A "tense moment" at the doctor's office, and a witless wager

The angry grammarian accompanied his father to the doctor yesterday. As usual, one is sent to a room well in advance of the doctor's visit, where a nurse asks the same series of inane questions and shows little awareness of the real medical issues that have led to said visit. As a rule, no big deal, but at times these prep sessions with the nurse can lead to, shall we say, tense moments:

Nurse: Ok, John. You seen/seein' (impossible to decipher) him on the 11th (again, punctuation impossible to decipher; did we detect rising inflection, indicating a question about the future, or was this merely a statement about the past? The date, two weeks or so past 11 Dec and two weeks or so prior to 11 Jan, is of no help either).

John: The 11th?

Nurse: Yeah, you seen/seein' him on the 11th (.? ?? !?).

John: Umm, I'm not sure when I'm seeing him again.

Nurse: No, you SEEN him on the 11th. SEEN, past tense.

John: Oh, right, SEEN. Sure, I guess I saw him on the 11th.

So you can imagine that the grammarian was equal parts amused and mortified, and he awoke this morning hoping to have his faith in humanity restored. And where does one turn when one needs one's faith in humanity restored? The Price is Right, of course. And what did the grammarian find in the first pricing game, in which contestants bid on a 52" plasma TV? The following:

1st contestant: $550, Drew.
2nd contestant: $1200!
3rd contestant: $1300, Drew.
4th contestant: $1299, baby. Oh yeah!

The grammarian has SEEN enough, though he's afraid that he'll be seein' a lot more of the same in 2009.

Toner Scam

Rizsan contributes:
I am sitting in my office and overhear Tim getting slightly ramped up on the phone. This never happens. The debate got more and more interesting and Tim point/counter pointed back and forth.

Backstory:

It seems that Young Timo has fallen victim to a Toner Scam. He got cold called and said yes to a good deal on toner that turned out to be not a good deal at all.
He called the company and said he wanted to return the product.

We did not pay in advance, so that's good...

He had to call the "big Boss" in order to return.

Big Boss said no and gave Time two options.

1. Keep the product and pay full (exorbitant) invoice. Boss would not report bad debt on Tim's credit.

2. Return the product and pay re-stocking fee.(still exorbitant)

Tim said he did not like either option and said to Boss,
"NO, YOU have two options.

1. Take the product back.
2. I throw it away.

I will not pay your re-stocking fee."

Boss said, "well, I do not have control over re-stocking fee."

Tim says, "Wait, if you are Big Boss, why are you the first person answering the phone and why can't you control re-stocking fee?" Big Boss got all shook up and hung up on Tim. I say Tim wins all the Argue points here.

John Dingley said:

Cold calling Maine - .99 cent per minute
Chinese Toner - $764.84
Re-stocking Fee - $164.48
Toner shoved in your baloney hole - Priceless

I am a Saint!

In my effort to overtake Young Tom in the canonization process, I am compelled to relate the following story of my first miracle.

Said miracle occurred during dinner at Elaine's house tonight. But first, let me back up a step (apologies to Uncle Bubba). After LL practice on Sunday (volunteer work = heaven points), I was at the Breakaway with Unkie and Auntie Ann. Although most of their conversation seemed to revolve around who owed whom $3 after a night at the "Let It Ride" table, I did learn, inter alia, that Auntie was sour because Linda had visited Fenway and returned with a Manny Ramirez shirt for her beloved. Why, auntie wondered aloud, wouldn't she get a Johnny Damon or Curt Shilling shirt, since Ramirez is such a flake? It's not immediately clear to me why Linda, a flyover person who now flies over all of us, would be versed in the Red Sox line-up, or know Johnny Damon from Johnny Bravo, but I digress.

"You know what Joe said about Shilling?" Auntie asked me. Knowing all of her questions are rhetorical, I merely tired to look fascinated. "Why would I want a shirt of that bible-toting, Bush-voting SOB."

"Oh dear," said I. Auntie just gave me a knowing nod.

"You should read the paper he wrote - I think he's a communist!"

"Well, the ivory tower will do that to you."

"I'll give it to you when I'm done reading it," Unkie chimed in. "Something about peda-something. What's that called, pedophilia?"

"Pedagogy?" I guessed hopefully.

"Right!"

- - -

Ok, fast forward to tonight. Having dinner with Timo and Elaine, which she cooked as a thank you for me doing her taxes (more heaven points). Eventually the subject turns to the Red Sox, who won today. Our favorite bloody-sock-wearing, curse-breaking, born-again Christian pitcher is on the TV, thanking his maker for making his wife. Elaine begins to ooze with Jesus-freak speak about him.

I am immediately gripped with the urge that I can only guess makes ether so sinister. I must stir it up and walk away. I will offer an innocent conflicting opinion of Mr. Schilling to my sainted mother and watch her head spin all the way around like in the Exorcist. Then I will pretend not to remember who had such an opinion. Then I will let it come to me, oh yeah, it was Young Joseph Dominic. It is welling up inside me, much like John Travolta's urge to strut at the end of Saturday Night Fever. This is the Val Halla of stir it up and walk away moments.

"You know what I heard about Schilling yesterday?" I ask.

"What?" says Elaine. But then a funny thing happened. She was looking at me expectantly, innocently. Suddenly I was looking into the eyes of Cindy Lou Who, the tiniest Who in Whoville. My heart grew thee sizes. How could I do that to Elaine? To J.D.? I could not.

"Nothing," I said, "never mind."

"What did you hear, tell me!" Now she thinks it's a funny story or a scandal.

"I heard he was sorry he had to pitch while the black smoke came from the conclave, I guess he's really into paying attention to that." (Yes, this was a 'lie,' but let's not get hung up on technicalities. Let's focus on the miracle: I let pass a double-platinum blinging chance to SIUAWA completely altruistically! Not to mention that this is completely against my genetic makeup!)

"Oh, I'm not surprised," she said, moving on, "do you know what Father Jim said about ... [whatever]." Changing the subject is an underappreciated art.

Please being filling out the paperwork on my behalf.

St. Patrick

PS. Tommy let's not "accidentally" leak this one to Our Sainted Mother, K?

Angry Grammarian said:

I should begin by making it quite clear that I have no objections to the
canonization of my cousin Patrick; indeed, I will subsequently refer to him as St. Patrick.

This appellation might be premature in a strictly theological -- or doctrinal -- sense, but certainly it is not unwarranted. I appreciate St. Patrick's concern not to tarnish my image and/or damage my relationship with my beloved, not to mention favorite, auntie. Having said that, I do feel compelled to clarify some details and flesh out some gaps in the narrative.

First and foremost -- and undoubtedly obvious to all of us -- is that had I been given an option (and in fairness to Linda, she did try to contact me and give me an option, but I was detained at the moment) I would have opted for a Varitek t-shirt.

Second, and of no importance, Linda also brought me back a sweet grey hooded sox sweatshirt, not unlike the ones that derek lowe (or even bill belichick) wore during the improbable march (GO SOX!) to the 2004 World Series Championship. All of which is to say: Look for me on tv in the leftfield bleachers in Camden Yards tomorrow night.

I'll be the guy in blue Manny Ramirez t-shirt and/or the grey Red Sox sweatshirt. I'm not sure what a flyover person is, or exactly what St. Patrick means, but I take offense to his suggestion: of course Linda knows the difference between Johnny Damon and Johnny Bravo -- what kind of man wouldn't force his wife to sit down and watch the Red Sox with him, memorize rosters and stats, etc?

To clarify my comments about Curt Schilling:

My exact words were, "Ehh, he's kind of a Bible-beater."

Which doesn't say anything at all about my relationship to religion. It merely suggests my belief that God, if such a being exists, does not care all that much about baseball, strikeouts, homeruns, etc.

The collusion between the evangelical Christian community and the ideological right in the U.S. is problematic, but it is not a connection I chose to make in my conversation with my mother.

Nor did I refer to Mr. Schilling as an 'SOB.'

Most inexplicable to me is my mother's sneaking suspicion that I might be a communist.

Inexplicable, because if she asked, I would indeed tell her, "Yes, I am a communist." That is, I believe in the abolition of private property and feel that our world would be far more just if the means of productions were in the hands of the workers -- the global proletariat.

Presumably her suspicion emerges from prior conversations with me in which I have been quite frank about my beliefs, though perhaps the fact that I am devoting my life to the study of Marxist theory was an additional clue. I bristle at St. Patrick's suggestion that the ivory tower has 'done this' to me, as I feel that I was predisposed to be a socialist before I ever set foot in the tower.

I sense a bit of hostility towards academia in general in this suggestion.

Let me just say that I am inclined to disregard the prevailing conservative wisdom that constructs the academy as a space of rampant liberalism and open hostility towards conservative positions. But that is another matter entirely.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate my thanks to St. Patrick for preserving my relationship with Auntie.

The literary-minded among us will no doubt agree that his lie is of the same degree and import as Marlow's lie to Kurtz's intended -- a lie that enables the civilizing mission of Western discourse to continue, however provisionally.

Because we all know that 'The horror!' would have been too much for either Kurtz's intended -- or Auntie Elaine -- to bear. On the other hand, we must be vigilant. Auntie's sudden disinterest and her willingness to change the subject strikes me as rather suspicious.

Serendipitously, I came across this quote almost immediately after reading the first epistle of St. Patrick: "Many a secret that cannot be pried out by curiosity can be drawn out by indifference." -Sydney J. Harris, journalist (1917-1986)

Goodbye, God Bless, and Go Sox!

T.W.O.D.s

Angry Grammarian made the following announcement:

Family and Friends,

I'm quasi-famous.

Okay, not famous at all, really, but it's exciting for me: the Georgetown English dept has decided to include graduate assistants on the faculty web page, so today marks the debut of my pseudo-professional web page.

You can find me on the faculty web page, very, very close to the
>bottom of the page.

Click on my name for a short bio and a very flattering picture.

Be sure to reply and tell me how good I look and how smart I sound.

From Behind the Bar said:

Very Nice Joe! However, I didn't see a mention of your extensive studies in the field of Boozology, with special attention to the sleeping habits of creatures under the influence of alcohol and their relationship with characteristic leaves,bark, twigs, pertaining to black, red and silver maple trees.

I even remember you completed field studies at great length at the Eagles Sanctuary, where you studied under Profs. Thornton, Thornton, Thornton, and Napolitano.

I feel Georgetown would be very interested to hear your findings!

I also appreciate the "Prime Time" flare you went with for your picture. Also, noting that nearly ever other faculty member went with the canned black and white image of row boat on river.

Best of Luck,
Prof. Thornton

Angry Grammarian said:

Liz often remarks about the comic genius of Tommy's emails.

Any shred of skepticism I had remaining has been obliterated by this most recent epistle.

A work of art; I bow down before the master.

From Behind the Bar said:

No need to bow Young Joseph, your affectionate praise is enough.

Instead let us walk to together, shoulder to shoulder as equals, to receive the
accolades that are due to us; great men of eloquent email.

From Behind the Bar said:

Copies of letters from my archives are forwarded for a small processing fee of $500.00. This tiny fee helps to defray the cost of employing 100's of co-op student through our charitable organization, Tools without Direction (T.W.O.D.s). The students help in the cataloging and retrieval of some of the worlds most priceless pieces of literature in the world.

For more information or if you would like to make additional donations or if you would like to sponsor a T.W.O.D. please write to us at:

T.W.O.D.
2050 Bytnchok Lane
San Diego, CA 98765-4321
Attn: Big Boss Dog

Thank you for purchasing another masterpiece. Any reproduction or unauthorized distribution of said literary works, will be met with legal action from the foundation's legal representative, one Dirty Old Town, Esq.

Open Bar: Place Your Bets

After learning that Angry Grammarian's wedding would include a 5-hour open bar for our very Irish family, the following exchange occured:

Dirty Old Town said:

Five hours. Tom Thornton Jr. Anne Napolitano. Butch Giardi. Timo. Jane Giardi. Myself. Jack Napolitano. Tommy.

Oh dear God.

Please tell me that you pay by the hour and not the drink. Please.

What's the opening line for the over/under for a five hour open bar for the aforesaid?

Tom Jr. - 9.5
Anne - 9.0
Butch - 8.0
Timo - 12.0
Jane - 5.5
Me - 10.0
Jack - off
Tommy 9.5

From Behind the Bar said:

Pat you may want to figure in , pre-game, post-game, and a little thing called a wagon run....

Dirty Old Town said:

Good point. To be clear, these over/unders are for the five hour open bar only. I know everyone probably thinks: of course I can have 8 drinks in a five-hour period! But will you, at this particular time and place? I have taken into account everyone's penchant for pre-game activities and adjusted accordingly. If you think one number is way off, put your money where your mouth is!

For Entertainment Purposes Only.

After no action, Angry Grammy said:

Apparently we have some reluctant betters in the casino, so allow me to begin the wagering...

Pat's point is well taken, but I see on circumstances which would prevent young Tim from topping 12 drinks, so I'll put five on the over.

On the other hand, I think that her duties as mother of the groom - coupled with frequent trips out to the patio to smoke a cig - will prevent Anne Nap from getting to 9.

She will take her role seriously and maintain decorum.

I'll take five on the under. I'm still waiting on some inside info before I place any other bets, but I'll open with these two...

Rizsan said:

Wow!

What well thought out wagering!

It seems like Joe knows what he's doing, so I'd like $5 on the mother of the groom bet with Joe.

I am not following you with the Tim wager, Joe.

Care to elaborate?

From Behind the Bar offered up his insight and commentary:

Following Joe's lead; here are Big T's locks:

Tom Jr. - 9.5
5 on the under- while 5 hours is a long time, I think the Old man will want to stay awake for night fall and even a peak inside the LL.(Linebacker Lounge)

Anne - 9.0
5 on the under- I like Joe's theory, she'll have a lot of motherly things to do plus the constant stress, even for Aunty, will hinder her from putting up big numbers. Go big on the under, however if her duties finish early, be careful, she then has all the reason to enter Crusherville!

Butch - 8.0
5 on the under- double up here if there is Jim B. involved, I say if you can a get a line on anything above a 7.0 jump on it and bet the farm! - This is my pick of the week.

Timo - 12.0
5 on the under-while this is a tough call, I think there will be some pacing going on here, as Timmba will postpone heavy intake until the Linebacker L. (The line for the Linebacker L is 5.0 by the way.)

Jane - 5.5
5 on the over-this one won't be decided until late and here's why: if Butch make as early departure as suggested above, the mice will play while the cat is away.

Look for Aunty to make a big push late when there is no supervision, please see previous performances at George's.

Pat - 10.0
5 on the under- again not wanting to be "that guy" and also saving himself for Linebacker L, Pat goes slow and steady, I'll say a healthy 8.0-8.5

Jack - off
Only thing worth touching here is total time at reception, if you can get a line of 4hours take the under, especially if tie coverage is lacking.

If a late line appears concerning total units consumed, RUN. This is a true wild card, nobody with any intelligence would touch this one!

Tommy 9.5
Obviously, this one is offline for me, I do not want to be thought of as a Pete Rose, but purely for fun here goes; 5 on the under-similar strategy applies here, hold off for the late-late night activities whatever they may be...

Please note: All bets are off if shots are brought into the fray.

Dirty Old Town said:

Expert analysis as always, Tom. You seem to be favoring unders for the most part, are you fearful of the neutral site affecting perfomances? We've heard about the "family genes" for years now, and some say this legend has grown so big that the lines are being inflated. Care to comment?

I can tell you that we've seen some heavy early action on the over for Tom Jr. -there's talk of the line moving to 10.0 in some books. Talk a little bit about the likelihood that Tom Jr. has "Peter Edward Rose" tendencies. Do you think it matters if his defense is that he always bet on himself to win?

Excrement, in All Its Interestingness

Angry Grammarian invited commentary on this New York Times book review on "The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why It Matters."

To which John Dingley replied with this gem:

Ah Angry Grammy, this brings a tear to my eyes. A subject so close to my heart. First with the standing versus sitting issue. I no longer urinate in urinals, because I have noticed the spray. When you're using them it sprays right onto your pants, and I'm not a big fan of pee pants. So don't use urinals, ever! Now if I sat to urinate, wouldn't the spray just hit the back of my thighs and buttocks?? Answer yes, so here's what I do. Urinate from as far away from the toilet as you can with no compromising accuracy. Then, as soon as your stream is done, you RUN as fast as possible out of the bathroom, but not before switching on fan on to suck out the vapors. But you want to be sure to RUN to the closest sink, not in the vapor fall out area and wash up.

Finally let's talk about Fex (my new word for poo). Of course if you got fex on your hand, you wouldn't clean it off with a dry paper towel, would you? Answer, hell no! Lots of companies make what is basically a "wet nap" for toilet paper. I suggest you look into it, nobody wants excess Fex around. I'm sure there are some of you out there thinking that's going to cost me extra $, we're in a recession, blah blah blah. Well, you're god damn right it will! If you can't drop a couple extra bucks a month to keep the Fex away from your exit only area, then don't sit or
stand next to me.

Questions? Concerns? Comments?

Fex residue ruins millions on lives every year, don't be another statistic.

Finally a name for it that can be shared in mixed company!

But Big Mama chipped in another suggestion:

I think a revolution should be started on men sitting down to urinate. Thismight be a novel idea to some, but I think it is practical, efficient, and hygieinic.

I wonder how or why the men standing up to spray ever started. Let's face it: their aim in not that good, and more importantly, they don't give a damn! As most of the time, they are not cleaning up after themselves.

I like John Dingley's new word for poop--fex. I tried a few of the remaining vowels for urine--and am left with "fox" as the other vowels might lead to more confusion--fix, fax and the worst-- fux . Just an aside for Angry Grammarian--I know we learned our vowels as "a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y" but fyx would sound the same as fix, leading to more confusion, as we would then have to spell it out for listeners to our important discussions on this subject.

So fex and fox are our excretory euphemisms.

I do recall reading in history books about the reason men joined the women in wearing high heels. They always carried lace hankies to dip in the running water in the streets to remove any fex from their pantaloons. That would be an important accessory for both men and women.

In re-reading John Dingley's essay, I noticed he capitalized Fex and so I will do likewise in the future--Fex and Fox.

I do not agree with his solution to avoid the spray, however. Extremely ineffectual!!

His concern that by sitting down, the appendage would then spray the thighs and buttocks is unwarranted. The appendage would be hanging down and not curving towards the thighs or buttocks, If it is so long, that it would curve, then gravity would be the prime force, thereby, having it be submerged, in which the cleansing of it in the water, would be accomplished, albeit it, water with some fox in it, and potentially, Fex. Then his recommendation to invest in some wet naps would be prudent to cleanse any remnants of Fex or Fox.

This has worn me out physically, mentally, emotionally and even spirtually, I am going to brew a third cup of tea here which will lead to more Foxing..

Dirty Old Town said:

I don't get how "fox" causes less confusion. "Fex" is the only one that
neither exists nor has a homonym.

Big Mama said:

You are so right, Dirty Old Town. Hmmmm, My brain is worn out. I think we need to come up with another euphemism for urine. Perhaps the collective brains out there, including yours, could come up with one????

Dirty Old Town said:

"Wex"?

The Vatican's "Dignity of the Person"

I invited Angry Grammarian to comment on the Vatican's Dignity of the Person (text, article).

He replied:

The Catholic Church, while often expressing views that seem, on the
surface, to be wholly laudable, never fails to reiterate views that are
narrow-minded and, from the perspective of a more truly catholic (little "c!") concern for human beings, counter-productive. Take, for example, the insistence that "The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and the family." Ok, fine, of course the Church will proceed as if there is a God who has decreed x, y, and z. But in the world we live in, to cling to these notions and ignore human realities is, well, to cede the ability to intervene usefully and effectively and, worse, to do actual harm in many cases (i.e. HIV/AIDS in developing nations, because the Church is against the dissemination of condoms, which essentially makes it complicit in the dissemination of disease, etc).

So, you know, for me: I don't adhere to the notion of natural law, I reject as incredibly naive the notion that "the acts that permit a new human being to come into existence...are a reflection of trinitarian love" [what percentage of pregnancies come even remotely close to this ridiculously idealistic -- and not very ecumenical -- conception of conception?], and so on and so on.

Be safe. Have sex. Have kids, if you want, when you want, but with full awareness that a woman has the right to manage her own reproductive rights.

And, oh, by the way, there are lots of good gay couples out there -- the ones having sinful, unnatural sex -- who would adopt these unborn children that the Church cares so much about.

In sum, the Catholic Church is not where I go to get my moral and ethical framework.

And yourselves? You have opinions?

To which Rizsan replied:

I so totally agree with all of this it brings tears to my eyes. No
kidding. I wish I were this eloquent. I feel so betrayed by the Catholic Church, it is hard for me not to feel resentful towards it. Although I still firmly identify myself as being Catholic. I love the rituals and prayers. I love how the practice of this faith binds us to others across cultures. I am very conflicted. All of what Joe says here is true and he didn't even touch of the Big Shame of the Church - child abusing priests and even more evil -- covering for them. It is hard for me to look to the Church for moral guidance when pedophilia has been so rampant. The number of lives ruined by trusted, God-fearing men makes me sick.

As for myself, I must say I always admire the consistency of the Church's logic. Repsect for life means no killing, be it the unborn, the criminal, or the dying. And in theory I think those are all the "right" answers. There shouldn't be abortions, executions, or suicides. But in practice I realize it isn't that easy.

There are at least two problems between the ideal and the practical - one, when people don't have access to the things they need (education, birth control, hope, etc.) they do things that are "right" for them at that time. Two, I'm not entirely certain that my conviction that it's right means that it is right. Though I hate what that opens up - can anything, then, be universally right or wrong?

The Kernel

The idea is pretty simple. A group blog written by us. I submit it is a much better forum than "reply all" email strings. Admittedly it is more cumbersome to deal with at first, but the set up is much more friendly once established.

How did I get this idea? Is it presumtuous to start off a blog with a rhetorical question? Probably. The kernel for this idea started with this post from the blog I wrote while spending a law school semester abroad in Ireland. You can click on the link to read the post, the point of which was to talk about the in-between feeling I became aware of after a few months in Ireland by myself: there was a comfort and familiarity to my surroundings, but also an acknowledgement that I would never be completely at home there.

I also mentioned Freud in my post, which prompted the Angry Grammarian to respond with the following epistle:

I will defer comment on the first half of this post to honey dijon, who will no doubt revel in its syrupy sweetness.

But allow me, if you will, to expand a bit on the 'unheimlich,' Freud's uncanny. The dirty old town blogger is essentially correct: the uncanny is that which is strangely familiar. For Freud, this tension is present already in the German 'heimlich,' which, while translating as, say, the 'friendly' and/or 'comfortable,' also contains within itself traces of the hidden, the malicious, etc. In other words, the 'unheimlich' is already present, or immanent, within the 'heimlich.'

Any student of literary theory will recognize one possible implication: a prefiguration of deconstructive criticism, in which language is ultimately unstable and without any grounding. For if words contain these traces of their opposites always already within themselves, and if the binary oppositions refuse to remain separated, how to keep the sign system stable - how to pin down meaning?

But to unite the two (seemingly, but ultimately not at all) disparate threads of this post, let us return to Freud and psychoanalysis. Two obvious sites of the uncanny for Freud: death and the unconscious - that which appears as strange but is intimately familiar. But, more specifically: the female genitalia. Freud noted that neurotic men (i.e. Patrick's joke-telling friend there at the pub) often feel that there is something uncanny about the female genital organs. Makes sense, right? Sexual difference would lead the man to approach the female sex organs as something strange, something other. BUT...as Freud so eloquently phrased it, this uncanny is also "the entrance to the former Heim of all human beings, to the place where each of us lived once upon a time and in the beginning." So that which appears to the male as most strange is actually that with which he was once most intimate.

In other words, this post is a classic case, Freud would say, of transference. The uncanny here is more accurately located in the jokes at the bar -- and, as you may or may not know, Freud was a serious student of jokes -- and not the play of light on the walk home. Or perhaps it is a bit of both, but it is more fundamentally the former.

This comment spawned a sleu of other comments, mostly picking on Angry Grammarian for being such a dork. That was when I realized that "my" blog wasn't just mine anymore. People were interacting with each other, being funny, thoughtful, or even crass. It was wonderful.

Since then, the group that (a) read and commented on the blog, and (b) tends to attend "game night" over the holidays, have developed a random habit of getting into email discussions that are in the same vein as the above. It occurred to me, though, that inevitably someone is left out of the email forward, or days later you think "I shoulda said X!" but the moment is lost.

So this is my Christmas present to us all. A blog where those exchanges can take place in a format that makes a lot more sense based on what we do. I love the banter. I think the rest of you do to. To get us started, I'm going to post a few of the email exchanges that I loved.

BUT, and this is key, my vision is for this to be a GROUP blog. Initially I am making Angry Grammarian and me "authors" on this blog. Author status means you can come onto the blog and post on your own. My catch is this: if you want to be an author, I want a commitment of one post per quarter. Merely four a year, that is. I fully understand that some people are happier as 'commenters' as opposed to authors. That's fine too, and I want to encourage those of you who can't commit to being authors to be readers and commenters, AND if you once in awhile find inspiration, then submit an original post anytime to Angry Grammy or me, we will happily post them for you.

Also, I am soliciting your opinions on pretty much everything on this blog, from the name (I tried to pick something that reflected the group, but it seemed too diverse for most names, so I went with something that described AG and me), to the styling and coloring, to the sidebars (should we have a recommended reading? favorite games?), to what's IN the sidebars, and anything else you can think of. Again, the idea is that this is a group effort.

Merry Christmas. Read and enjoy!