To celebrate St. Patrick’s Day a little early, here are some designs taken from (among other sources) the Book of Kells and the Gospels of Lindisfarne, illustrated here by Owen Jones in his The Grammar of Ornament (1856)
Tracks
The most impressive planets, the gas giants, formed when a stellar wind — a stream of ejecta from the sun — blew lighter elements outward toward the fringes. Among those giants, the gassiest is Jupiter, which for various reasons is a fantasy camp for elements, where they can live in forms never imagined on earth.
Dear Daniel:
We are pleased that you are interested in working for The Catholic Church. We have reviewed your application materials and regret to inform you that you have not been chosen to continue in the selection process for Pope. We encourage you to visit our website regularly at http://www.vatican.va/ for future job opportunities that may be of interest to you. We wish you the best on your continued job search.
Grammar Rules:
Always avoid alliteration.
Never use a long word where a diminutive one will do.
Employ the vernacular.
Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
Remember to never split an infinitive.
Contractions aren’t necessary.
Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
One should never generalize.
Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
Don’t be redundant; don’t use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
Be more or less specific.
Understatement is always best.
One-word sentences? Eliminate.
Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
The passive voice is to be avoided.
Go around the barn at noon to avoid colloquialisms.
Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
Who needs rhetorical questions?
Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
Don’t never use a double negative.
capitalize every sentence and remember always end it with a period
Do not put statements into negative form.
Verbs have to agree with their subjects.
Proofread carefully to see if you words out.
If you reread your work, you can find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
A writer must not shift your point of view.
And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction. Remember, too, that a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.
Don’t overuse exclamation marks!!!
Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 words or more, to their antecedents.
Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
Always pick on the correct idiom.
The adverb always follows the verb.
Avoid cliches like the plague—they’re old hat; seek viable alternatives.
Be carefully to use adjectives and adverbs correct.
Don’t use commas, that aren’t necessary.
Its important to use apostrophe’s right.
Watch out for irregular verbs which have creeped into our language.
About sentence fragments.
Don’t write a run-on sentence you’ve got to punctuate it.
Profanity sucks.
Kaylee: Come on, admit it. It’s true.
Simon: No, I won’t, because it’s not. I use swear-words, like anybody else.
Kaylee: Oh really? See, I never heard you. So when is it that you do all this cussin’? After I go to bed, or…
Simon: I swear… when it’s appropriate
Kaylee: Simon, the whole point of swearin’ is that it ain’t appropriate.
Simon: No, I won’t, because it’s not. I use swear-words, like anybody else.
Kaylee: Oh really? See, I never heard you. So when is it that you do all this cussin’? After I go to bed, or…
Simon: I swear… when it’s appropriate
Kaylee: Simon, the whole point of swearin’ is that it ain’t appropriate.
Seattle Times Political Ads
The Seattle Times has recently taken one small step for securing additional advertising revenue, but one giant leap away from journalistic integrity. Long story short: they paid for and ran their own ads supporting one gubernatorial candidates, and in favor of a referendum on the ballot.*
This is a problem. This is a huge problem. In an open letter to the Publisher, countless staff members protested this action. The letter states: “We strive to remain independent from the institutions we cover. We shine a light on the process from the outside. We are not part of the process.” When they ran those political ads, they became part of the process, threatening their reliability and objectivity.
I wrote my own letter to the Seattle Times, spelling out my own concerns:
1) The advertising department, just like the newsroom and editorial departments, are held by the exact same code of ethics. These advertisements are supposed to become part of a newspaper that shows fair, unbiased coverage of the news. However, when the Seattle Times funds its own advertisements favoring one candidate over the other, it shows a clear bias on the part of the newspaper as a whole. The advertising department is not independent from the rest of the Seattle Times organization; their actions reflect upon the integrity of the organization just as much as the newsroom and editorial departments do. Executive Vice President Alan Fisco reported to King 5 News that your CEO Frank Blethen was involved in the discussions to run these ads. “I’m hoping that the political consultants see it and say ‘maybe we should take a second look at newspapers,’” said Fisco.
See:
http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Backlash-grows-over-Seattle-Times-paid-political-ad-174876151.html
The actions of the Publisher and CEO, as well as those of the Executive Vice President, definitely reflect poorly on the organization as a whole. Their decisions led to an event that has shaken our faith in the integrity of the Seattle Times as a whole. This was not just an act of a rogue advertising department; this was done under the direct orders of the Seattle Times’ top leadership. This bell cannot be unrung. The damage cannot be repaired. Or, if it can, it will be a long road for everyone involved.
2) You mention that the Advertising department wanted to show the “power of the printed newspaper in political advertising.” What deeply troubles me is how the newsrooms and editorial departments were not involved in such a huge event. From what I understand, the newsroom and editorial department staff are also deeply troubled. They have written an open letter to Frank Blethen, formally protesting this decision.
See: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/472512-doc.html#document
I would like to know how this situation was allowed to take place in the first place. I am deeply troubled that a long-standing, prestigious news organization, which has been awarded multiple Pulitzer Prizes, would completely close off communication between the news staff and those responsible for the ads. I am troubled by the notion that the news staff are left completely in the dark about what goes on in the advertising department. I am troubled that your news and editorial staff were blindsighted by this. This is very, very, very bad.
I would like to know how I could possibly trust the Seattle Times with
anything anymore.
Tony Burman, former editor-in-chief of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation once said: “Every news organization has only its credibility and reputation to rely on.”** It seems that the Seattle Times has lost that, all in an effort to gain a little advertising revenue. But wait… it doesn’t seem like this campaign is going to be very successful. The Times apparently wrote letters to our state representatives, trying to get them to buy political ads like the ones they recently ran in the papers. And apparently, they’re not buying in. State Representative Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34) even went so far as to fact-check the Seattle Times: “The marriage equality referendum is Ref 74, not Ref 78”***
Oh snap.
So, my question: Precisely what was the Seattle Times trying to accomplish?
** http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/media-cant-sate-news-hunger/article562795/
If ebooks largely replace printed books, and the public libraries are decimated or eliminated as a permanent resource open to everybody, we may be able to access books only through the corporations. It will not be easy to get a book the corporations have decided is unprofitable, outdated, unnecessary, or unpleasing; it may be very difficult to find out whether a text has been cut or tampered with; there may be no way to know that a book ever existed…. The importance of free, independent electronic libraries, such as Project Gutenberg, is inestimable.
(Source: bookviewcafe.com)
[Tropical Storm] Kirk is not expected to live long and prosper
University of Washington
Right now, there are students attending the University of Washington whose tuition has literally doubled between the time they started attending and today. They constantly ask legislators for more money, and keep asking to admit fewer students. Right now, the University of Washington is tearing down Terry and Lander Hall — dorms that are neither old, nor in any kind of bad shape. In fact, they were in excellent condition — very well maintained. So I want to know why, when the University is crying poverty, are they tearing down functioning buildings to replace them with new ones that do not provide any added function over the other? Do they enjoy intentionally wasting taxpayer money? I want to know.
Does Google know that I had tamales for dinner? Because that is authentic happiness.
