subject matter.

But, far from you taking the initiative and trying
to discuss what it is that constitutes effective
wrtitng, it seems you're happier to rely on
cheap jibes and childish taunts.

Now, OK, on consideration I was up for the
exercise of sticking chunks, which I presume
should be self-contained, of no more than 25
words together.

But to propose it as an absolute ceiling above
which all communication becomes meaningless
really is silly. I agree with your sentiment that
if something can be said in 25 words then why
use more; it does not, however, follow either
that writing is about saying one thing and one
thing alone.

I am familiar enough with the medium of the
book to have noticed that whilst significant
pieces of action can take a few pages to run
through, very many do indeed have shorter
sections.

Only I can't think of many that only have 25
words in their shorter sections.

Then there's the whole genre of serialised stories,
not something on which there's a whole load of
literature for the novice writer but which have been
a defining form in the culture of writing in the UK.

I was considering making posts of varying
length depending what it was I wanted to add
and how much time that week and suchlike.

But now I shall simply announce that no longer
do I have a mental picture of you as a kind of
Nick-Park-created yuppie coding away in Den
Haag, but it's more like the artist guy in that
The Comic Strip Presents... comparatively recent
thing about swinging parties.

I am of course aware there are various people
who for a variety of reasons really struggle to
do more than 25 words. Either they pick out
each letter, labouriously, with a head-mounted
stylus, or work against some other disadvantage
biology has saddled them with. Don't go thinking
I have no sympathy for them.

Join in if you want, please don't misunderstand,
but if you don't actually want to add more than
25 words at a time I'm not convinced you'd really
enjoy it.

> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>
> Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
> material.- Hide quoted text -

At least you aren't a stalker. If you were you'd know
this had been done to death several times over already
and wasted your 13 words--remember that's over half
your quota for this post, Mark, in some other form of
impotent abuse.

As I have tried to say a few times, you could maybe
actually use your writing skills to benefit others by
making the [Alt]-[F4] key combination more widely
known about on your website as, the way it relies
on pop-ups, the back button you instruct visitors to
make use of, erm, doesn't actually work.

> - Show quoted text -

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On 30 Apr, 17:30, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message
>
> news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> >> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> >> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives
> >> >> were,
> >> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> >> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> >> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's
> >> way
> >> too silly).
>
> >> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> >> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> > to be worth answering?
>
> What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?

I don't know. What generally encases your bugger bugger bum?

> > Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> > stanza.
>
> Any idea what the price of tea in China is?

Nope. Lapsang Souchong?

> Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
> DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

Oh, the smug confidence that precedes a fall.

I remember your infantile bugger bugger bum thing
and there was something about a dead cat. I did
not bother with aught else.

Having looked since for the post with the URL in it
I will say that I have read shopping lists which are
far more well worth copyrighting than your stuff I've
seen. And someone has copyrighted it. And in your
name. Presumably it's as easy to copy and pass off
as any other electronic form of text.

> > Thus none of it was worth writing.
>
> How about the price of beef in Bolton?

I thought actually using a question, mark, where
context was easily inferred by referring back, may
offend your minimalist sensibilities.

No point in wasting the electricity to make that wee
squiggly thing, like an upside down cedilla, render
on screen when one's dealing with a minimalist, what?

As it is, I can only conclude that far from turning
a rhetorical question into an opportunity to discuss
various approaches to writing you have instead
gone for the, and in this instance wholly indefensibly
gone for the, cheap shot.

> That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.

Erm, if you wish to set up a moderated group where
you can be arbiter and make sure only people you
know you like can post, then nobody's stopping you.

That is: I used to have a mental picture of you as a
kind of Nick-Park-created woollen C coder over
in Den Haag. Now-a-days I prefer to refer to the recent
"The Comic Strip Presents..." film about swinging
parties (I forget the name) which featured an artist
somewhat along what I take your lines to be.

I love some minimalist work. But if you want to try
rebuilding a 400/4 from a squiggle with motionblur
then go ahead.

> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>
> Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
> material.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you copyright what you make available to the
public but join in the infantile mockery when anyone
else does the same?

I don't suppose you're aware that a shopping list can
be entirely defensibly copyrighted. I suppose like a
list of things to steal to feed dead cats and the numbers
one covers on a roulette wheel can too.

When you come forth with some real criticism Mark
then you may find you get taken seriously. Until such
a point you're quite firmly on the list of people who
make sweeping statements about how you'll rip any
thing any body posts to so many pieces that suicide
is a preferable option to ever trying to write again.

Yet then you can't live up to it.

Have you read much literary criticism recently? There
has been quite a thing here about following up a critical
review with a digest containing not only a "condensed read"
but the "condensed condensed read". The last of these
does tend to come in at under 25 words.

Very few of them would sell for £12.99 however. And
as such tend to end up in the low-price-per-word world
of newspapers--which have circulations many would-be
writers should envy

I may be something of a traditionalist here but I hold
that being able to type is a genuine skill in any writer's
canon. I'm not ashamed of being able to type. Nor am
I particularly "proud" of it. It's something I can do like a
fork-lift truck driver can steer from the rear.

There are people with genuine disabilities who struggle
to compile texts of 1000 words length. I'm aware of this
and am certainly not unsympathetic to them. You, it
seems, are not one of these.

I may put a little more time into relocating your URL. I
suspect you've cancelled the post with it in though. It
seems a shame, firing forth your flames from your little
worldview in which you are some kind of deity.

But, please, don't go back-footing now and claiming you
only suggested 25 words as a working limit because you
didn't. You wanted it cast in iron. If everybody interested
was in a position where they could log in at morning,
lunch and afternoon breaks from work I would say you
were onto a winner. But as you haven't even lived up to
your own challenge and set the ball rolling on it I am at
somewhat of a loss as to how valuable an exercise it is
outside the confines of your poor overheated deluded
head.

What poetry of yours I've seen has been mediocre to
say the least. And I suggest that from the tenor and
calibre of your criticism you may work out better as
the resident expert on news:alt.flame.regurgitation
than anywhere you're in danger of confronting original
ideas in text form--which UCAW was supposed to be
but, for whatever reason/s, hasn't turned out to be.

I think it's a shame things have gone like that.

But at the end of the day doubt away. I saw your
little website just the other day. Some of it was
bland, some just grey; and it did you no favours
either way.

Or, in other words Mark, either pitch in or butt out eh?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 30, 5:30 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message
>
> news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> >> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> >> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives
> >> >> were,
> >> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> >> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> >> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's
> >> way
> >> too silly).
>
> >> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> >> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> > to be worth answering?
>
> What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?
>
> > Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> > stanza.
>
> Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
> Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
> DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

The proof you're a pudding is in the eating--your words
that is. I got there from here, from a thread you posted
to news:uk.culture.language.english

http://84.243.219.114/~mwallace/

I just read your transcribed stand-up routine. Not bad
for off the cuff stuff, in many ways, but whether or not
it's any indication of your ability as a writer...

....anyway, that was here

http://84.243.219.114/~mwallace/m-pages/etiquette.htm

....but it doesn't exactly sound like a paid gig though.

Oh, and yes, I know exactly how difficult it is to pitch
into dead time as a voice artist, how tricky it is to
guage your time slot, and pace it. You should think
yourself lucky you'd an audience you could see to get
feedback from, miladdy-oh.

> > Thus none of it was worth writing.
>
> How about the price of beef in Bolton?
>
> That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.

As far as I was concerned, having written too much
earlier and lost even the most avid readers, just
saying, you doubt away. I saw your site. So maybe
the ISP that's charging you 3 times what your old
one was is contravening your implicit right to not
make copies of your work available to the public?

I don't take kindly to being called a liar Mark.

So you serve us up your 25 words of genius and
we can go away and come back with additions.

But until you have I've not inclined to consider you
put much thought into so low a word limit. You're
aware, making yet another vain attempt at getting
some on-topic discussion here, that the average
person can talk about 100-130 wpm easily?

So, far from overloading readers, you're actually
asking for chunks of meaningful narrative text
that represent about 12.5 seconds of "airtime".

If I could justify getting to work a little early to
wedge a bit more on and then do some in my
morning break and make two or three more
contributions at lunchtime then another in the
afternoon and maybe one more before I left for
home in the evening then maybe I'd agree it was
an idea worth trying.

I'm still up for giving it a shot - as was Blue Sow -
just as soon as you put your lexicon where your
dental orifice is, but I do have other things to do
and can't guarantee to participate in any genuine
turn-taking manner in an exercise such as you
idealise.

> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>
> Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
> material.- Hide quoted text -

I've not seen any of yours being aired and passed
off as anything original either Mark. I know if I ran
an open mic. or similar night I'd be taking a line off
the desk for posterity. No, not to nick ideas, just
for posterity.

I'd love to see how your routine went down in a CIU
club rather than a roomful of your mates.

But honestly, check it out, a system for covering
numbers at roulette is as viable for copyright as
a shopping list--or as viable as any text I may
generate.

> - Show quoted text -

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> --

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is 
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> > --
>
> Corrected to:
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>
>>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
>>> --
>> Corrected to:
>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>>
>> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
>> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>>
>> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>>
>> --
>> Blue Sow
> 
> Hockay,
> 
> As you like.
> 
> Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
> 
> G DAEB
> 
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
> 


Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?


-- 
Blue Sow

On 22 Apr, 20:14, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On 22 Apr, 18:30, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> FCS wrote:
>
> >>> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
> >>> --
> >> Corrected to:
> >> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> >> in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
>
> >> Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
> >> copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
>
> >> But back to the plot - whose turn is it next?  Any takers?
>
> >> --
> >> Blue Sow
>
> > Hockay,
>
> > As you like.
>
> > Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
>
> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> Only whose turn it is (-:
>
> Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
>
> --
> Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> worked with then crash in with something which
> takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> and energy into and pull that rug from under them.


I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if 
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.


> But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.


Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


> Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in 
which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is 
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

-- 
Blue Sow

In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
> 
> 
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice
> if 
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
> 
> 
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.


Trolls are terrified of blue sows.


> 
> 
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
> 
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction
> in 
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since
> is 
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

Skipper wrote:
> In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
>  wrote:

>>
>> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> 
> 
> Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> 
> 

But it is a flower!


-- 
Blue Sow

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> request there are very few of them taking any
> kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message 
> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> kind of active interest in it these days.
> 
> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if 
> not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
> 
> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be said 
> in 25 words, then let it be so.
> 

Then let it be your move next  (-:


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <4630e62b$0$10722$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
 wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <462e35e9$0$19245$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Blue Sow
> >  wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > Trolls are terrified of blue sows.
> > 
> > 
> 
> But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls. 

There's your story, right there.

On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed.  At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise.  However, his behaviour since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am 
unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I 
remember much of them.


> I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an' 
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form 
with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image' 
were inevitable I suppose.


> My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> speculating on internal representations of logic via
> the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> go.


I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one 
species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from, 
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders 
than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse 
with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so 
successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

> Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> precisely what species you were implying.


Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the 
story.  Perhaps after it is done.


> Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although 
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).


> As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
> in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
> soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
> should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
 >
 >
> But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
> 

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

-- 
Blue Sow

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>> "FCS"  wrote in message 
>> news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>>> request there are very few of them taking any
>>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, 
>> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be 
>> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>
> Then let it be your move next  (-:

Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way 
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's way
> too silly).
>
> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
> > caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.
>
> I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
> unsure of the connection.  As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
> remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

> > I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
> > in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
> > bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
> > stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
> > a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
> > with it we're running with it.
>
> It goes as it goes.  Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
> thrope ... or not!
> A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
> with 'lycanthropy'.  Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
> were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

> > My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
> > anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
> > like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
> > a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
> > speculating on internal representations of logic via
> > the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
> > far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
> > go.
>
> I see beings as beings, and they are as they are.  I do not accord any one
> species a higher status than any other, especially my own.  I am different from,
> say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant.  Ants are rather better builders
> than humans, at least better than modern humans.  I have not tried to converse
> with an ant but have no objection to doing so.  If I considered I could do so
> successfully, I would consult my general practitioner (-:

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

> > Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
> > precisely what species you were implying.
>
> Ah.  Well.  I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
> story.  Perhaps after it is done.
>
> > Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
>
> I can do that.  You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
> Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
> that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).
>
> > But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
> > well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
>
> I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
>> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Wallace wrote:
>> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
>> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
>> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
>> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
>> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>>
>> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives 
>> >> were,
>> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>>
>> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
>> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>>
>> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>>
>> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's 
>> way
>> too silly).
>>
>> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>>
>> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?


> Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the 
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

> Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.


> G DAEB
>
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such 
material.

On 30 Apr, 17:30, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message
>
> news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> >> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> >> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives
> >> >> were,
> >> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> >> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> >> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's
> >> way
> >> too silly).
>
> >> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> >> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> > to be worth answering?
>
> What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?

I don't know, iyt would depend what was
encasing your poor bugger bugger bum.

> > Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> > stanza.
>
> Any idea what the price of tea in China is?

Nope. Lapsang Souchong?

> Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
> DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

"Oh, bugger bugger bum"

such gems as some

for all their flames and misgrasped
meanings

blame the world for retentive leanings?

You mean that site? which I saw from
the URL you posted? Erm, either last
weekend or the weekend before?

Doubt away.


> > Thus none of it was worth writing.
>
> How about the price of beef in Bolton?

Now, either you're trying to trap me into
using the word "rhetorical" or it's one you
may benefit from looking up, particularly
in its context of The Rhetorical Question.

As, however, you appear to have answered
the question which didn't need one and in
a way which suggests that, actually, I may
have over-rated your efforts.

> That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.

I'm talking about your poetry, and what seems
to be a fetish for hanging around groups about
writing whilst trying to cunningly dissuade people
from actually doing any.

Typing is a skill in the writers' canon. If 1500
words at a time is too much for you then I do
wonder why you bother considering you're a
writer rather than someone who just tries to
put words which sound alike into infantile
frameworks and calls it poetry.

There was something about cats too I recall.

I shall have to google "cats" sometime. I had
not unil now considered it was a particularly
original subject matter.

But, far from you taking the initiative and trying
to discuss what it is that constitutes effective
wrtitng, it seems you're happier to rely on
cheap jibes and childish taunts.

Now, OK, on consideration I was up for the
exercise of sticking chunks, which I presume
should be self-contained, of no more than 25
words together.

But to propose it as an absolute ceiling above
which all communication becomes meaningless
really is silly. I agree with your sentiment that
if something can be said in 25 words then why
use more; it does not, however, follow either
that writing is about saying one thing and one
thing alone.

I am familiar enough with the medium of the
book to have noticed that whilst significant
pieces of action can take a few pages to run
through, very many do indeed have shorter
sections.

Only I can't think of many that only have 25
words in their shorter sections.

Then there's the whole genre of serialised stories,
not something on which there's a whole load of
literature for the novice writer but which have been
a defining form in the culture of writing in the UK.

I was considering making posts of varying
length depending what it was I wanted to add
and how much time that week and suchlike.

But now I shall simply announce that no longer
do I have a mental picture of you as a kind of
Nick-Park-created yuppie coding away in Den
Haag, but it's more like the artist guy in that
The Comic Strip Presents... comparatively recent
thing about swinging parties.

I am of course aware there are various people
who for a variety of reasons really struggle to
do more than 25 words. Either they pick out
each letter, labouriously, with a head-mounted
stylus, or work against some other disadvantage
biology has saddled them with. Don't go thinking
I have no sympathy for them.

Join in if you want, please don't misunderstand,
but if you don't actually want to add more than
25 words at a time I'm not convinced you'd really
enjoy it.

> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>
> Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
> material.- Hide quoted text -

At least you aren't a stalker. If you were you'd know
this had been done to death several times over already
and wasted your 13 words--remember that's over half
your quota for this post, Mark, in some other form of
impotent abuse.

As I have tried to say a few times, you could maybe
actually use your writing skills to benefit others by
making the [Alt]-[F4] key combination more widely
known about on your website as, the way it relies
on pop-ups, the back button you instruct visitors to
make use of, erm, doesn't actually work.

> - Show quoted text -

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On 30 Apr, 17:30, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message
>
> news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> >> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> >> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives
> >> >> were,
> >> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> >> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> >> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's
> >> way
> >> too silly).
>
> >> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> >> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> > to be worth answering?
>
> What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?

I don't know. What generally encases your bugger bugger bum?

> > Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> > stanza.
>
> Any idea what the price of tea in China is?

Nope. Lapsang Souchong?

> Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
> DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

Oh, the smug confidence that precedes a fall.

I remember your infantile bugger bugger bum thing
and there was something about a dead cat. I did
not bother with aught else.

Having looked since for the post with the URL in it
I will say that I have read shopping lists which are
far more well worth copyrighting than your stuff I've
seen. And someone has copyrighted it. And in your
name. Presumably it's as easy to copy and pass off
as any other electronic form of text.

> > Thus none of it was worth writing.
>
> How about the price of beef in Bolton?

I thought actually using a question, mark, where
context was easily inferred by referring back, may
offend your minimalist sensibilities.

No point in wasting the electricity to make that wee
squiggly thing, like an upside down cedilla, render
on screen when one's dealing with a minimalist, what?

As it is, I can only conclude that far from turning
a rhetorical question into an opportunity to discuss
various approaches to writing you have instead
gone for the, and in this instance wholly indefensibly
gone for the, cheap shot.

> That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.

Erm, if you wish to set up a moderated group where
you can be arbiter and make sure only people you
know you like can post, then nobody's stopping you.

That is: I used to have a mental picture of you as a
kind of Nick-Park-created woollen C coder over
in Den Haag. Now-a-days I prefer to refer to the recent
"The Comic Strip Presents..." film about swinging
parties (I forget the name) which featured an artist
somewhat along what I take your lines to be.

I love some minimalist work. But if you want to try
rebuilding a 400/4 from a squiggle with motionblur
then go ahead.

> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>
> Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
> material.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you copyright what you make available to the
public but join in the infantile mockery when anyone
else does the same?

I don't suppose you're aware that a shopping list can
be entirely defensibly copyrighted. I suppose like a
list of things to steal to feed dead cats and the numbers
one covers on a roulette wheel can too.

When you come forth with some real criticism Mark
then you may find you get taken seriously. Until such
a point you're quite firmly on the list of people who
make sweeping statements about how you'll rip any
thing any body posts to so many pieces that suicide
is a preferable option to ever trying to write again.

Yet then you can't live up to it.

Have you read much literary criticism recently? There
has been quite a thing here about following up a critical
review with a digest containing not only a "condensed read"
but the "condensed condensed read". The last of these
does tend to come in at under 25 words.

Very few of them would sell for £12.99 however. And
as such tend to end up in the low-price-per-word world
of newspapers--which have circulations many would-be
writers should envy

I may be something of a traditionalist here but I hold
that being able to type is a genuine skill in any writer's
canon. I'm not ashamed of being able to type. Nor am
I particularly "proud" of it. It's something I can do like a
fork-lift truck driver can steer from the rear.

There are people with genuine disabilities who struggle
to compile texts of 1000 words length. I'm aware of this
and am certainly not unsympathetic to them. You, it
seems, are not one of these.

I may put a little more time into relocating your URL. I
suspect you've cancelled the post with it in though. It
seems a shame, firing forth your flames from your little
worldview in which you are some kind of deity.

But, please, don't go back-footing now and claiming you
only suggested 25 words as a working limit because you
didn't. You wanted it cast in iron. If everybody interested
was in a position where they could log in at morning,
lunch and afternoon breaks from work I would say you
were onto a winner. But as you haven't even lived up to
your own challenge and set the ball rolling on it I am at
somewhat of a loss as to how valuable an exercise it is
outside the confines of your poor overheated deluded
head.

What poetry of yours I've seen has been mediocre to
say the least. And I suggest that from the tenor and
calibre of your criticism you may work out better as
the resident expert on news:alt.flame.regurgitation
than anywhere you're in danger of confronting original
ideas in text form--which UCAW was supposed to be
but, for whatever reason/s, hasn't turned out to be.

I think it's a shame things have gone like that.

But at the end of the day doubt away. I saw your
little website just the other day. Some of it was
bland, some just grey; and it did you no favours
either way.

Or, in other words Mark, either pitch in or butt out eh?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On Apr 30, 5:30 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message
>
> news:1177896820.432331.218040@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:36 pm, "Mark Wallace"  wrote:
> >> "Blue Sow"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:463139f4$0$21850$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> >> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> >> "FCS"  wrote in message
> >> >>news:1177209648.396636.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> It occurred to me that having seen the list of
> >> >>> people who seconded the original newsgroup
> >> >>> request there are very few of them taking any
> >> >>> kind of active interest in it these days.
>
> >> >> Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives
> >> >> were,
> >> >> if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
>
> >> >> I'd contest your word limit, though.  If what needs to be said can be
> >> >> said in 25 words, then let it be so.
>
> >> > Then let it be your move next  (-:
>
> >> Fine.  Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh?  It's
> >> way
> >> too silly).
>
> >> It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
>
> >> The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
> > to be worth answering?
>
> What exactly have you been sniffing?  Knickers?
>
> > Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
> > stanza.
>
> Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
> Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
> DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

The proof you're a pudding is in the eating--your words
that is. I got there from here, from a thread you posted
to news:uk.culture.language.english

http://84.243.219.114/~mwallace/

I just read your transcribed stand-up routine. Not bad
for off the cuff stuff, in many ways, but whether or not
it's any indication of your ability as a writer...

....anyway, that was here

http://84.243.219.114/~mwallace/m-pages/etiquette.htm

....but it doesn't exactly sound like a paid gig though.

Oh, and yes, I know exactly how difficult it is to pitch
into dead time as a voice artist, how tricky it is to
guage your time slot, and pace it. You should think
yourself lucky you'd an audience you could see to get
feedback from, miladdy-oh.

> > Thus none of it was worth writing.
>
> How about the price of beef in Bolton?
>
> That is:  What the Hell are you talking about?  Come back when you're sober.

As far as I was concerned, having written too much
earlier and lost even the most avid readers, just
saying, you doubt away. I saw your site. So maybe
the ISP that's charging you 3 times what your old
one was is contravening your implicit right to not
make copies of your work available to the public?

I don't take kindly to being called a liar Mark.

So you serve us up your 25 words of genius and
we can go away and come back with additions.

But until you have I've not inclined to consider you
put much thought into so low a word limit. You're
aware, making yet another vain attempt at getting
some on-topic discussion here, that the average
person can talk about 100-130 wpm easily?

So, far from overloading readers, you're actually
asking for chunks of meaningful narrative text
that represent about 12.5 seconds of "airtime".

If I could justify getting to work a little early to
wedge a bit more on and then do some in my
morning break and make two or three more
contributions at lunchtime then another in the
afternoon and maybe one more before I left for
home in the evening then maybe I'd agree it was
an idea worth trying.

I'm still up for giving it a shot - as was Blue Sow -
just as soon as you put your lexicon where your
dental orifice is, but I do have other things to do
and can't guarantee to participate in any genuine
turn-taking manner in an exercise such as you
idealise.

> > G DAEB
>
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
>
> Well worth copyrighting.  I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
> material.- Hide quoted text -

I've not seen any of yours being aired and passed
off as anything original either Mark. I know if I ran
an open mic. or similar night I'd be taking a line off
the desk for posterity. No, not to nick ideas, just
for posterity.

I'd love to see how your routine went down in a CIU
club rather than a roomful of your mates.

But honestly, check it out, a system for covering
numbers at roulette is as viable for copyright as
a shopping list--or as viable as any text I may
generate.

> - Show quoted text -

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On 22 Apr, 11:09, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
> > bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
> > kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
> > game where people speak until the bell
> > sounds, and then the next person carries
> > on, only with however many people as can be
> > bothered to collaborate.
>
> > I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
> > the first instance, if someone wishes to
> > start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
> > 1500-2000 words.
>
> I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable.  However,
> as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
> might be a more realistic target for each turn.  The amount of written text you
> are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
> for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
> thing to drag out over months).
>
> Your starter for ten:
>
>         "The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
> could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
> eased.  He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
> for the long day ahead.  As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
> food could be scarce at this time of year.  Sometimes, his entire day would be
> taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
> energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it.  Yet he had survived.
>         Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
> spirits.  Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
> found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious.  They did
> however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option.  The
> pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
> soon, he reached the first of the rocks.  Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
> could be found and today was no exception.  He feasted hungrily on all that
> there was to eat.  The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
> sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
> further and further until he reached the waves."
>
> --
> Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no n