Search options (Page 107 of 151)

Gosh ... I just spent most of the ball game on one of my take-no-prisoner reviews on your latest chapter.

When I write of Churchill, I should add that he knew how to modulate between his stately form and a more direct style.  In the Preamble to The Last Lion (Vol. I), Wm. Manchester likens Churchill's style for speeches to an organ performance.  The reference is to the Late Romantic style, especially of Cesar Frank or Camille Saint-Saens.  See (hear) Frank's Chorale Nr. 2 in b-minor.

What to review, after you've recovered from my cluster-bombing?  Hmm.  There's a sequence from Chapters 23 to 43, with a couple of interruptions.  You miss the opening, and I'm changing Momma's name spelling from Mellaen to Melayne (to get more space from her daughter's name).  No reason not to do the first three chapters if you care to get the start.  For a standalone -- 66, 67, 81, 87.  Not all of these are in the main sequence of Book 1.

If you do a sixth of that, I'll owe you bigtime.

Oh, dear.

The difference is the word 'in'.  With no 'in', Catherine's dress is still up around her admirable front.  With 'in', the dress was set right expeditiously.

See The Lexicon of Intentionally Ambiguous Recommendation, also called LIAR.  (How do you read "I cannot recommend him too highly."  ?)

Oddly enough, this is one place where I think you're all right.  Yes, another top-level category might make sense, or just highlighting the reply link when there's a draft in there, but I think the effort could be better applied to other issues.

IMO and Your Mileage May Vary, to be sure.

So problem one is caused by problem two?

If you want performance in a computer system, you must design for it.

I just entered an inline review for Don Chambers's Mysterious Ways.  I was told that I had entered 96 comments.  Now, I'm prolix and sometimes outright logorrheaic, but ninety-six is a lot.  I went back and checked; there were 28 comments.  It's not as though we're paid by the comment, but it would be nice to have an accurate count.

Isn't it obvious?  "What do you want me for?" or "What do you want with/of me?"

'Anant' means 'on the subject of'.

So if I said "What would you with me?" you could answer?

Have you read =Albion's Seed=, by, I think, David Hackett?  It's a study of the cultures and "Folkways" that came from the British Isles at different times in different migrations.

Notice though that the expected readership is female, so you can't go too deeply into the male perspective.  Enough to lend a corroborative verisimilitude to ... oh, fiddlesticks!

That doesn't tell you about the fluid in the lines.  They take at least as much of the engine heat, and the alcohol can boil off through the jets.  Reinforcing the fluid and running some fresh through is a good idea.

The 'catastrophic' in 'catastrophic failure' isn't about the cost of damage from the failure, but about the nature of the failure.  The popping of a soap bubble is a catastrophe, in this lexicon.  Venice slowly subsiding into the sea is not a catastrophe, only a very expensive disaster, since the process does not have a single 'tipping point' from which it cannot (in theory) be recovered.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory .

They would call it canned.  I'm not sure about 'beef'.

I decided last year to keep a spare set of wipers in my trunk after one was lost--in the rain--to flying debris.  Left and right are different sizes.  Auto parts stores can be very helpful if you don't catch them when they are very busy.