Okay, so I just call the secretary for one of the deans. He's not in. I have a lengthy message. Not terribly complicated, just lengthy. I ask to be transferred to his voicemail. She says, I'll take a message. So, I give her the lengthy message. Then she says "would it be too much trouble for you to send that to me in an email." YES IT WOULD. If I wanted to send an email, I would have sent him one in the first damn place. What is WRONG with people?!?!?

My dean's assistant does that ALL THE TIME. It makes me roll my eyes like woah. Although, she usually doesn't let the person leave the lengthy message with her in the first place -- as soon as they say that, she says "Email me."

I think the bulk of the problem starts with bosses who don't check their own voicemail, but maybe that's just me.

After this Friday, I can get new glasses! YAY eye exam!!

I thought libkitty was talking about an interpretation that could be backed up with the text -- her hesitation was in attributing intent to the author. Which is pretty much the line I'd draw if I were into crit.

I'm not clear on the line drawing here, but something like the "Bible Code" is the perfect example of what I mean. IIRC, the Coders assigned numbers to words and letters and then used those numbers to discover secret messages that had been encoded into the Bible. So their code comes directly from a reading of the text, and you can give plenty of examples from the text that are cognizable, even spooky. But it's probably true that there's no code. It's a reading of the text with plenty of evidence-- but that doesn't mean it's not a crazy reading. Same with, say, a reading of Shakespeare that tells the future. You probably can construct plenty of textual examples that would seem to indicate that Shakespeare was some kind of Nostradamus. But that, also, doesn't mean that that reading is not implausible. And I would expect a professor to keep students from using those kind of analyses.

It's a reading of the text with plenty of evidence-- but that doesn't mean it's not a crazy reading.

AH! Okay. I get it now.

I like structure, so I give a lot of weight to internal consistency -- if a theory is load bearing, so to speak. However, wrt to the Coders, I'm interested to know which version of the Bible they're parsing, and how they handle issues like that.

It's not that I care that they're wacky -- it's that I suspect they don't have much of a case.

Randomly: Starsky and Hutch looks really gay.

Randomly: Starsky and Hutch looks really gay.

I've never even seen the show, and I can tell you those aren't the really gay moments.

Migraines should just not be allowed.

Once I'm in charge, I'm banning them outright.

Still going to crack the whip on too much perfume -- that's just a wrong thing, whether I'm in a migraine haze or no.

Bev and More does not have the yummy wine I had on Saturday at dinner. I am b. reft.

Not unsuggestive of a certain ... degree of physical intimacy. Good enough to slash from.

God bless the buddy action genre. It's so damned easy.

eta: I wrote this before I saw that you got what I meant, but I'll keep it.

kat-- I know I'm not being especially clear, but the point I'm trying to make is that even if you have examples from the text, it doesn't mean it's a correct analysis. (I avoid using "valid" because I think that can be misconstrued.)

Take, say, Stephen Greenblatt's theory that Shakespeare was Catholic. (A little easier because it's either true or not.) If I were a professor and I had a student that made the same argument (using just the text), even if I wasn't convinced, I wouldn't try to talk them out of making it. If, however, I had a student that tried to use the text to prove that Shakespeare was a Scientologist, I would try to talk them out of interpreting the text that way. Because it may be supportable, but given the arrow of time, it's not a valid interpretation.

Still going to crack the whip on too much perfume -- that's just a wrong thing, whether I'm in a migraine haze or no.

sacrifices and curries a goat for ita

I've gotten this answer a few times too. But it doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, if it doesn't hurt the car, then it does what it's supposed to do. And what does "run much better" mean, better mileage?

The engine's computer can figure out that it has lower octane gasoline and retard the timing to compensate. Doing so generally means less power and fuel economy. The higher octane gas allows the engine to run more efficiently and meet it's power and mileage ratings. Now if your engine is designed to run on lower octane gas, then using a higher octane will not produce better results. Generally speaking higher compression or turbo/supercharged are the ones that can benefit from higher octane gas.