And they take it to the Head Leprechaun, who says "Boys oh boys! Is it the hasheesh ye're after bringin' me? Hould on till I stick some in me ould dudeen..."

And then the Little People appear. Or disappear. I dunno. Gets, like, confusing.

Not easy bein' green, man, you know? And the Good Indian is the one who tossed those bales overboard ... pot of gold. Heh.

Thanks awfully for those valuable notes- I've been experimenting with altering the tempi of the images and also with their "beginnings and endings" in relation to what's happening in the songs, both lyrically and musically.

Also, I've become very interested in matching color and shape of one image to the next, and in segments of several images, in order to add an extra "unit of aesthetic something or other" to convey something or other.

What, exactly, I'm never sure.

AutoSloganoMatix Selektor:

1. Holo - The Pint with a Mole
2. Polo - The Mint with a Hole
3. Molo - The Hint with a Pole

Or ... Ficciones. Labyrinths. Everything short, wonderful, condensed.

BTW ... that image of the Earth from space? I'm curious about its aesthetic effect. It literally didn't exist until the Apollo missions(outside the imagination of some sci-fi illustrators: I don't know of any serious scientific or artistic attempts to envisage the planet from space - and anyway the photo's impact seems rooted in its reality). Yet it now evokes almost universal feelings of awe, wonder, etc. Look, there we are, spaceship Earth, another green world...

Heck, that's worse, innit? Start again. I can *see* that you're deeply involved with image-making right now, and it's all good. Not 'all good' in the sense that everything is a masterpiece (mistress-piece? nah ... but what's the gender-neutral word? *Brilliancy* as in chess, maybe ...)

Ah, yep, chess. My point being that "it's all good" in the way chess was earlier, with your work/play indistinguishable, your output on fire, all zip and sparkle and a learning curve like a logarithm with an erection ...

OK. We don't want to imagine what logs get up to when they're not working for the tribe of mathematicians. It is an old saying among my people.

Hey, I can still give good review. Twenty-odd years of qualified praise and snippity condemnations takes its toll ... in a media environment where straight praise is seen as a sign of weakness, and they eat you.

24.d5! was the move I rejected after a long think. Idiot. After the hapless 24.Rac1 white is thoroughly knickertwisted.

They've sent silly drawings of naked men and women into space ... "Hey, Zarg, look - fast food!" ... "Nah, I reckon it's a jigsaw puzzle, if you put this bit there ..." ... "OK, ask the Reverend Smarg if we can eat creatures who have jigsaw puzzles - crude ones, tell him."

But has anyone thought of sending a *chess computer* into space. Maybe Fritz 20 with a Von Braun module for broadcasting the en passant rule to any intelligences who might be en passant.

One major exception: the concept of winning and losing has to be defined as an axiom. The machine sees two sides cooperating in the construction of checkmates ... no implicit or explicit notion of *wanting* to win ... the object of the exercise could be, say, sexual. Some kind of delayed gratification thing. Mate me, but later, after I've stopped you for a while ...

You were on a roll yesterday, <Deffi> - brilliant. That rates a LOL! :D

<Dom> good stuff there. Much grasses! :)

LOLlery has been detected. Everyone has to be put to death now, including me. Or 'us'. It's in the constitution. So, eh ...

Time to rewrite the constitution, we guess. Mass lollery still endangers the Earth's orbit (*McCarthy's Law of Gravitational Hilarity*, 2006), like if everyone in China jumped into the air at once (The *Hu Flung Hu* effect, unobserved in practice but common in computer simulations on the Dark Web), or the Amerikans over-use their evil earthquake machine (C. Chavez, 2010). Details on this new theory are still fuzzy, but it seems the machine sucks the 'bad quake energy' out of California and releases it in places where poor people live, like Haiti. "Give me your huddled masses and watch 'em shake, rattle and roll" as it said on that statue thing Chuck Heston found on the beach. The fools, the f- ... er, where were we?

The best legal minds of our time - me & the ♗ here - have toiled for several seconds and come up with the following distinction: a LOL may be acceptable if its user can actually be imagined laughing aloud at something that somebody else has said.

Mens Rea doesn't help much here. It's like, say, possession of dope. Intent is irrelevant: you get busted whether you wanted to use it to fuel a machine for saving Earth from alien lobsters, or for easing your ailing granny's pain, or enjoying an illegal smile. Oh, and the machine gets confiscated. The right to bear arms does not include death rays, no matter what the lobster said.

Precedent cited: Lewis Carroll, *'Tis the voice of the Lobster*; R. Barthes, S/Z; J.Tull, Thick as a Brick; Baden-Powell, Scouting for Boys; C. Norris, The Deconstructive Turn; H.E. Moldwarp, Amend Your Constitution in 24 Hours, passim.

It helps (technical term: mitigating factor) if the preceding post is funny, or the alleged Lollard is the giggly type. Evidence of prior giggliness may be admitted. In practice, and in that abomination known to the legal mind as 'plain English', if you give good laugh you get off.

No excuse for me, then. At least the Bish here has his sermons about the use of forceps in virgin birth situations. I raise an ironic eyebrow in preference to barking or gurgling noises. Maybe I should try nitrous oxide.

Still totally verboten is sado-lollery, as practiced mainly by teenage males of the Butthead persuasion. You know the kind of thing: "That move sux dude lol lol" ... "what a iddiot lol lol" ... "Lol you forgot your pants".

Actually that last one *might* be excusable. I knew a guy named Lol once, and that was the sort of thing he might have done.

There are also at least two people named Lol in the pop music world: L Coxhill and ... the other one.

There are also real Lollards, as in members of a 'heretic' sect. And one can still meet a Lombard ("Loads of money but a real deakhead") if one tries.

Lolly equals dosh, moolah, the ready, greenbacks, quids, etc. *Ice Lolly* is not cool money, it's frozen sugary water on a stick, for making kids' teeth fall out.

The times aren't changing any more or less than they ever were. Even the rate of change of the rate of acceleration -- your actual third derivative -- is unmoved. We've just refined a few, y'know, refinements: posh, that, innit. And sent a few loopholes down the wormhole into the universe next door.

Good thing I have a camp constitution, innit. No relation to the novel by Tom Disch ("For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like".)

Draft (draught?) Amendment (emendment?) ends. Voting by referendum (for nobs) /plebiscite (for plebs) on Feb 30th, aka 113 Decervelage, Anno 'Pataphysique 2n+1.

C. Rania + His Excellency the Bishop of Castello Dom Daniele

Acting Heads, Legal Dept.

It was *always* 'sado-lollery' that I hated, and still do. One could even argue that, as a reaction to a funny, 'heh' is as cliched as 'lol'. But the point is that it's a response to humour.

Admittedly, some of us can find almost anything funny. How'd you think my eyebrows migrated to the top of my head?

My mentor <Joe Wms> had a genius for finding unintentional hilarities, and those French double entendre things. (aka "Freedom Double Yews" - G.W. Bush).

But I ("seriously", if anyone can take my use of the word seriously) dislike the use of <lol> to express contempt. To laugh *at a person*.

It's OK to laugh at me, because I'm an android. But there'll be no laughing at people in this forum. Please.

Is the lesson:

(a) Stay out of washrooms
(b) Avoid poles
(c) Get a spare pair ... ?