376

(60 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

No eye contact, but his words finally came as she’d known they would. Those words, mumbled and barely distinguishable; he exhales them like a semaphore via the bobbing pipe-stem clenched in his teeth and set a’dancing by his lips.

The lewd words of the proposition and then the price… the offer. Direct words lent diffidence as they filter through his soiled moustache and catch like detritus in his grimy beard before spilling onto the table as the grubby proposal is laid out before her and she hates him. She hates them all. 

She’d accept of course. No question. The money was already her landlord’s, it belonged to her tab in the café and she winced, not for her debts, but for his wife, his children, because it'd be for them to suffer the cost.   

She considered the Pernod, languishing green and sullen within its misty glass. She could do with it now, to dull what was to come, but she’d leave it with Pierre behind the bar.  A hearty glass of absinthe, she mused, was better employed to remove the taste of a man than to preclude one.

A Time for Heroes by Frank Barnard

378

(10 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

TirzahLaughs wrote:
dagnee wrote:

I really tried to like this rant about a poorly made burrito, but I just couldn't. And the only reason I mentioned that I didn't like it is to illustrate the point there is little humor in a stream of insults over a very tiny thing like the way your burrito is made. This was pretty hateful and left me wondering if the writer had an anger issue. While you want people to laugh at your humor you don't want them thinking you need therapy.

Even he writer says he's not really his angry at the end of the rant because its not that worth that much anger.  It's not meant to be taken a 'true' rant.

I did laugh.  I cried a little.  I then laughed.  Because even though we don't say, we've all been frustrated or upset when something simple, something we've looked forward to---is just wrong.  Endlessly wrong. Wrong in all the wrong ways.

And it's the fake 'overblown' anger that makes the author's point.   It's really dumb not to be able to make a burrito.  It's really dumb to get that angry about it.   Instead of getting angry--take the time to call something you love--as the author says at the end.

If he anger were real, I'd probably not like it nearly as much.  But as it is--it makes me laugh.

Exactly. The rant is written purely as an abstract comedic piece and that is made obvious (it is even explained  within the piece towards the end). The 'creative rant' must be a genre within its own right by now. The whole thing is over-exaggerated, the anger purposely overblown and the irony double. Ironic about sloppy burrito construction and ironic about ranting and those who over-complain and explode over small beer. The irony might be triple too, when readers, devoid of humour believe it to be genuine customer services complaint and become outraged and offended at what is actually creative writing (fiction); and that is the bonus. Too funny!

379

(60 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Satisfying and extremely convenient, if slightly embarrassing. These Parisian café commode seats never caught on outside of France.

380

(60 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

The absinthe kicked in to galvanise her thoughts as Ellen hoped it would. She made her best choices whilst blind drunk.

Her fashion business venture; designing indistinguishable hats and frilly socks was going nowhere and it was time to face up to that. Marcellin might be right; maybe she should shave off the stubble of her five-o’clock shadow, don a pair of pantalon pour hommes and embark upon a new career as an Elton John impersonator?

381

(60 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

It was a disenchanted Hélène who swallowed hard on her mouthful of Vieux Carré Absinthe Supérieure.

‘Merde!’  And damn that damned Dating Agency!’

‘And damn goddamned Impressionism.’

Jean-Claude Van Damme looked nothing like his profile picture.

382

(60 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Not for the first time Éléonore cursed being French. It was Saturday night and 1984 for Christ's sake. Across the Channel in London, Spandau Ballet were playing the Hammersmith Palais whilst she was stuck here next to Charles Aznavour's fat brother Jacques as he farted out his fifth attempt at a rendition of ‘Au clair de la lune.’

383

(60 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

It was grim alright. Five years in development. Patents in nine countries; but if sales of the Hover-Table didn't pick up, Françoise would never be able to stop stuffing her shoes full of tissue-paper.

384

(60 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Ellen stared longingly at the glass of Pernod Fils wishing that he'd painted her some forearms and hands with fingers. It was never going to happen, she was resigned to that. Not now that she was wearing his face as a hat.

385

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Norm d'Plume wrote:

Why not just put armed snipers all along the border? It worked relatively well for the East Germans... Jobs lost to illegal immigrants? 0. Cost of capturing, arresting, housing, feeding, trying and deporting illegal immigrants? $0. Number of illegals who die trying to walk across the open desert? 0. It's pretty much win-win.

Armed Snipers?

Is there any other kind?

Whilst unarmed Snipers might be easier to train and cheaper to equip, you might also find them to be a tad less effective within their primary role.

Har! The East Germans were desperately trying to stop their own people leaving. An exodus to the West. I think that rather than a perimeter of snipers, they had an extensive physical barrier; a wall (and fence in places) that was manned by the military and the police. Sentries (armed ones), attack-dogs, minefields and barbed-wire.

I'm not saying that a wall of containment around the USA is a bad idea BTW. It's just that mass emigration is not perceived to be the issue. No interception by arresting or detaining for border infringement or transgression? No capture at all, simply gun everyone down from a distance and hopefully with a headshot? You say that this would reduce 'the number of "illegals" who die trying to walk across the open desert to zero (is this were the unarmed snipers make their killin'?). How many snipers to cover the whole border 24/7?  It worked relatively well for the East Germans? Yeah, so well that their state, their country; the GDR, ceased to exist.  LMAO

386

(4 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Good news and a nice challenge. Thanks for this Sol.

387

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

There is much to apologise for within this thread, but don't worry; I feel inclined to accept them all. Thanks!

388

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

vern wrote:

His limited wall will not secure the border. The "walls" of China, etc. were designed to stop armies, not individuals. If you think any wall which Trump could or would build can stop the determined individuals from entering, then you are the "delusional" one. Take care. Vern

Hi Vern. If not a wall, how a about a gigantic moat; coast to coast, twenty-two miles wide and three hundred and fifty feet deep with wild treacherous currents and abominable weather? Surely that’d be far more formidable than any wall that your new government could fund and build?

Well that’s what God gave to Britain in order to save it from the filthy French in the form of the English Channel. Okay, so it provided a transport system for the Vikings but it thwarted the Duke of Medina Sidonia, Napoleon, the Pope and Hitler and it flows today protecting us from everyone.

Everyone except for anyone from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden whom the German run EU have awarded the legal right to come and go as they please and without hindrance and help yourself to our social benefits, social housing and medical care systems on the way…

Oh, and any illegal immigrants from Syria Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa, formerly Zaire), Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia…  et al who pour in, the Channel seemingly a minor inconvenience.

You are right Vern. Walls don’t work!

Did Trump learn nothing from World War Z ??  All that CGI sacrificed for ‘nuthin’? They snuck in anyhow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpJoMuuE3Eg

389

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Norm d'Plume wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:

within the context of you own vocabulary.

Did you mean your or you're? ;-)

smile
Ahah!
Well spotted sir; but had I sneaked it (or even snuck it) in there as a test for the irony-challenged, the skim reader or the pedantic? After all, you will notice from my quote there, that I italicized the word you.

Maybe, I wrote 'you' whilst purposely leaving the 'r' or the 're' open for those who use either/or. Perhaps I should have used the expression 'your*' and leave it to the reader to fill in the blank. wink

No, in contravention to the ethos of the thread, I say, 'it's a fair cop guv.'

And nor am I so precious that I feel attacked or slurred and thus offended/wounded/outraged/embarrassed or indignant at the exposure of my faux pa. smile

390

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:

The Georgia quip, it was nested in there for my dearly beloved friend in Atlanta within the state of Georgia USA.

And that dearly beloved friend laughed when she saw it. wink

Notice that I wrote 'nested' in the quip explanation and not 'snuck'?

I only just noticed it myself within your quote of my line and it is a real-time example of where a 'snuck' just doesn't come natural to me or pop-up into my mind as a choice. It is what it is.

391

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

...  Patton got into trouble for slapping a traumatized soldier.  I suspect Montgomery would never have done such a thing.  But who would you rather have in charge of your armies?  Hint: Patton was the one Allied commander the German General Staff feared.

Patton was a hard charger. Montgomery tried to achieve objectives whilst conserving men and machines (his resources were scant and he hated unnecessary sacrifice of life). Patton had the more abundant resources and was less concerned with causalities. A different game, for him the end justified the means.

Who would you rather have in charge of your armies? Well it depends upon your position. If you are a front-line infantryman, or an armoured unit, you'd want Montgomery. You may be willing to risk your life for your country, but you don't want it thrown away as fuel on the fire of some General's bravado. I doubt anyone who is not liable to buy the farm and be in a body-bag by teatime would care. They'd want results over cost. Willing to lay down other people's lives for the cause and a quick win.   

The Germans feared Patton, but so did the Allies. Very much so. There are many theories surrounding his death.

392

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

C J Driftwood wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:
C J Driftwood wrote:

Thank you ever so much for catching my typo, and the lesson in punctuation.

You are welcome. It was the very least I could do following you catching, my... erm... something, and the subsequent lesson you dispensed to me upon 'present or future tense' according to the law of snuck. I like to share and given that you'd taken the time to highlight what you perceived to be the errors of my ways; I thought it only right and proper to reciprocate, to act in the very same manner. The decent thing to do.

But you should know that your use of the word 'your' is not a "typo". You spelled it correctly. Neither was it a "lesson in punctuation" (which is quite different). it was just that you unknowingly employed the wrong word for the context. I guess it just snuck in there. A grammatical error, and a very common one at that.

You assume to know what my attempt was. As you assured me that you know the difference between your verb tenses, let me assure you, I know what a contraction is and how it is used. The use of “your” instead of “you’re” was a result of typing too fast and auto correct. It was a typo.
And my earlier post wasn’t about pointing out you don’t know your verb tenses. I’m sure you do. I was pointing out that your argument was flawed.
You say, in order to “actually hear someone say the word ‘snuck’, you’d need to ‘rent an American film like 'the Outlaw Josie Wales’. Then you go on to disrespect my state “Georgia” (the USA one) not being the (proper Georgia in Transcaucasia).

Then you came back and said you misremembered. Okay, then.
But then, you go on to say “Even Josie Wales don’t say ‘snuck’!!” There is an implied jab here. Maybe I'm too sensitive. Maybe its because it is difficult to discern "tone" in a post; possibly as difficult as it is to recognize "intent."

All I did was point out, that in the example you provided, he was speaking in the present tense. You can’t speak to how he would use the past form of the verb "sneak", when all you had to go on was the present version. For all you know he may have used ‘snuck’ later in the movie.

Be that as it may, all your examples are to illustrate that those that use ‘snuck’ are backwards and illiterate.
You have a right to your opinion. I'm not saying you don't. But recognize, that it is only an opinion, with no more weight or truth than that of anyone else, and there is no reason to attack others on a personal level.

I don't know if you'll understand this, but I never thought that the word 'snuck' is a present/current tense word, nor did I suggest that it was interchangeable with any of the words within my example of script from a movie.

I think that position was clear from the preceding conversation within the thread.

And yet you pop up to haughtily inform me that the word 'snuck' is not a present/current tense word and that it wasn't interchangeable with any of the words within my example.

It's like one of those 'Doh!' moments.

You mentioned what you believed were errors or faults within my post. I replied in kind, mentioning what I perceived to be errors within your reply. Like for like, tit for tat and in the self-same manner.

You mention the errors in my post and that's all well and good. Fine and dandy.

I mention the errors within your reply post and that wounds you. A personal attack?

In the eleven or so years that I've been on tNBW I've experienced it over an again. Writers criticise other authors writing but get very upset if their own work is critiqued in the self-same manner.

You express an 'opinion', freely given, but another's opinion in reply, in the same context is not, what? Not Permissible? There was nothing personal in my replies, I merely pointed at your mistakes as you thought you had mine.

Onto the ‘Snuck’ insult;

If I, here in Ukraine, ex-Pat of leafy South East England, feel that the word 'snuck' sounds like a dumb word within my vocabulary, then that's because it does. I'm sure there are very many common or garden British/English words and expressions that would feel very odd and alien if used within the context of you own vocabulary. Cachinnate; piquant, indubitably, atrocious... et al.

You might say ‘want’ where I'd say ‘yearn’ or you’d ‘hate’ where I'd ‘loathe.’ Who knows?

Some of those words, or words like them, if uncommon within your daily language, them might make you think of something or give you a feeling. Let’s say for example that to a farmhand called Jed down in Turkey Creek, Evangeline, Louisiana the word ‘snuck’ is totally normal but he feels the word ‘indubitably’ to be stupid, dumb or daft. He rejects the word because it is alien to his vocabulary and it reminds him of a Jane Austen novel he once read to impress a gal, but secretly found pretentious (as many Americans find some British/English words and phrases).  Like I said, no problems there, and as a Brit, I wouldn’t be offended. Why would I be offended? It is just the way it is.  Jed finds the word ‘indubitably’ pretentious and daft. I bet that you’d have no problem whatsoever with that either? But hold on a minute, there’s Lord Charles Forsyth in Aston Abbotts, Buckinghamshire who with his middle-English RP (Received Pronunciation) finds the word ‘snuck’ a bit dumb sounding. That’s insulting and offensive? Just because his great, great grandfather burnt down the Washington White house or is there some other deep rooted give but can't take reflex?

The Georgia quip, it was nested in there for my dearly beloved friend in Atlanta within the state of Georgia USA. The country Georgia in the Caucasus is far superior when it comes to decent Churchkhela  and Kharcho. As a nation it has been around since 4BC but they don’t have a Eugenie Victoria Bonnie Blue Butler. Anyway, it’s not your Georgia anymore. The Chinese own it.

…which is my way of saying that I think you are getting upset for the sake of it.

393

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:

This might help.

Oh, now I get it. I get it good!

So good.

Here's one for your fruitbowl

394

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:
njc wrote:

Corra, even dance clubs would cease to function under strict verbal affirmative consent.

If the vast dance club business would actually crumble because men had to mind their manners, I'd be willing to forfeit the institution.

A transcript of our conversation follows, which I've taken the liberty of concluding for us both, as a means to save time. I have no intention of actually volleying with you on this topic. You are clearly of a mind which opposes my own, and I haven't the time to lead you tediously through common sense.

NJC: (paraphrased from above) Poor widdle Trumpy just didn't know how to get awound in this tough, tough world, and it's SO VEWY HARD to be a rich and powerful man. And that's why it's okay for him to grab "pussy" whenever he wants. The women obviously wanted it.

Corra: Women are not objects. Their existence in the room is not consent. Be sure that you have their consent, or keep your hands to yourself.

NJC: What about romance? What about LOVE, for the love of all humanity? WHAT ABOUT THE MEN AND THEIR NEEDS?

Corra: The allegations against Trump have nothing to do with romance.

NJC: I must put in a word for dance clubs.

Corra: Indeed, and that's a noble point. However, you seem to be entirely off topic. We were talking about your suggestion that Trump has a right to grope where he pleases because he has money.

NJC: Bananas wouldn't understand verbal consent. How would bananas ever procreate?

Corra: I see what I am up against here. Sir, bananas are a food item. They are a means to keep alive. They provide nutrients. Women are living creatures. If you see a banana in a bowl, and this is a banana you have purchased with your own money, you may take the banana, and you may eat it. If a woman is sitting near the banana bowl, you may not take her. She is a human being.

NJC: I like cheese. What if cheese is near the bowl?

Corra: You may eat the cheese.

Loving the Banana metaphor/innuendo but didn't get the cheese thing?

395

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Yeah, weird how I might be 'obsessed' with the subject.

Charles, you are funny. A real wit.

And I know the role that you crave is to play supercilious ring-master to a circus full of sycophantic minions.

But it isn't going to happen mate. Not here.

However, please understand that I am not contesting or challenging you for the alpha-narcissist role upon this site.

Calm down. You are safe. The title is yours and rightly so. There is no threat.

396

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

For a topic "Punctuation" somehow one would think that comments on punctuation is not only appropriate but expected, but Carver's corrections was used to cover the fact that he had nothing relevant to say other than I typed "i' instead of "f"  and someone else typed "your" instead of "you're."  That is rudeness replacing relevant feedback.

Normally I wouldn't worry about spelling, punctuation or inappropriate word choice within a forum post. However, in this case I responded with comments upon people's own grammar within posts they'd made to me, purely because they were questioning, criticising or correcting my own grammar within said post with worse grammar irregularities themselves.

How is that rude? If you seek to criticise one's grammar, at least be informed and use correct grammar when you do so otherwise your point is mute and as worthy of criticism as the criticism you are making. It is also worthy of a retort given the context.

You are scraping the barrel, looking desperately for something to be offended by and enraged about. Baiting. Whinging whining and crying foul. Playing the victim. Poor little you, nasty old me.

It is pathetic.  It really is.

397

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:

It's not actually an insult to call a modern woman a bitch.

Really?

I tried this with my wife and received a slap.

Okay, so she's not so much the modern woman nowadays.

I tried it with my daughter and received a slap.


So, tell me; are they are both not up to date, or are they just plain unreasonable?  smile wink

398

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

You took the time and effort to omit everything to obscure understanding. That is what makes you a bad person.

The quotes I used are intact (as written). I may have been selective upon which quotes I included within any particular reply, but that's only as you have also done within your replies throughout this entire thread.

I'm not sure upon the mis-quote to use here; the one about the goose and the gander or 'The lady he doth protest too much, methinks"

Anyway, I've never claimed that I'm not a bad person. I've certainly never claimed that I'm a good one. You identified me as a twat early on in the proceedings. I don't contest your appraisal of me. You label me a twat, you get a twat.

The sad thing is that from within your xenophobic, sexist, racist diatribe, your arrogance blinds you from your own   
supercilious behaviour and self-righteous attitude. That is what makes you a bad person.

399

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:

Here in the U.K. we have laws upon things like marriage, the age of consent for sex, and the slaughter of animals and how meat products are stored and handled.

We have seen the ingress into the UK of many unprocessed migrants and foreign refugees, asylum seekers in recent times. The humanitarian liberals are very pleased with this. We feed, clothe, fund, house, school and provide medical care for these people.  The humanitarian liberals are very pleased with this. Some of these migrants arrive with their wife; or their wives. Some of those wives are aged under fourteen years old. These child brides are arranged into marriage (bought and sold for a dowry). So a 41 year old man can, in the UK have three wives, one age 35, one 14yrs and another of 13yrs (with the 14 year old pregnant) and in direct contravention the Statute Law of the UK. The humanitarian liberals are not very pleased with this and their solution is ban words and persecute anyone who mentions the fact by branding them a fascist and a racist.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Yeah, weird how I might be 'obsessed' with the subject.

Which, paedophilia or the unregulated slaughter of livestock?

400

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Now, if the censorship is to be extended to all British-isms like the annoying way they spell those -o(u)r words, I'm onboard.

What a great idea.

i definitely think that you should organise and establish a movement to enforce and monitor adherence to Americanisms within other nations languages. I understand your fear. As an American writer you must feel excluded, marginalized, and insulted that your adopted language is ridiculed by the rest of the English speaking world. I also understand how this must make you feel socially disadvantaged and discriminated against. A figure of fun.

Political correctness within American English grammar, extended to the rest of the English speaking world is a noble quest and you should not only evangelize it, you should lead it. Puttin' the new color into the old colour all over the globe.

Although, I would venture to suggest that you get in there quick before your owner/masters insist upon Mandarin as your next adopted national language. Don't worry though, once you have learned Chinese and bastardised the language en route, you can begin again, feeling the entitlement to insist that they change their language into your new variant of it.