What I’ve Learned So Far

You know what? I’ve worked like a dog this week. Well worth it, though.

I’ll come back and write something coherent . . . when I’m coherent.

Y’all be good.

I’m a big believer in “different strokes for different folks,” but . . . some people are just sick.

Not an original observation, I know, but sometimes it bears repeating.

I’m off doing worky things today, so I leave you with . . . The Batman & Robin Comic Generator.

Use it wisely.

From my trusty @Twalk account, I’ve tweeted 26,000+ times. But this week, that number — which is displayed on my Twitter page and is an easily-checked barometer for how active someone is on Twitter — mysteriously tripled. At this moment, it looks like this:

Don’t I wish.

So, it’s a bug and it’s been logged in Twitter’s bug tracking system. But when I checked on it yesterday, this was the latest word:

UPDATE: 02/02/10 - This bug is a low priority issue because it does not prevent users from fully using Twitter. We do not expect to have this issue fixed in the immediate future for this reason. Please leave a comment below if you are affected by this issue. Thank you!

See, for normal, well-adjusted people, this would be an adequate response. But for the sad, hard-bitten souls who live on Twitter (read: “me”), “fully using Twitter” includes constant — AND ACCURATE — access to The Great Validating Number. I mean, how do I know I really exist without my 26,307 tweets (or whatever the number really is because at this point I don’t KNOW which is why I’m coming a little unGLUED here andhowcouldtheyTHINK . . . )?

*cleansing breaths*

I’m better now. Especially because I read this:

UPDATE: 02/05/10 - A higher number of accounts are affected by this bug than we previously guessed. This problem is now important and have engineers currently working on resolving the improper tweet counts. We expect to have a fix released relatively soon.

They have seen the light. Help is on the way. Meanwhile, the Twitter nation turns its lonely eyes to Tweetstats . . .

‘Cuz I got things to do. But look, I gave you a pretty picture! Or rather, tropicaLiving gave the world a pretty picture on Flickr, and I found it for you.

What things, you ask? Well, let’s just say that some secrets are worth keeping . . . *MWA-HA-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaah*

(No, really, nothing that dramatic — just work ‘n’ stuff.)

My friend Richie Escovedo and I play this game on Twitter: You take any old noun — the more innocuous the better — add “of the Baskervilles” . . . and see if hilarity ensues.

Examples:

• The Sensible Shoes of the Baskervilles.
• The Carport of the Baskervilles.
• The Ballpont Pen of the Baskervilles.
• The Theory of Mind of the Baskervilles.
• The Phonograph Record of the Baskervilles.
• The Pig of the Baskervilles.
• . . .

Care to try your hand?

~

(Awesome Hound of the Baskervilles movie poster available via Art.com.)

Also “fark,” “frakking,” “farking,” “farging,” et cetera.

The characters on Battlestar Galactica — whence “frak” comes — may be forgiven: they have television censors to deal with. But the rest of us? No.

By the way, I once heard a friend of mine say “What the flip?!” about something. Not that either, please.

My point: we have lots of great epithets in the English language. For that matter, nothing prevents you from shouting “Merde!” when the time is right, with bonus points if you sound like a Parisian cabbie doing it. You can pick and choose what you want to say, and — in my humble opinion — it’s far better to use the swear you actually mean, rather than an Olestra / Splenda / Mockolate version of a swear you’re too timid to actually say.

So, instead of “Thing X is a farking pain to do” — which I read today in a blog comment thread — try one of these:

• Mild: “Thing X is a complete pain to do.”
• Less mild: “Thing X is a complete pain in the ass to do.”
• Warmer: “Thing X is a damn pain in the ass to do.”
• Warmer still but censored: “Thing X is a $%^& pain to do.” (I mean if you actually type “$%^&” as opposed to, say, “gosh-darn.”)
• Hot: Just go ahead and drop the F-bomb. That’s what it’s for.

Who’s with me on this?
~

(Image source.)

I’ve been using the Dvorak typing system for about 18 months now, and have become so accustomed to it that QWERTY typing is no longer intuitive for me.

No, no one asked me about it, but I happened across a post I wrote about Dvorak more than two years ago and wanted to close the loop.

Loop closed. Carry on.

What with being a wordsmith maven obsessive, and all.

US lawyer charged over $1bn Ponzi fraud scheme

A former lawyer based in South Florida has been charged with operating a $1bn (£603m) investment fraud scheme. . . .

So . . . what does it take to become a “former” lawyer? Disbarment? Stopped practicing? Took up another profession? Renounced the law?
Since the source is the BBC, maybe this is a case of being divided by a common language, but I can’t recall a lawyer ever being described this way. You become a lawyer, you’re “a lawyer” even after you stop practicing. It’s like describing Gerald Ford as “from Michigan.” Didn’t matter that he was born in Nebraska, didn’t matter where he lived later in life — he was always “from Michigan.”

Thoughts, gentle wordfolk?

We’re into the second half of November? 2009?

I would ask where this month went, but the more burning question is: Where the hell did 2009 go??

Please leave any clues on the current whereabouts of the first 10.5 months of 2009 in the comments.