Wapsi Square Forum

jwhouk wrote:So... What if she just got another visit from the boob fairy?

That is a boo-boo Paul is not likely to make. Too much of a good thing already, she don't need more.

DilyV wrote:Kath has a Loooooooog night ahead of her....

Yup. She might end up thinking back, wistfully, to the Ballistic Mine-Cart Ride From Hell as being an emotionally simpler experience to have gone through. All she had to deal with then, was two very similar cases of stark terror.

One wonders whether The Talk about "the birds and the bees" takes on a different nature, when the Talk-ed To is at least partially akin to the birds (and her adoptive younger sister may have a privileged relationship with the bees)? Kath may have to improvise (I was about to say "wing it" but realized that the Pun Jar might start moaning "Braaaains" in my direction).

jwhouk wrote:So... What if she just got another visit from the boob fairy?

I would say "Fate could not possibly be so cruel" but I'm no longer young enough to be quite that naive.

I'll just say "Gosh, for her sake I certainly I hope that Fate was taking the night off, swilling beer and watching TV, and too distracted to think of such a nasty trick to play!"

zachariah wrote:

jwhouk wrote:So... What if she just got another visit from the boob fairy?

That is a boo-boo Paul is not likely to make. Too much of a good thing already, she don't need more.

Did you leave out a couple of terminal letters there?

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

zachariah wrote:

jwhouk wrote:So... What if she just got another visit from the boob fairy?

That is a boo-boo Paul is not likely to make. Too much of a good thing already, she don't need more.

Did you leave out a couple of terminal letters there?

I think he left out a Pun Jar payment (although as he'd already contributed within the past day or two, the Jar may still be well-sated).

I'm still chuckling at the little floating happy-face glyph...

Well and tastefully done - enough said ...


(Don't want to tempt the Vault)

loxmyth wrote:I'm still chuckling at the little floating happy-face glyph...

The smile was a more tasteful choice than using an "O" face. :O

loxmyth wrote:I'm still chuckling at the little floating happy-face glyph...

I love the strategically placed happy face.

Now that i can point out things again, i'll point out that Atsali obviously had some sort of knowledge about sex, since she was aware that Sirens were portrayed/seen as sexual predators.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

zachariah wrote:

jwhouk wrote:So... What if she just got another visit from the boob fairy?

That is a boo-boo Paul is not likely to make. Too much of a good thing already, she don't need more.

Did you leave out a couple of terminal letters there?

Nope. Didn't leave anything out. Wanted it that way. putting them in would have been to obvious so I let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Deposits the missing B's in the jar.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Now that i can point out things again, i'll point out that Atsali obviously had some sort of knowledge about sex, since she was aware that Sirens were portrayed/seen as sexual predators.

Wife had the talk with our daughter before we had the screaming O wake up call at 0-dark-30. She knew about sex, she knew about the biological changes, she knew about the crude mechanics of "stick tab A into slot B, lather, rinse, repeat".

But knowledge and experience are often two different things.

Look up a term called Qualia. or better yet, look at this video about "does everyone see the same color red as each other?"



Basically there things that we can explain. I can explain to a blind person that he needs to walk down a hallway and count three doors on his right and the bathroom is the opposite side of the hallway from it. But I can not explain how a wine tastes. I can say the wine tasters lingo (hints of oak, peaty taste, etc) but to someone who has never tasted an oak or a peat bog, or wine for that matter, they would just look at me as if I were speaking Klingon.

We can explain to children how to have sex, they can look up on the net to the countless free porn sites out there and see how it's done. And when they go to do the do, they may even be technically proficient at it (after all it's pretty simple), but until they feel the sensations charged by the emotions involved...they will not be able to experience what the Big O is until they have one for their own.

Oh, yeah. Just that Atsali wasn't quite as naive as some of the comments i've seen seem to me to imply.

Skruddgemire: yup I have seen and understand the matrix... :E

colour blindness is another thing.. you can see both colours, they just look the same!

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Oh, yeah. Just that Atsali wasn't quite as naive as some of the comments i've seen seem to me to imply.

True... but there's that old cliché about the futility of trying to explain sax to a surgeon. I suppose some doctors understand musical theory but just can't appreciate jazz.

Dave wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Oh, yeah. Just that Atsali wasn't quite as naive as some of the comments i've seen seem to me to imply.

True... but there's that old cliché about the futility of trying to explain sax to a surgeon. I suppose some doctors understand musical theory but just can't appreciate jazz.

Jazz is fun, but following the structure can be a challenge if that's how you're oriented. Consider the Brubeck classic, Take5. Starts out nicely but really starts to wander around after 1:10, and the formal structure returns about 4.22. I really don't understand what is being "said," so to speak, in between.

By comparison, I can appreciate all the wandering around of In A Gadda Da Vida leading up the the infamous drummer solo starting 6:22, but then the drummer is also wandering around a common theme of sorts.

Then again, there's Papa Was A Rolling Stone, which wanders around within a structure.

Eh, maybe it's me. I enjoy Jazz, but I'm not familiar enough with it. FWIW

Atomic wrote:

Dave wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Oh, yeah. Just that Atsali wasn't quite as naive as some of the comments i've seen seem to me to imply.

True... but there's that old cliché about the futility of trying to explain sax to a surgeon. I suppose some doctors understand musical theory but just can't appreciate jazz.

Jazz is fun, but following the structure can be a challenge if that's how you're oriented. Consider the Brubeck classic, Take5. Starts out nicely but really starts to wander around after 1:10, and the formal structure returns about 4.22. I really don't understand what is being "said," so to speak, in between.

I remember some comments made by one of Spider Robinson's characters (Jake, I think). He said that a jazz player may chose to play around and improvise, either "inside" or "outside" of a song. My inference is that "inside" is an improvisation or elaboration that respects or maintains the primary structure and themes of the piece, while an "outside" is an exploration of a fundamentally different theme. The same jazz player might do a song very differently in different sets on the same (or different) nights, depending on whether s/he felt more like going inside or outside.

This is surely an oversimplification, of course, but it maybe gives a model for thinking about the examples you've mentioned... Take Five would be a "far outside" example, perhaps, but deliberately composed that way rather than improvised.

Any song that's been covered by Quincy Jones, The String Cheese Incident, Plankton, and Marc Ribot's Ceramic Dog must certainly having something going for it... even if most surgeon's don't understand it.

Dave - thank you for that inside/outside explanation! Now I have another way of looking at things.