Forum posts made by dlizze

I don't currently have a partner, but my ex-wives know I write and post on here. They often help me by critiqueing my stories and suggesting editorial changes.

(Puts down his coffe cup and the evening paper he was reading, and takes off his glasses) HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!!!
(shor pause, while he scratches his head)
Is this some sort of April Fool's joke or something? I mean, really. Com'on now.
(Scratches his head again, and gathers his brow in a perplexed frown)
I don't understand. Why on God's earth would I want to ban someone I LIKED?

This makes me want to go look at used Aston Martins.



http://upload.lushstories.com/1037678669-Aston_Martin_Used.png

She's searching for her purloined pink panties.

Angel Eyes

(Scott Hamilton on tenor sax)

For facial hair I use either an electric razor (Norelco triple head) or Crabtree and Evelyn sandlewood shaving soap and a Bic Soliel razor. (I used to use a Gillette adjustable razor, until one day I was out of blades, and borrowed my wife's - I haven't gone back to Wilkenson double-edged blades since)

Other parts get a trim with scissors and CAREFUL shaving with the Soliel.

When I dress in drag, particularly if I'm slutty, like for playing Cabaret, I just use the Soliel all over. But toes, ankles, knees and hands are really hard to do, so I sometimes use cream depilatories on them.

"Its alleged purpose (and I've read several others) isn't written in the Constitution."

I disagree. The purpose is stated in the first two phrases:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That this can be read as to mean that each individual is expected to be a part of that militia or that the militia can only be regulated if the people have the means whereby to defend themselves against said militia (to regulate it) makes no difference, though many arguing on either side of the question would have us believe it does, for the sake of strengthening their argument.

Me too! I'd love to have an Abrams tank, but damn the gas would cost a fortune. I have shot legal fully automatic machine guns at gun ranges before. Quite a rush. (Gun ranges often have a license to own them and charge patrons to shoot them.) I'd love to shoot a cannon if the opportunity ever avails itself.

I qualified on the .30 cal machine gun when I was in the Navy. Does that count? As to cannon - meh. Now a Whitworth breech-loading rifled field piece, that would be something to mess about with. (I understand the ballistics aren't quite as good as a 3"-50 caliber gun, but still ...)

this car. '87 Mercedes 300 SDL with 350,000 miles showing on the odometer.
http://upload.lushstories.com/1095955063-87 300 SDL - Copy.jpg

Ever since I was in the third grade, and decided to be an agnostic because it takes just as much faith to deny God's existence as to afirm it, I have held the opinion that "freedom to" implies and carries with it freedom not to. But what do I know? Obviously I am mistaken in the case of Freedom of Religion. It still says "In God We Trust" on the money, and "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance, Madeline Murray notwithstanding. If the same logic is extended to firearms, I suppose it could be said that freedom to own guns means a requirement to own them. George Orwell was right: War is peace.

Under the bleachers in the gymnasium at an all-girl's prep school, during a basketball game.

WHen my mother died in 2011, she had a pre-arranged agreement to donate her body to an organ bank. They handled that end of it, and left us with the cremated remains, for which we had to pay $25.00. The attorney's fees and county filing fees ran about another $1500. We quietly interred the remains in the same grave with dad. That cost$75.00. Having the back side of his stone cut with her name, birth and death dates was $500.00. So all told, we did the entire thing for about $2000.00, but I supect that is highly unusual.

National Fellatio Day should be June 8. You blow me, and I'll owe you one.

To which version of The Producers are you referring? The 1968 (and definitive) version was an original film and not based on previous works. Mel Brooks even won the best original screenplay Oscar for his script. The Broadway musical was based upon that film, with the 2005 film based upon the Broadway musical.

At times, showbiz can be far too incestuous!

I was referring to the version starring Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, which is I believe, the film remake of the Broadway version of the Mel Brooks original film.

In no particular order:
The MUsic Box -1931 - Stanley Laurel and Oliver Hardy
Arsenic and Old Lace
Monty Python & The Holy Grail
Romance With A Double Bass
A Fish Called Wanda
Blazing Saddles
M.A.S.H.
Putney Swope
The Producers
The Lavender Hill Mob

Edit:
Since The Producers is really a movie remake of a Broadway musical, here's another of my favorites: School For Scoundrels -1960 version, wih Terry Thomas (and no, that is NOT a typo - School For Scandal was second rate schlock)

I'm with the person above who wants to, I believe the term in her time would have been "roger", Queen Elizabeth I. But I too, should like to have a way to avoid the Tower.
Other historical figures who I think would be nothing short of incredible are Simone de Beauvoir, and Anias Nin.

I'm partial to strong-willed women who know what they want, and who aren't afraid to express themselves.

And don't stories already have a way to rate them and leave comments?

^this^

We had a similiar discussion among my fellow pit musicians today. As is often the case when a bunch of musicians join, who have not worked together before, we were discussing our "day" jobs. I am a licensed professional civil engineer. One of the others is a rocket scientist (she works for NASA, and was a project manager for the Hubble launch). Another is a neurosurgeon who works for National Institute of Health. A fourth member is a mathemetician at Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, and two others are attorneys. Yet we all are, (a) being paid, and (b) pretty darned good at playing the parts placed before us. So far as I know, I am the only one who was a musician in the US military service. So the question was, are we musicians? What constitutes a musician? We decided it is not level of achievement, nor is it being paid to perform, though those two things surely enter into it. ("Being paid for a service is prima facie evidence that one is a provider of that service," said one of the attorneys.)

But our conclusion was, it is our serious attitude toward the music and toward performance that made us musicians. I would respectfully suggest the same is true of writing, or for that matter, any other creative art form.


EDIT:
I like what someone here said about a writer being someone who couldn't NOT write. Under that criterion I am definitely a musician, but, although I have quite a few written pieces on here and on the sister "blue" site, I am not a writer. If I had to stop writing tomorrow, I would miss it, but it would not be the end of my world.

If I had to stop playing music ... Well, when that day comes, I hope to die immediatly. With any luck at all, I will play a performance (or a rehearsal) go home and to bed, and have a stroke and die in my sleep that night.

To be honest X ? From 20 feet away i would be lucky to graze your ass cheek. I would be much better off running up behind you and

That's why so many people want large capacity magazines, and rapid fire. They can't hit shit, so they figure they'll just fling a lot of lead in the general direction, in hopes of hitting something. (of course, it's logical that those are exactly the people who shouldn't be allowed to have either of what they want) But I don't recall that logic was ever a major factor in getting elected officials to pass laws.

My first wife and I eloped during our freshman year semester break when we were eighteen. We drove to Halifax, North Carolina, because it was the nearest county seat. I had never seen "whites only" signs before, and was appalled. That afternoon, we were walking down the sidewalk, and there were two young boys playing. An older gentleman was sitting on the stoop watching them. When he saw us coming, he said to them, "Get off the sidewalk. White folks comin'." I was quite surprised, but when I passed the two boys, I said, "Thank you," to them. They looked at me like I had three heads. That was in January, 1963.

In 1976, my mother was running for her first term in the Maryland House of Delegates. The klan burned a cross on her lawn, and threw a brick through the front window with a note tied around it. The note was barely legible, and the grammar and spelling were so poor that mom, dad, and the police had trouble figuring out what they were trying to say. After my mother died in 2011, Senator Barbara Mikulski sent me a very nice letter in which she wrote that she had always looked up to my mother as an example.

I'm more interested in the origin of the expression. I can hardly see some camouflaged soldier knife in hand and creeping towards some German radar installation during the 1940's being without his ''drawers cellulose soldiers for the use of.''

The first time I recall hearing it was in the late 60's. Friends of mine who returned from 'Nam used the phrase. They told me that in the jungle, even boxers tended to lead to excessive perspiration,which in turn led to "crotch rot", a popular term for epidural fungal infection. My father told me they discarded their underwear in the Solomons when he was there during WW II, but didn't, so far as he knew, invent a term to describe it. (Incidentally, he came home with a case of both jungle rot and ringworm, that he didn't fully recover from for several years. I can recall him putting ointment on his ringworm when I was in second grade. That would have been six years after his return from the Pacific Theater.)

I see this discussion as a simple problem in logic:

A terrorist is, by definition, a law-breaker.
Breaking the law to stop or apprehend him reduces the enforcement and prosecuting agency to his level.
Changing the law to make it legal to apprehend or capture him by means which would have been unconstitutional absent that change in law reduces the entire population to his level.

Therefore, it is wrong to give up liberties to apprehend the individual terrorist.
Someone (I can't recall who) once said, in essence, better that 100 guilty individuals should go free than one innocent person be hanged.

This quotation from the writings of John Adams states the principle more succinctly than I:

It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.... But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.

Actually, the number of meteors that size that are drawn into earth's gravitational field is surprisingly high. Most of them, though are over and into one of the various oceans or seas. Also, most meteorites explode at an altitude of about thirty miles. Consequently, they cause no damage, and no injuries. Astronomers estimate that somewhere beween 18,000 and 84,000 meteorites of 10 kg or more mass strike the earth annually. Estimates vary pretty widly, because something that size is muct too small to track; estimates are based on meteorite finds in desert regions.

air. But I am about to remedy that by making another cup of coffee.

As a guy I would probably prefer my partner wait a bit to make a decision until after the emotional trauma of the diagnosis has been reduced somewhat. And then just support her decision.
^this^ times three! I would want my partner to do what made her feel best about herself. And I would support her every way I could think of. (including, if she wanted to put pics on FB and had them removed, posting a huge rant) In other words, I'd willingly fight for her.

What about the great standard, Strunk & White's "Elements of Style"?
Strunk and White is my"go to" book when I am unsure about punctuation. (which is not often, unless I am doing technical writing and have to reference my work)
Another reference I find useful, and interesting bedtime reading, is The Dictionary Of American Slang by Robert Chapman.

I believe that, in Bartleby, Melville is far ahead of his time; it is an existential story, and reminds one of the writings of Sartre, de Beauvoir, and others of that phlosophic bent.
But, because it is existential, I think it DOES have a ending. In the story, Melville establishes his premise that life is pointless. Bartleby's death confirms that premise.

I just re-read She Has A What? and felt the need to vent about inconsistencies. In the advertisement the statement is "Unfurnished". But there is a TV and couch in the living room;and a desk, a chair and a queen-sized bed in the bed room which is to be his. That made me stop reading and go back up to the top of the story, to see if I had mis-read the ad. So much for being able to engross myself in the story. From that point onward, my radar was on, searching for other inconsistencies. But overall, I thought it was a good story, and fun.

I had a little fun with a similar subject when I wrote Charlie-Charlene. I will say this. I thought linking Roger Williams' courage of his convictions was a masterful touch. (Having descended from a bunch of Massachusetts and Connecticut Calvinists I have a more than passing interest in New England history, and am of course, very familiar with Roger Williams' banishment.) As I read that, I wished I had thought of it when I was writing my Futa story. But I was too busy trying to keep it light and humorous while still trying to maintain the love concept, so, although I did all right at describing the love between the three of them, I neglected the philosophic implications.

Just wanted to point out that "whom" is incorrect here. "Who" is used for the nominative case, that is, the subject of a clause or sentence, which it is here, since it's the girls who don't like the activity. "Whom" is used for all other cases, such as direct and indirect objects, and when after a preposition. For example, if the title were, "Do you offer a spit bucket for girls whom your irrumate?" then "whom" would be correct, because it's the direct object there. "Whose," of course, is genitive and uses for possession, but people very rarely get that one wrong.

Remember: "whom" is not just a classier "who!"

^this^

One would think, Lush Stories being a reader's and writer's site, grammar would be correct throughout the site.
(stumps off muttering to self, "buncha no-talk, no-write dummies ... grumble, grumble. Where's my whiskey glass? ALL RIGHT, DAMMIT! NOBODY MOVES UNTIL I FIND MY GL...oh there it is. AS you were, Folks. Carry on. grumble)

The shifts in spelling and/or meaning are just proof that Englsh, unlike Latin for example, is a "living language". I did notice, though, the spellcheck warning thingamajiggy didn't like contractions. It clipped every contraction at the apostrophe, and told me I had spelling errors such as "wern", "wasn" and "aren". It wasn't (see what I did there?) a big deal, though; I merely looked at them, figured out what the checker was getting all weirded out about, and hit "continue".