By Edward _
OK, so I've poked around in the typepad adminterface and cannot locate how to make the byline appear at the top of the page (anyone who knows how to do that, please let me know...I'll sing your praises far and wide), but in order to help readers know before they commit to a post who the author is, I'll recommend all ObWi authors begin subsequent posts with a byline. Then readers can follow this sequence as outlined by Ghandi
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Or not.
Don't be alarmed by a bit of http://www.extension.umn.edu/extensionnews/2004/greeneggs.html>green color on the hard-cooked eggs or baked ham that you may be serving at Easter.
The green ring around the yolk of a hard-cooked egg is harmless and safe to eat, says Suzanne Driessen, University of Minnesota Extension Service educator specializing in food safety. And if there's a greenish or yellowish tinge on the ham you've bought, this is also normal and the ham is safe, Driessen says.
The green ring around the yolk of a hard-cooked egg is due to hydrogen in the egg white combining with sulfur in the yolk. This is apt to happen when the eggs are boiled too hard for too long. But Driessen says the green ring can also be caused by high iron levels in the cooking water.
Posted by: blogbudsman | February 18, 2005 at 01:01 PM
...but in order to help readers know before they commit to a post who the author is, I'll recommend all ObWi authors begin subsequent posts with a byline.
Yay!
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | February 18, 2005 at 01:13 PM
Boo! I enjoy the game of guess-the-author. Between the distinctive styles and the choice of subject matter, it's usually pretty obvious after three or four sentences.
Posted by: kenB | February 18, 2005 at 01:22 PM
You should, however, be aware that the green portions of potatos may contain glycoalkaloids, a toxic substance that may cause headaches, diarrhea, cramps and in severe cases coma and death. The green coloring is an indication that this portion of the potato was exposed to light, and should probably be cut off the potato before cooking. And potato poisoning is quite rare.
Also, green ham is right out. Presence of the pigment may indicate spoilage or mold.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | February 18, 2005 at 01:23 PM
Between the distinctive styles and the choice of subject matter, it's usually pretty obvious after three or four sentences.
I always think so too, but let's give this a try and see how it works.
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 01:24 PM
As art and nudity is clearly on everyone's mind...ok, so maybe that's just me...This was an amusing story:
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 01:26 PM
let's go to Mars.
no, i'm serious. we should make a real commitment to a permanently manned Mars station. I like the Mars Direct plan I read in SciAm a few years back. You don't send people until you know you have enough fuel made on Mars to get them back.
why? It'd be fun. interesting. we can show the rest of the world what the West is capable of. we might even learn something.
come on, everybody. let's leave soc. sec. and foreign policy debates alone for a thread. Should the US govt dream big?
Francis
Posted by: fdl | February 18, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Between the distinctive styles and the choice of subject matter, it's usually pretty obvious after three or four sentences.
But every so often that's three or four sentences of wasted reading time ...
Thanks for the new byline feature!
Posted by: Nell Lancaster | February 18, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Thank you, Edward.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | February 18, 2005 at 01:31 PM
A favorite sentence from Borges - from "The Lottery in Babylon":
Once, for an entire lunar year, I was declared invisible - I would cry out and no one would heed my call, I would steal bread and not be beheaded.
Will miss the guess-the-author game too, and the let's-ignore-posters-who-annoy-us tack is not in my view going to lead to long-term harmony. Everyone should find a way of coexisting together. We will all hang etc.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 18, 2005 at 01:32 PM
Let me rephrase that: this sucks and Edward's ruining the site.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 18, 2005 at 01:33 PM
Will miss the guess-the-author game too, and the let's-ignore-posters-who-annoy-us tack is not in my view going to lead to long-term harmony. Everyone should find a way of coexisting together. We will all hang etc.
I suspect you're right (and am rather sure about the last line), but, again, let's give this a go, as it's been recommended numerous times.
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 01:34 PM
this sucks and Edward's ruining the site.
Ahhh, the nostalgia of it...I do fondly recall the days back when I was the source of such sentiment. {wiping tear away}...sniffle
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 01:36 PM
I usually read by way of the RSS feed and Bloglines, which already puts the name of the poster at the top, so I found your question puzzling for a while.
Posted by: Nathan Williams | February 18, 2005 at 01:48 PM
Great link, Edward. It's that sort of ingenuity and resourcefulness that restores my faith in this great country of ours.
Posted by: kenB | February 18, 2005 at 01:57 PM
Is this an open thread?
My eggs (and being an Atkins guy, I eat eggs a lot) are green because I add lots and lots of dill.
And I approve of nudity in art, tho preferably not green.
"As art and nudity is clearly on everyone's mind"
I hope Edward hasn't been reading...never mind. My art moment of the week came at the Weblog when one of the bloggers posted a Grosz grotesquerie and proclaimed:"Now this is what I call good art!" Convinced by his enthusiasm, I am now restricting myself entirely to Otto Dix and Egon Schiele. Not.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | February 18, 2005 at 01:58 PM
I hope Edward hasn't been reading...never mind.
tell me! what? a blog about art? a blog about nudity??? come on...that's cruel.
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 02:06 PM
"Ahhh, the nostalgia of it...I do fondly recall the days back when I was the source of such sentiment. {wiping tear away}...sniffle"
You wanta piece of this, big guy?
Posted by: rilkefan | February 18, 2005 at 02:14 PM
That was priceless rilkefan! I trust Charles was flattered by the effort.
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 02:17 PM
Have mercy. Michael Blowhard had a guest post by his visting professional nude model on the social & personal ramifications of the "spread shot."
In some fit of madness I contributed one of my weaker yet too revealing comments.
Umm, can we talk about art? Is Gauguin's early impressionism underrated? Should more people know about George Bellows? Was Albert Bierstadt the Thomas Kinkade of his era? Do we prefer vertical stripes, an simple triangle, or untrimmed?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | February 18, 2005 at 02:20 PM
Charles, Timmy, who can tell the difference? Me, I'm a cat person.
The point is, a little respect please, or ...
Posted by: rilkefan | February 18, 2005 at 02:25 PM
Eh, bob-
Aesthetically, I'd prefer the word "implications" to "ramifications" when discussing the "spread shot" ;)
Posted by: aireachail | February 18, 2005 at 02:26 PM
Gaugin: yes, underrated
Bellows: nah, boxing schmoxing...next thing you know folks will start valuing those Dogs Playing Poker paintings.
Bierstadt: Much better than Kincade. Bierstadt was exploring a mine more than a foot deep.
Here's my question. Who's seen the Gates and what did you think?
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 02:28 PM
The heart shape on a dancer named Cherry.
Posted by: blogbudsman | February 18, 2005 at 02:32 PM
As art and nudity is clearly on everyone's mind...ok, so maybe that's just me...This was an amusing story:
Outrage! Are you suggesting that we post nude pictures of ourselves in lieu of bylines!!??!?!
Well, OK. So long as it's tasteful ....
Posted by: von | February 18, 2005 at 02:47 PM
-from "Paint Me on Velvet" by the Austin Lounge Lizards
Posted by: Gromit | February 18, 2005 at 02:50 PM
Are you suggesting that we post nude pictures of ourselves in lieu of bylines!!??!?!
Only if John Ashcroft gets to do the styling.
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 02:56 PM
i think the unnamed blog is "Unfogged"
francis
Posted by: fdl | February 18, 2005 at 03:01 PM
How much would it be worth to you not to put nude pictures of yourselves in lieu of bylines?
Not that you aren't all cute as buttons, of course.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | February 18, 2005 at 03:22 PM
How much would it be worth to you not to put nude pictures of yourselves in lieu of bylines?
Hmmmm...I smell a fundraiser!
Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2005 at 03:26 PM
I'm not sure if my nude pictures are tasteful. But they definitely aren't for public consumption. Fortunately we don't have a huge audience so.....
link to horrifying pictures
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | February 18, 2005 at 04:16 PM
Oh goody, it's one of those rare moments when Edward and I disagree.
Edward: it's Gandhi, not Ghandi. 'Gh' in the relevant languages is a different letter altogether (sort of like a french throat-rolled r), and 'dh' is a different letter from 'd' (softer, related to normal 'd' as the 'wh' in 'whisper' is related to 'w').
Posted by: hilzoy | February 18, 2005 at 05:05 PM
Those who care about blog community whateverness may want to send Instapundit good wishes - his wife is having to get a pacemaker.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 18, 2005 at 05:08 PM
Von: Outrage! Are you suggesting that we post nude pictures of ourselves in lieu of bylines!!??!?!
Er... *stares wistfully at Hilzoy*
No, I'd probably better stick to my fantasies. I think of Hilzoy as tall, gorgeous, scarily intelligent, and with the kind of sweet, sharp smile that skewers me.
And while I know for sure about the "scarily intelligent", the rest is none of my business.
(And I really only fantasise about meeting any of you clothed, for coffee. Honest.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | February 18, 2005 at 05:57 PM
Well, this thread got interesting real fast.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | February 18, 2005 at 06:17 PM
Well, this thread got interesting real fast.
*busts out the popcorn*
Grab a chair, folks, it's gonna be good!
Posted by: Anarch | February 18, 2005 at 10:12 PM
Let this be a warning to y'all.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 18, 2005 at 10:16 PM
'Gh' in the relevant languages is a different letter altogether (sort of like a french throat-rolled r)
I think you're thinking of Arabic, where gh is the standard way to transcribe the letter ghayn, a uvular consonant. In Hindi, 'gh' is an aspirated g, sort of like the gh in "foghorn"; similarly with dh (except that Hindi d is a true dental, not alveolar as in English).
BTW, many English dialects (including mine) don't distinguish between the wh of "whisper" and the w of "wisp." Although I have some memory of my 1st grade teacher trying to get us to say hwisper, hwale, etc., without much success.
Posted by: kenB | February 18, 2005 at 10:51 PM
I wasn't going to say anything, but since kenb leapt in, let me add my 2 yen. The fascinating thing about aspiration is that it occurs in English, yet we are oblivious to it. I ask my Japanese students if the sound at the beginning of the word 'pin' is the same as the second sound in the word 'spin'. Of course it is, it has the same spelling. I then pronounce the words with a piece of paper held in front of my mouth. The sound in 'pin' makes the paper fly forward, but it doesn't move at all when I say 'spin'. (Lest they think this is just one of those bizarre things about English, I then point out the three different sounds Japanese has for the final nasal (which looks like this ん))
But back to the point, the p in pin would be spelt ph in Hindi romanization and if we substituted the p in spin for the one we normally use in pin, we would perceive it as 'bin', but I think a Hindi speaker would write it as p. (Hindi has p, ph, b, and bh) This is one of the reasons why Indian English has a rather unique quality to it.
As for whisper and whale, Scottish and Irish English famously retain that distinction. For a nice explanation, go here
And since I'm babbling on this open thread, go here to see the wonderfully named McGurk effect. Close your eyes the first time you listen and then watch the movie the second time. There are a number of more detailed pages about the phenomenon, but I think this is the clearest movie file.
Sorry for taking the attention away from nude pictures.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | February 18, 2005 at 11:22 PM
Sebastian, you otter shave more often, in more places.
(There I go, violating comment rules again)
Posted by: blogbudsman | February 19, 2005 at 07:05 AM
Speaking of horrifying nude pictures, art, and bylines, there's another masterpiece at Billmon's.
Posted by: felixrayman | February 19, 2005 at 11:58 AM
Edward: it's Gandhi, not Ghandi.
Being perhaps the worst speller in the blogosphere, I concede with no effort to defend, except to note that your way just looks wrong. ;-)
Posted by: Edward | February 19, 2005 at 01:53 PM
Maybe I still haven't graduated from high school - I really like this stuff. The series improves when it gets to the bunnies.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 19, 2005 at 02:16 PM
did y'all hear? we've found the WMDs!
all hail the GOP
Posted by: cleek | February 19, 2005 at 03:10 PM
Quick. rilkefan needs help.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | February 19, 2005 at 06:40 PM
Disturbingly, both Body and Soul and TalkLeft seem to have left the building - Body and Soul is password protected, which it never was before, and TalkLeft just doesn't seem to be there.
Anyone got any news about what's going on?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | February 19, 2005 at 07:12 PM
I can see talkleft.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 19, 2005 at 07:26 PM
rilkefan: put down the computer. Move slowly towards the door. Go for a nice long walk to clear your head. If you still like them after a month, start saving up.
They remind me of my own personal antithesis-of-Larry-Summers'-daughters moment, when some unsuspecting relative gave me a doll and I dissected it.
Posted by: hilzoy | February 19, 2005 at 08:29 PM
They remind me of my own personal antithesis-of-Larry-Summers'-daughters moment, when some unsuspecting relative gave me a doll and I dissected it.
And thus was a bioethicist born...
Posted by: Anarch | February 19, 2005 at 08:52 PM
rilke: reminds me of the Bunny Suicides. Also of Johnny the Homicidal Maniac, which is like holy writ for the high school goth kid in all of us.
lj: All well and good about getting English speakers to detect their aspiration. . . the hard thing is getting them to perform it. I still have to practically inhale to get myself to deaspirate the p in 'pin'. Real pain the ass since every language I know/am interested in has less aspiration than English. The English are just natural spitters.
Posted by: sidereal | February 19, 2005 at 11:33 PM
Edward: "Who's seen the Gates and what did you think?"
I've seen them and they're excellent. They add the perfect je ne sais quoi to wintertime Central Park. As an added bonus, the Central Park loop roads are closed to automobile traffic during the exhibit. I've long felt ambivalent about living in NYC, but now I've found something I unequivically like about the city: NYC is a place where art is more important than traffic flow.
Posted by: Dianne | February 20, 2005 at 10:28 AM
I've long felt ambivalent about living in NYC, but now I've found something I unequivically like about the city: NYC is a place where art is more important than traffic flow.
Thanks Dianne,
I'm going tomorrow for the first time. (Was out of town when it openend). Considering it's supposed to snow tonight, it could be quite dramatic.
Regarding being ambivalent about NYC, I hear you. Each time I return from some time away, I ask myself as I'm riding back into town, through the graffiti covered neighborhoods, onto the garbage strewn streets, and up into my tiny apartment why I live in this incredibly inhospitable place. Then I go to my gallery and have a conversation with an artist or collector and I know.
Posted by: Edward | February 20, 2005 at 10:37 AM
"Who's seen the Gates and what did you think?"
me.
I liked them better than expected, and I'd expected to like them.
It's wonderful how they're drawing people into the park in the middle of winter, and they're drawing New Yorkers in even more than out of towners. I was there on a weekday, and it seems like every school kid in Manhattan is getting taken there on a field trip.
When you first walk in and see a few by the road, you think, "eh. This looks like a construction zone. How many millions did this cost"? But if you keep walking, see them in the wind and the changing light, come to a spot where you see them weaving and converging along the paths, it's really quite special.
My favorite spot was the promenade of elm trees just south of Bethesda Fountain. (The fountain itself, which I'd never been to before I saw that HBO version of Angels in America I gushed about, has become probably my second favorite spot in New York after the Brooklyn Bridge walkway.)
It made me very, very sad that I won't be living in New York City for three more years at least and may never get to live there. Boston (where I am next year) and Chicago (for two to five years after that and maybe indefinitely) are my third and second favorite cities in the country, so it's not such bad fate. (I've never been to San Francisco, I should note). But there's no place like New York.
And hey, check this out:
I still say the winning theme for the midterms is "end one party rule," elaborated as a reform platform that's all about stopping corruption and abuse of power.
Posted by: Katherine | February 20, 2005 at 10:58 PM
A truly sad day. Hunter S. Thompson commits suicide at 67.
Posted by: felixrayman | February 20, 2005 at 11:51 PM
My current hometown of Somerville has a Gates Exhibit of its own.
Posted by: Katherine | February 21, 2005 at 06:29 PM
Just returned after an art-saturated day (toured the Gates and finally got myself up to see Dia:Beacon).
The Somerville Gates have a bit more of what I missed most in Christo's version: poignant humor. My partner, who wasn't all that impressed with either (although he liked the Richard Serra's and Fred Sandback's* at Dia) decided, with no evidence, the saffron curtains were manufactured by totally bemused Chinese workers who just laughed and laughed at the stupid Americans who ordered over 7000 of the darn things. He then proceeded to tear apart the swatch he accepted from the frozen volunteers to prove they were manufactured in China. I kept mine...I've been wrong about artists before and don't want to kick myself later.
I enjoyed the Gates more at the beginning of the hour we spent in the park until slowly it dawned on me what I was enjoying was the park itself, which may have been Christo's point but which could have been made with a tad bit less than $20 million, methinks.
I'm glad I saw it, but it did confirm my previous suspicion that Christo is overrated.
*Which demonstrates remarkable insight and taste in my opinion, as Sandback is a God in my book.
Posted by: Edward | February 21, 2005 at 07:54 PM
another great Gates parody
Posted by: Edward | February 22, 2005 at 12:10 PM
Edward, had you seen this news story?
I thought it was really terribly sweet. "Make love not war"...
Posted by: Jesurgislac | February 22, 2005 at 05:03 PM
How easy is it to get a day pass to the White House?
With regard to the claim that Gannon/Guckert received no special treatment, a blogger decides to find out: Exactly how easy is it for an average no-name journalist with no special connections to get access to the White House?
(I can't believe we've gone two weeks without an open thread??)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 02, 2005 at 05:19 PM
Edward, had you seen this news story?
Jes, that's awesome! Don't know Phillipines politics well enough to comment in that context, but I do see any social struggle in which gay marriages are recognized as heartening.
I'll open a thread.
Posted by: Edward | March 02, 2005 at 05:42 PM