The All-Purpose Department:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050206152206/http://echosauthorpage.com/PPC.html
Not Geocities, but could use a new home.
And I confess, I screwed up. When I read these stories the first time, I didn't notice that they'd already made a Department Head, so I made one, too. It's all edited into place now, but I'm taking Sara's advice and swearing off making Flowers I don't work for.
This list is also available as a Atom/RSS feed
-
You might also want to save... by
on 2009-06-08 19:30:00 UTC
Reply
-
Um... *cringe* by
on 2009-06-08 19:22:00 UTC
Reply
Don't you like the Dark Lord Geranium?
-
Don't worry, I won't. by
on 2009-06-08 18:34:00 UTC
Reply
The warning is because when I first showed up, I got stuck in a giant glass jar with two other newbies to study our breeding habits... at least, I did until jabbuk d'eldrin blew up said jar with C4.
-
Re: Not usually. by
on 2009-06-08 17:56:00 UTC
Reply
park, n. About 1300 parc, parke park, enclosed tract of land, game preserver; earlier, in parkselver fee paid for the privilege of maintaining a tract of enclosed land (1222); borrowed from Old French, possibly also from West Germanic parrik or parrak.
Related to paddock.
The verb parking is first recorded in 1526, meaning to enclose in a park. The meaning of putting a vehicle in a certain place is first recorded in 1844, in military use, though earlier applied to the placement of cannon in 1812.
I knew it was worth hassling my dad for an etymological dictionary for years.
Aye, the subject should always be we, not us, and my example of "us lot" was meant as object, but in fairness we use it informally as the subject too.
So far as I know from American telly, you lot tend to say "guys" where we say "lot". Am I right in thinking that?
-
Any suggestions for a Foxglove storyline? by
on 2009-06-08 17:37:00 UTC
Reply
Something she wouldn't find fun, preferably. Trouble with Foxglove is it's hard to imagine her *not* bouncing happily back from anything short of a direct napalm-bomb hit.
-
No, you were within your rights to point it out. by
on 2009-06-08 17:04:00 UTC
Reply
I'm still in the PPC, that doesn't stop for personal reasons. I have to admit to not being able to recall the circumstances you were referring to, though. Would you mind reminding me?
-
I'm still a member of the PPC. by
on 2009-06-08 16:51:00 UTC
Reply
I've been quiet about this particular topic on the Board, for various reasons, including:
a. I've been feeling miserable enough about life as it is (thank you for pointing it out; I don't feel like I can bring it up much, it feels like I'm hiding behind it).
b. This particular argument and related issues has just lost me a very close friend, or at least alienated them, and right now I'm incredibly ripped up about that.
c. I'm squirming with guilt over whether or not my Agents and behaviour fall into the categories brought up by Sara.
I can't recall the exact occasion July's talking about, but I won't argue, if I can be given a reminder.
-
Yes, and I'm in it. (nm) by
on 2009-06-08 16:42:00 UTC
Reply
-
Shiny good. (nm) by
on 2009-06-08 16:42:00 UTC
Reply
-
Ooh, nice justification. by
on 2009-06-08 16:42:00 UTC
Reply
So the Spirit Tree is generally helpful and probably lends a hand in DAVD Medical when patients need moving. The EET is more disgruntled, but still an effective Division Head; he may also be prone to inflicting bizarre punishments on Agents who mess up (since this is the PPC, and bizarre is fairly RuneScapish too, from what I know). But they're both under the Big Thorn, and listen to what he says.
Right. Now all I need is some Agents, a setting, and, oh yeah, a plot. :P I'll get there eventually.
hS
-
Not usually. by
on 2009-06-08 16:07:00 UTC
Reply
Unless context alone wouldn't make it clear, "you" or "we" suffices here in the midwestern United States. If it is necessary to make a distinction, we'd probably say "the two of us/you" or "we/you all." Occasionally "we two" might occur, but not often in spoken form--too easy to confuse that with "we, too."
"Us" in place of "we" does happen, but in the subject, it's informal if not outright wrong usage.
"Lot" in that sense isn't in the dialect. A lot is either a number more than "some" or somewhere you park things.
Incidentally, I just had one of those moments where I notice how ridiculous a word is. Park. Honestly. What's up with that?
~Neshomeh
-
Have some Anti-Lustin! (nm) by
on 2009-06-08 15:35:00 UTC
Reply
-
They're from RuneScape by
on 2009-06-08 15:26:00 UTC
Reply
Spirit Trees and Evil Trees are rival types of sentient trees. Spirit Trees are kind and helpful and can teleport you places (provided you prove you're a friend of the gnomes) including to Evil Trees. Evil Trees aren't exactly malicious, just hideous and unruly; you can try to keep them under control for training.
I thought it would be a good idea for the two corners of DAVD to have rival heads and before you knew it, out came these two. You can use them. The EET is new, remember (because Evil Trees are a recent update in RuneScape), so he wouldn't be around during Crashing Down, which could also explain why DAVD(i) reports directly to the Big Thorn there.
-
I have one! by
on 2009-06-08 15:13:00 UTC
Reply
http://destron.blogspot.com/2007/10/introduction.html
This Warcraft fic, about a Forsaken traveler on a journey throughout Azeroth and Outland, is one of the reasons that I love the fandom.
PS: I wasn't there, since I lost internet acsess for several days. Is it over?
-
Speaking of which... by
on 2009-06-08 14:03:00 UTC
Reply
... tell me about Elder Evil Trees and Spirit Trees. Given the decimation of DAVD during Crashing Down (when one of their Agents led most of the rest to their deaths) I'm thinking about writing something set there; it'd be a good time to actually make use of these two new Trees, and give the Big Thorn an appearance.
hS
-
Have an Anti-Lustin blade! by
on 2009-06-08 13:55:00 UTC
Reply
If you like it, I can begin mass producing!
-
The reason DAVD(i) exists at all... by
on 2009-06-08 13:49:00 UTC
Reply
... is that I needed a way to reconcile the Action-DAVD I mentioned in Reorg with the original DAVD missions, here. So I designated the original missions as being the Intel wing of DAVD. So there already are DAVD(i) missions... but the only Head they mention is the Big Thorn.
hS
-
Several days late. by
on 2009-06-08 13:30:00 UTC
Reply
Have some Anti-Lustin!
-
Yay, one who likes it! by
on 2009-06-08 11:35:00 UTC
Reply
Everybody else goes seasick.
-
I'd welcome it at the moment... (nm) by
on 2009-06-08 10:48:00 UTC
Reply
-
But together, you could do even better, surely? (nm) by
on 2009-06-08 10:43:00 UTC
Reply
-
another random grammar question by
on 2009-06-08 10:28:00 UTC
Reply
So, pronouns in Old Norse come in singular, dual, and plural - I, we two, and we (in the nominative). But it's just occurred to me that, though we form it out of two words rather than one, we have a difference between dual and plural, at least in the accusative, and at least round my end - we say us two or us lot, and you two or you lot.
Does anyone else use two and, particularly, lot to distinguish between dual and plural? With the usual rider of "where are you when you do this or don't do this?"
-
Fair enough by
on 2009-06-08 07:40:00 UTC
Reply
Duly noted. As for the trope names, I only use those when making notes; it's easier and quicker to describe things using them, and I usually have a good idea in my head of how I'm going to apply them in-story. I wouldn't actually use them in-fic. Tropes are meant to be building blocks, after all.