OTHER JOURNAL ENTRIES...
PREVIOUS JOURNAL ENTRY...
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: "I'm hit! I'm killed!' young David cries, Throws blindly foward, chokes ... and dies. And look! Spike-helmeted, grey, grim, Goliath straddles over him" (Robert Graves, --Goliath And David-- ).
11/12/08: So much for the idea of more frequent updates; it's now the end of the first semester (final year already? WHAT?!) and --The Holiday That Shall Not Be Named-- is almost on us again. I spent £35 this Monday printing off my coursework - of which £10 was completely wasted due to a combination of somehow forgetting to justify the text (the alignment, not the content - I always justify my conclusions!) and a grand grammatical cock-up that I'll explain later on. The Scriptwriting for Radio module called for a 3,500 word selection from my play (which ended up turning into a 9,700 word hour-buster) as well as the whole thing in the Appendix. That's over 100 pages right there, plus journal and commentary. Overall I printed about 230 sheets of A4, including about a dozen full-colour pages.
As you might have noticed in the updated introduction, I've finally banished the trusty Microsoft Word and Notepad combo as my web design tool of choice. Having to manually insert favicon code, a:hover, javascript menu and even proper image paths for every page after every edit was proving increasingly unmanageable, but my early experiments in --Dreamweaver-- left me feeling it was an even worse choice for managing a website. You can't set borders for individual cells? Not only can you not use tabs to align content, you can't even put a space at the beginning of the line? How do they get away with this <CENSORED BY KANG>? (yes, there are ways to do all of those. shut up)
Well, anyway, I ended up having to look into web design training as part of my Advanced Creative Project Management module (in preparation for the creation of the literary magazine I mentioned in the --previous update-- ) and as part of that got some basic lessons on just how badly I was --doing it wrong-- before. That's not to say I was entirely impressed with the tuition, which basically focused on repeatedly telling us that certain layouts were "illegal" under the --Disability Discrimination Act-- because they don't make it easy enough for blind people to use. When the other person taking the training asked what, exactly, the government does to people who don't make their websites conform to this law, I said in a completely deadpan voice "They come around to your house, kick your door in and shoot you in the head". The tutor's response: "Well, that's it, isn't it, they don't really do anything at the minute. But one day..." Yes, she openly fantasized about the Accessibility Police having the power to shoot people in the head.
Incidentally, a quick search for the --accessibility implications-- of the DDA shows that it's not limited to blind people. Does your website require the use of a mouse to click on links? Too bad, go to jail. You're discriminating against people with mobility problems. Have ANY sound or video elements on your site without a text transcript? You're discriminating against the deaf. Most incredibly, COGNITIVE DIFFICULTIES are included in this wonderful little package. You're breaking the law if, and I quote, "your website contains long, rambling sentences, jargon, or unclear navigational devices". Personally, I feel this is enough to consign the whole Act to the dustbin of --"mala lex nula lex"-- .
Despite these absurdities, I got enough of the basics to begin on a Dreamweaver-based version of the site. For now, I've just attempted to recreate the old design, although I've looked into some snazzy new features (now I don't have to add them to every page each time I edit them using Notepad) like rounded corners, which will probably appear half-way through the neverending transfer process - there are still pages on the site which use the "old old" design, things having gotten to the point where making a simple typo-change on a single page took five minutes. I'm still not convinced Dreamweaver is the be-all and end-all - the aforementioned inability to indent text, along with the very limited line breaking options (it's <p> or, if you can be bothered, <br>, and nothing inbetween) leaves you entirely incapable of doing such a simple thing as the following:
See? To get that effect I either have to insert four non-breaking spaces in a row, or set my CSS text style to margin: 0cm and margin-bottom 0.0001pt (!) and "dirty" the code by using non-breaking spaces instead of full-sized line breaks. I opted for the latter, simply because the former would by my reckoning use less space (two non-breaking spaces on either side of each indented paragraph vs. four nbsp at the beginning of each para) and therefore load faster.
My other big gripe with Dreamweaver is what it lets you do with --DIVs-- - or rather, what it doesn't let you do. Whilst I now know how to use tables to approximate the sleek stylings of Microsoft Office 2003 (and that should tell you something about Dreamweaver in itself), I was determined to be able to use DIVs instead- not because I'm afraid of the accessibility police, but because it cuts down on the page size (this page is currently 19kB, down from 49kB) and makes it infinitely easier to edit the code (viewed in Notepad it almost looks like actual text, rather than a pea soup of percentages and hash signs) and if need be entirely swap out the template for a newer design at a later date. However, they make it vastly more difficult to make casual edits, unless you're going for a "Flash site" feel (with all the content for a given page on-screen at any one time and no vertical scroll). For a site such as this, there's no way to group DIVs together in such a way that a wrapper DIV resizes to retain the same vertical proportions relative to an expanding text field, nor is it possible to automatically shunt everything below that point downwards. With tables, all this happens without you having to lift a finger. However, I'm rather hoping that being able to edit everything in Dreamweaver without having to add in all the "luxury" items like favicons, PNG images and link styles manually will make up for this slowdown.
Update (12/12/08): Grr. Fixed another couple of idiotic problems. --Firefox-- has a serious problem with wrapping text - it only does it at spaces, whereas other browsers will happily (and intuitively) wrap at n
UPDATE (14/12/08): AAARGH. Apparently the way we were taught to put websites together in Dreamweaver in the tutorial (with AP/Absolute Positioning DIVs) is (along with good old tables) absolutely the --worst-- --way-- to do it, resulting in horrendous text overflow when you change the text size in, for example, Firefox. I've just converted my entire site template over to regular DIVs, specifying their size with margin-left, margin-top and padding. The result; it looks more or less as good as with tables, except because I want to keep specify horizontal width, individual words spill out of the boxes at extreme magnification (i.e., when the 'WELCOME...' at the top of the page becomes wider than the box). So, meh. The one bit I've had to keep as an AP DIV, the bit connecting the Javascript menu to the main content boxes, is also now the weakest link, forcing the whole thing out of wack when Javascript is turned off. I'll continue to tweak it and try and fix this (I've just this second implemented another tweak which uses margin-top on the connector to bring it vertically into line on IE6, but it still looks worse than the table-hack; my only consolation is that it now lines up vertically in IE6 whereas before it was at a slightly different level). All the menu items except for the connector (which changes position depending on the section you're in)
So what else happened this semester? Honestly, it's all beginning to dissolve into a blur (through tiredness, I must add, rather than any chemical solvent). I've had a few interesting encounters with well
A shame really, as I would have been interested in why one of the tracts translates --1 Timothy 6:19-- as "lay hold on the good life" (visions of the 80s sitcom!) rather than "lay hold on eternal life". I suspect the issue has to do with the same word being used elsewhere to describe the 'eternal punishment' of the unbeliever. Since the Watchtower believes in annihilationism, they have to find a way out. Nevertheless, the result is faintly surreal, with the verse being used to promote wholesome family life, and illustrated with a family walking up the beach, with the youngest child riding on an elephant. My response would have been to point out that the Baptist church next door to their Kingdom Hall is offering me immortality, whilst they are offering me elephant rides. Not much of a decision! I would also have questioned whether they believe Jesus was a 'good teacher', or merely a 'good shepherd' (if you get where I would be going with this, 'good' for you).
We also got a visit from members of the --Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints-- . Now, I have a good line for not letting any prostelyzer into my residence, based on --2 John 1:10-- . However, the crafty Mormons entered by stealth, asking if they could share a message about Jesus Christ. They had already piqued my interest by not withdrawing after I confirmed I "knew" about Jesus and the meaning of repentance, and I saw no reason to leave them on the step and invited them in. Isn't it interesting that the only people obliged, Scripturally, to let them in are already saved? Their rather vehement refusal when I offered them "tea or coffee?" should, in retrospect, have given them away (not that I drink the stuff myself). Anyway, once esconced on the awful Ikea chairs, this message mutated into one about "a prophet who is still alive today" - I still have no idea who this could be referring to, as the only alleged prophet they went on to talk about was the distinctly deceased Joseph Smith. I slightly embarassed them by playing "guess the religion" and getting it wrong twice, declaring that they must be first --Branhamites-- then --Ruckman's-- KJV-onlyists. Anyway, I was surprised at how well this went; we spent the next half-hour trying to second-guess each other, and I think by and large I got the better of the exchange (with one exception: he managed to curtail my imminent citation of --Rev 22:18-- by noticing roughly where I must be based on the number of pages left before the ending and forcing me to admit it applies to that book only). Some amusing sections of the exchange:
Mormon: "Now, I'm just a simple man. Not very bright, me. I don't know any of the verses of the Bible off by heart, I'm just a regular guy. You strike me as an intelligent person."
Me (not sure how to take this): "Really?"
Mormon: "I knew a guy like you. He thought he knew everything. He was a complete NIGHTMARE to live with."
Me (all doubts in my mind resolved): "Oh."
Mormon: "Would you say you pride yourself on your intelligence?"
Me: "I would say my intelligence is... not particularly anything to be reckoned with... from a truly OBJECTIVE standard."
Mormon: "See. That was a very 'intelligent' answer. That's exactly what I'm talking about."
Mormon: "Erm, can you see OK? It's a bit dark."
Me (frantically flicking through my Children's Illustrated KJV): "I have quite enough light, thank you."
Mormon: "The KJV is a great translation - the same one I have, in fact. But I can prove it's wrong. It's the same argument used by Roman Catholics to say their church created the BIble, and the same argument used by atheists to say the Bible doesn't contain God's Word, but here we go. The New Testament canon was decided at the --Council of Trent-- based on political, men's reasons. It wasn't put together by a prophet. What do you say to that?"
Me: "I would say you call God a liar. He promised that he would preserve his words from 'this generation for ever.' If you say the Council of Trent were not 'inspired', then you are saying they were stronger than God, because he couldn't preserve his words from or through them."
Mormon: "And Joseph Smith was without understanding, so he prayed a prayer. And do you know what that prayer was?"
Me: "To know which 'Christian' denomination to join."
Mormon: "Good, yes. And what was the answer he received?"
Me: "That they were all wrong."
Mormon: "That's right!"
Me: "Now, you said Joseph Smith was 'without understanding'. That was a very interesting choice of words. The Bible, in fact, uses it only four times. Would you say a person 'without understanding' can receive a true answer from God, or would even make a genuine petition of God? Bear in mind I'll hold you to Scripture on this."
Mormon: "..."
Mormon: "I'd like us to turn to a verse in the Old Testament. --Amos 8:1-- . It starts from..."
Me: "Just a second."
Mormon: "Ah, here it is. From 'Behold the days come...'"
Me: "Erm."
Mormon: "Why don't you read it out?"
Me (unable to prevent a slightly sarky tone manifesting): "Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me: and behold a basket of summer fruit. And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer fruit. It doesn't seem too relevant."
Mormon: "Ah. We may have slightly different verse numberings." (turns out he'd misread his crib notes and wanted --Amos 8:11-- ).
Mormon: "Tell you what. You seem to have it all figured out; we'll give you a week to find everything about us you can. Use the Internet, eh? Then we'll come back and we can debate it."
Me: "Sorry, I can't do that. Debate is a sin."
Mormon: "Whuh?! Where does it say that?"
Me: "I'm afraid I couldn't tell you chapter and verse. It's in Paul's Epistles. Romans, possibly? There's a whole list of the characteristics of reprobates, including debate." (it was --Romans 1:29-- )
Mormon: "Well, then, let me give you something. It's a present. You can have it."
Me: "Is it the Book of Mormon?"
Mormon: "Yes."
Me: "I'm sorry, I can't accept that."
Mormon: "No, it's fine, take it."
Me: "You misunderstand me. I - can't - accept - that."
Mormon: "Forget what I said before - we won't come back! We'll just leave it with you."
Me: "If you do, I will destroy it."
Mormon: "Oh. OK."
Mormon: "Before we leave we'd like to say a prayer. Would you join in with us?"
Me: "I'll tell you what; I'll listen along, and if I like what I hear, I'll say so."
Mormon: "OK. </snip waffle/>. Now, would you like to say a prayer?"
Me: "Of course." <leaves room>
<comes back>
Me: "Thanks for that. Do you know what I just did?"
Mormon: "You went to pray in your closet."
On the way out, I pointed out that they had just prayed with a person they would see as a hellbound heretic. They responded that I wasn't going to hell, according to the Book of Nephi, as long as I believed myself to be a Christian, as I would eventually come around to their way of thinking, even after death. I pointed out that in that case, I had nothing to gain accepting their church if they were right. But if I was right, they were in serious trouble with the Almighty. At this the older JW, who I only just noticed had a name tag proclaiming him to be an Elder, adopted a facial expression I can only describe as "epic". Yes, they officially fell for my patented modification of the oldest trick in the theist book: --Pascal's Wager-- (useable on any religion that doesn't believe in an eternal state of future punishment). He demanded to know what denomination I belonged to. I said I wasn't part of any denomination and ushered them out.
Later that week, I went along to a prayer session at the Student Union - the first Christian Union event I attended since last year, when they played hockey with rolled up newspapers and spoke in tongues (I seem to remember making a site journal update commenting on it, but can't find it at the minute). We were given precisely 6 hours notice for this meeting, with an exhortation to fast that day (curiously enough, the same announcement also advertised "Dinner At Nando's" in the evening for Christian exchange students). After debating with myself whether I should actually appear, and eventually arriving with a bottle of water and a pad of paper marked "Hilariously Short Notice Fish Meeting", I discovered no-one else had bothered to turn up. I eventually managed to work out one of the people in the SU lounge was the loftily titled "Prayer Secretary" (a Zimbabwean student called, bizarrely, Pinky), and we spent a gruelling three hours looking at their terrible evangelistic initiatives (which as I pointed out have no pre-evangel component at all and don't even mention the Afterlife) and "praying through" a list of vaguely relevant Scriptures. She really liked to use the term "Lord". As in, five times in a row - --"Lord lord lord lord lord"-- .
Just as we were wrapping up a pair from the UK incarnation of the American --Campus Crusade for Christ-- swung by and forced us to share our testimonies. I was actually stunned by just how bland and unScriptural their "testimonies" were ("I first encountered Jesus when I was four. Before that I didn't really know enough. My grandma told me about him and I wanted to know more about him straight away!"). They were amazed that I had actually chosen to convert to a religious faith I hadn't been born in based on, you know, little things like facts. This conversation actually led me to think more deeply about some of my fictional ideas - it seems obvious to me now that "Night" (see --My Settings-- ) is more or less a parable about Christian converts vs. cultural Christians. The city of the saints (at least, the one you can see) looks so pure and lovely on the horizon. But when you get there, the people all take it for granted and are in the process of tearing it down.
On the way back I mentioned my Mormons to the male CCfC rep - he got nervous when I told him about the "debate" coup and demanded to know where it was in the Bible. Turns out he'd accepted a similar rigged deal (come on, they've got an entire religious organisation backing up their research, they're going to have the best notes) and was going to debate them in a few days. He had also previously said he wanted everyone at the CU to become missionaries and go to Africa, but when I mentioned the hypocrisy of people who claim to believe in the Bible but still accept evolution, he suddenly went quiet and mumbled "well, it's funny how different people have different opinions and it's not really for me to say". I didn't go to the next social.
Anyway, as mentioned at the top, I had to print my 50 pg+ Writing Short Stories portfolio twice. Last year, my --Lifewriting-- tutor insisted that punctuation should ALWAYS be inside quote marks, no matter what. So, for example:
"I have no idea," I said.
We'll have to take you into 'custody.'
This struck me as ludicrously wrong. She also liked all actually meaningful punctuation to be placed at the end of a sentence, like so:
"Shut up," I barked! (where the exclamation mark modifies the dialogue)
This led to idiocy like:
He keeps whining "shut up...." (YES. FOUR FRIGGING PERIODS)
Anyway, because I had been told so strongly to do it, I started doing all my coursework this way (as well as search-and-replacing a huge amount of my own personal work). But in the tutorial with my Short Stories tutor, he told me this was the "American way" and that true Brits NEVER put punctuation inside speech marks (or at least, that was what I gathered from what he said in the tutorial). So NOW, for example, we get:
I raised my voice. "I have no idea".
Which seemed equally wrong-headed, but I went ahead and search-replaced my entire folder and the rest of my cousework this way, and proceeded to write all my commentaries in the "British" style.
Turns out he didn't mean to say that. With TWO DAYS to go until the deadline, he decided to do a workshop, in which he raised the issue of punctuation in speech marks. His favoured solution?! EXACTLY WHAT I HAD THOUGHT WAS CORRECT ALL ALONG!!! Thus:
We'll have to take you into 'custody'.
"I have no idea", I said.
(I still think this should be:
"I have no idea." I said. (as "I have no idea." is a complete sentence, like "I have no idea!")
...but then I also thought Lewis Carroll's "ca'n't" and "wo'n't" were nifty improvements on the language).
"Shut up!" I barked.
Given that I had just wasted £10 printing out the whole thing (as well as other modules' coursework that was now officially incorrect thanks to his failure to communicate in tutorial) I became understandably upset. At the end of the session he actually offered to recompense me, but I refused, as it wasn't entirely his fault. See --here-- for a summary of the distinction between American and British English (but don't nitpick too much when I get it wrong on the site; I can only plead two years of wildly incorrect or misheard advice).
The Thought For The Day, from --Robert Graves-- , has been languishing in my handy Allusions .txt file for months. I was so taken with the idea that the four lines I've reproduced above could be taken as a figure for the long
P.S.: One more thing; if anyone still plays --Age Of Mythology-- , feel free to download "Of The Gods", a multiplayer map that has been on hiatus for almost a year now (my --crappy laptop-- which I got last New Year can't even run the game properly). It's not quite finished, but most of the triggers are working (the apocalyptic --Ragnarok-- that can be triggered if you mine all the Dwarves' gold is a noteable exception). It's a well balanced four player map where you fight over special sacred sites (including a hill from which you can spy on your opponents, a barrow which lets you call forth an endless (but not infinite!) supply of fodder wraiths, a --"Cornucopia"-- obtainable by destroying a certain building that steals resources from your opponents, and regenerating areas of primary resources in the North, South, East and West). Watch out for the AI guardians, though! Download "Of The Gods" --here-- .