Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Apologies for the delay in replying to comments on this thread. I haven't been able to reach the PA site for the last couple of days (for some reason).
dyan campbell wrote:
> Geminis tend to be physically very tall or very
> short -- although many Geminis are also of average
> heightThat is just spookily accurate about every single Gemini I know
You'll be pleased to hear that this is a genuine statement from an astrology book (slightly reworded) on physical characteristics associated with star signs.
Peter Hunter wrote:
As a careful Piscean I have now strapped lengths of 4 x 2 across my (already Christmas Holiday Inflated) arse in an attempt to prevent a fall down a coal mine.
Very wise, Peter. In my background research for this piece (if that's the appropriate term) I discovered that I am also a Piscean. Personally I have strapped a 5 metre ladder horizontally across my shoulders. It makes getting through doorways a bit tricky, but the added safety -- in terms of mine shaft accidents -- is fully worth it.
Keith Ng wrote:
Oh David, now my obsession with death-rays seem practically philanthropic in comparison... (more humane, certainly)
Nice try, Keith, but I have no personal input into these predictions -- I'm merely revealing what is already predetermined by the stars and planets.
Incidentally (and this may or may not be a prediction) I had a dream that you were married to Billie Piper. In my dream (or prediction) it was on the cover page of the Listener. The headline read "Billie Piper's New Man'. I did a double-take at the photo, and then I was like: "Fuck me, that's Keith Ng". My next thought was: "Poor Keith, I guess he hasn't heard her sing." You also had a beard -- as, curiously, did David Slack, in my dream (or prediction) about him.
I'm not 100 per cent guaranteeing your marriage to Billie Piper as a dead cert, but I am willing to make the call on the beard (sooner or later). At any rate -- with her experience on Dr Who -- Billie should be able to help you with any death-ray plans that you may have.
A final note, of course, is that none of these predictions apply to the relatively new star signs of 'Contrarian/Linux user'.
-
Jen Hay wrote:
I'm an Aquarius and I was just wondering whether the dwarfs who are going to drive fish-hooks under my knee-caps also happen to be lesbian?
Hi Jen,
You clearly have no psychic talent -- what a preposterous suggestion!
The dwarfs will be heterosexual. The knife-wielding midgets who will disinter your headless corpse (to use for role-playing in their consciousness-raising group) will be lesbian. But that won't be until next month.
Robyn Gallagher wrote:
I'm on the cusp of Sagittarius and Capricorn. Does this mean I will get two books and CDs?
Oh, Robyn, Robyn, dear sweet Robyn... if only the mysteries of the stars and planets were as simple as your innocent girlish analysis. But then I suppose we can't all be New Zealand's most famous and most accurate astrologer.
How do you feel about homicidal line-dancing clowns in Paul Holmes masks singing songs from the 'Paul Holmes' album while dancing along Mt Eden road with your head on a stick?
Deborah wrote:
Do you do birthday astrology too? It's my birthday on Monday, and I would like to know what the year holds for me.
Hi Deborah,
I see myself as a 'good news' astrologer, i.e. someone who prefers to concentrate on positive harmonic vibrations rather than negative. If the planets reveal bad news (and, don't forget, all my predictions come with a 100 per cent guarantee of accuracy) then I generally prefer to avoid the subject.
-
Russell Brown wrote:
Owen McShane is also listed as a "prominent scientist"
For fuck's sake... honestly...
-
Linger wrote:
Flim-flam Fairies
Alan Katz, Illustrated by Michael SlackThat is indeed slightly peevish-making. Although since my story was finished on 29 March 2000, I believe I should be suing Mr Katz for copyright infringement (and not the other way around).
Luckily, however, I've had a quick look at the link, and it's nothing like 'The Snot Fairy's Night of Crime' so it's not really a problem.
Rob Stowell wrote:
Test readings on a pair of six-year-olds were favourable. All you need is ALA (American Library Association) to get on board- and given the positive- indeed, heroic- role of the librarian- that's a cinch
Delighted that it passed the test-reading on your offspring, Rob! And an excellent point about the librarians. It hadn't occurred to me before, but from now on I'm going to make all of my heroes librarians.
Creon Upton wrote:
But enough with the wise cracks about English Departments already. Please, indulge us: we so want to be seen to matter.
Oh, I take back my cruel and thoughtless words. Actually, one of my favourite writers (C.K . Stead), did a good few years in an English Department -- so I can't entirely damn them...
-
Is this a story about child hood sexual abuse, David?
Definitely not, Steven. I only do light-hearted humour. But, I must say, such a suggestion would do credit to any university English department.
By the way, the numbers have now exploded my hypothesis about a gender divide in snot fairy appreciation. I've had a dozen or so emails today -- and slightly more women than men have requested online publication of 'The Snot Fairy's Night of Crime'.
So I guess it must be a taste divide, rather than a gender divide, when it comes to snot fairies.
-
I really want to see the one about the Snot Fairy...
Yes, bring on the Snot Fairy I say...
Perhaps this is where the real gender divide in literature occurs. The lads seem to like the idea of a snot fairy but the lasses most thoroughly reject the concept. One of the publishers said she wouldn't even read anything that contained the words 'snot fairy'. My dear mum (who road-tests these stories on my nieces and nephews) keeps saying: "couldn't you change it to an ear-wax fairy?".
Ironically the story is about the snot fairy's rejection by mainstream fairy society. The opening lines are: "The snot fairy was the most misunderstood of all the fairies".
-
Ahem... just to clarify my clarification: I was actually attempting to explain away the limitations of my own stupidity. Breast jokes, if any, were completely unintentional...
I'll shut up now before I inadvertently say anything worse.
-
Terrific first post, Emma. And some lovely sparkly sentences in your prose...
May I clarify one point: I only thought you were a man (with hairy knuckles, as I recall) before I met you in that smoky gay-cyclist-filled bar. I realized my mistake as soon as we were introduced. In person, it would be completely impossible to mistake you for a man -- even allowing for my failing eyesight...
-
BenWilson wrote:
I think Stephen's joking...
Oh... apologies if you were joking, Stephen. I've had a bunch of very earnest emails today, and I've fallen in the mode of having to explain myself in great detail...
Hugh Lilly wrote:
That's the worst mis-use of "raison d'être" I've ever seen.
Oh, those are fighting words, Hugh!
My 2005 Oxford Dictionary of English defines 'raison d'être' as:
The most important reason for someone or something's existence.
In this case, the 'something' was "change in sexual preference".
I suspect your objection is based on the fact that you believe 'raison d'être' can only be used in conjunction with concrete nouns or concrete noun phrases (or possibly even just animate nouns or animate noun phrases). In fact, the example given in my Oxford Dictionary of English is actually a usage based on a concrete noun: "seeking to shock is the catwalk's raison d'être".
And, indeed, this may well be the case in French usage -- at any rate, I can't think of an example in French that uses an abstract noun (but I don't have a good French dictionary at my fingertips to check).
However in English usage you can definitely use 'raison d'être' with abstract nouns. My 2002 Oxford English Dictionary gives two good example of this: "Modes of speech which have a real raison d'être"; "Plunder in three forms... was the very raison d'être of the power of the [East India] Company".
Given the above information, I'd be very interested to know the basis for your claim that my usage was "the worst mis-use of 'raison d'être'... ever seen".
Personally, your message reminds me a little of Matthew 7:3! [Just kidding, by the way... before I inadvertently give offence].
I look forward to your reply, sir! Or, failing that, the time and place for a duel so that we can settle this matter like gentlemen!
Jolisa wrote:
I would love to read a blog by "a Samoan solo mother or a Southland Baptist preacher, or anybody from Urewera."
And so would I, matey! As long as it's well-written and doesn't use the phrase 'raison d'être' incorrectly.
Like you, I just don't want anyone to feel like they're a token appointment -- and I also don't feel like I should be ordering Russell to comply with my wishes on his website. Not that you were doing any such thing, Jolisa, of course (or Deborah either, for that matter). But some people's thoughts on the subject have sounded uncomfortably close to demands...
-
Stephen Day wrote:
Sorry, but how is becoming a stereotypical gay man going to address PA's reputation for being comfortably artistically middle class white and leftish? Without wanting to humourlessly miss the joke, wouldn't it be better to become a different stereotype - maybe a Samoan solo mother or a Southland Baptist preacher, or anybody from Urewera
Well, this post certainly was a joke, Stephen, and definitely not intended to hurt anyone's feelings. I guess that -- to justify my satire -- I saw it as a little easier to become gay (from a practical implementation point of view) than to become a Samoan solo mother. Although I can actually sing a song in Samoan.
To explain a little more, this post simply poked a little light-hearted fun at the perils of tokenism. I'm pretty sure all sides of the debate are mature and good-natured enough to have a sense of humour about this.
I guess I'm one of those light-weight people who just enjoy PA for the good writing. And for that reason I'm going to really miss Tze Ming's prose -- she can certainly string a sentence together. I confess that I'm not clever enough to follow the nuances of abstruse political dissection, but I'll certainly read it, as long as it's sufficiently well-written.
I consider that Jolisa, Keith, Russell, David Slack, Damian, Fiona and Graham produce some of the best writing on the web -- certainly one of the few things I'm bothered to read. But they could be writing about fish or watermelons for all I care, as long as their sentences continue to sparkle.
I think it’s great to have writers from different backgrounds (although Russell’s Timaru origins are perhaps carrying things too far) -- but apart from this trivial observation, I wouldn’t dream of telling Russell how to run his website.