When the National Do Not Call Registry law went into affect 10 years ago, unsolicited sales calls to my number dropped from around 3 a day to nothing -- months or even years would go by between such calls. But in the last several years they've gradually increased, and now they're about where they were before the law went into affect. I can usually count on at least 3 a day.
I checked to make sure my number is still on the Registry, and it is.
From what I've read, the problem is that there is almost no enforcement. There have been rare cases of it being enforced, but for the most part telemarketers can ignore the law with impunity, and they seem to know it. Some of them even get sarcastic and condescending when I point out that the number they called is on the National Do Not Call Registry. They know they're breaking the law, and they don't care because there are no consequences.
Others are ignorant. I spoke at length to one who had never heard of the law, and after I described it, thought that her call didn't break the law for two reasons: (1) She had been trained to make these calls as part of her study to get licensed to sell real estate, and (2) it wasn't strictly speaking a sales call; she had called to ask if I knew about recent home sales in my area and did I want to sell etc. I explained that as a federal law it wasn't necessarily part of any real estate training, and that the law didn't exclude only sales calls.
To be sure, the law does make exceptions. The main ones are for politicians, charitable organizations, and surveys, though I'd certainly prefer to be able to opt out of those calls too. There is no exception in the law for businesses making informational cold calls, and the law doesn't allow pretending to be calling for a politician, charitable organization, or survey, only to segue into disallowed conversation. Asking questions doesn't protect a business caller under the survey exception.
Maybe it would help if more people wrote their senators and representatives about enforcing the "National Do Not Call Registry" law. It's easy to look them up on the Web and send them a quick note. I did so for my senators and representative. If you're tired of unsolicited sales calls, I suggest doing the same.
Telemarketers have access to the list so they can comply with the law by removing the numbers from their own lists before calling. But with virtually no enforcement, there may be an incentive for them to use the "Do Not Call" list as specifically the numbers to call, since those numbers have probably not been called as heavily as numbers not on the list.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
My Thoughts on Jury Duty After Being on Five Juries
The King County jury selection system picked me to come in 6 times for jury duty, and of those 6 times, I was picked to be on a jury 5 times. The last time, the jurors elected me head juror.
Having been on five juries, and selected to come in six times, has given me enough time and experience with the system to offer some reflections that may be helpful for others selected for their first time.
Selection process not so random
King County Superior Court insists that jury duty selection is 100% random, based on driver's license registrations. But I and many others are very skeptical that it is as random as they think it is. After first getting my driver's license, I went about 15 years without being selected. Then I was selected usually every other year almost like clockwork until I had been selected 6 times. Then I was never selected again; it's been about 10 years since the last time.
That doesn't sound very random, does it? But it's a very common experience. In fact, I've never spoken about it to a person who's jury selection experience did sound random, and I've asked many people. It would be very interesting to see the actual algorithm used that they imagine is so random. I'd bet a nickel there's a flaw in it that makes it so nonrandom.
Jurors Are the Least Informed
As a juror, prepare to be frustrated at being required to make a very important decision without important information that everyone else in the courtroom knows. Both attorneys will be at pains to keep you in the dark about various pieces of information that they think might influence the decision away from the decision they want you to make.
One of my cases was of a middle-aged man who had sexually propositioned a minor. We were tasked with deciding whether the violation fulfilled the requirements for a misdemeanor, and if so, whether it also fulfilled the requirements for a felony. We were given descriptions of each set of requirements. The first was easy but the second took some thought and discussion. We decided that it did in fact meet the requirement for felony. After the case the prosecutor came to thank us, explaining that this man had already been convicted THIRTEEN TIMES at the misdemeanor level, with trivial consequences for him, and that they'd been trying to convict at the felony level so they could put a stop to his propositions of minors.
Another case was of a man who assaulted a woman in a car. The key witness was not allowed to say much. With some difficulty we reached a guilty verdict. After the case the witness came to us to tell us all about what he had seen that he had not been allowed to tell us during the trial. We were all relieved that we had made the right decision, without having that important information at the time.
I have no doubt that there are many cases where the wrong decision is reached due entirely to withholding critical information from jurors. It's legal but abominable. My advice: as a juror there's nothing you can legally do about it, so make your decision as best you can with what information you are given. If it later turns out that information withheld from you would have changed your mind if you had known it, it's the system's fault, not yours. So don't beat yourself up about it. DON'T go out to the crime scene yourself or anything else the judge tells you not to do.
Confirmation Bias
During the trial, jurors are under strict orders not to discuss the trial until it's over and jury deliberation begins. Bring a good book or three, or a lot of work to do on your laptop. Even if you bring plenty to keep yourself busy, you'll still get lots of practice doing lengthy small talk with complete strangers with whom you have little in common.
But when it's time for deliberation to begin, there is often a big surprise. It's as if there were really two different trials, with different evidence and testimony, where some of the jurors went to one trial and others went to the other. Some of the jurors have little or no memory of evidence and testimony that other jurors remember very well -- and vice versa.
But in fact you were all at the same trial, all sincerely trying to listen closely. What gives? The reason for this is an interesting quirk of human nature called Confirmation Bias.
How does it work? During the trial, it's normal to start leaning toward one verdict or the other. There's no use trying to deny it. It's human nature. Resistance is futile. It's going to happen.
But that tendency in itself is not the problem. The problem is what happens next. Once you start leaning toward one verdict or the other, you start mentally pouncing on all evidence and testimony that confirms your leaning. And more importantly and dangerously, you start dismissing all evidence and testimony that contradicts your leaning. Soon after, you forget the evidence and testimony that you dismissed, while remembering very well whatever confirms your leaning.
So what can you do about it? First, just being aware of the tendency, and that it's normal human nature, and that it's going to happen to every jury member on every jury, is the most important first step. But there's more you can do.
The more you find yourself leaning toward one verdict or the other, the more important it is to make sure you fully understand every word, and every shred of evidence, that points toward the other verdict. Because your tendency is to dismiss it and forget it. Make every effort to understand the other side's case well enough that you can state their case as well and completely as they can state it themselves -- so well that they would have nothing to add.
Then you'll go into jury deliberation knowing that you attended "both" trials. You won't be surprised by anything brought up by jurors who disagree, and you won't wonder if it was really said at all, or said in quite the way they remember it. Because you'll remember it very well yourself -- and perhaps will be able to point out some nuance about it that they dismissed and forgot because it didn't confirm their bias.
Majority Doesn't Rule
The 12 members of the jury are expected to come to a UNANIMOUS decision. When you come out with your verdict, the judge will ask each and every juror, one by one, two questions: (a) was this YOUR decision? and (b) was this the decision of the jury? Everyone must answer yes to both questions, or you are all sent back to try again.
If deciding the case was easy, it probably would not have gone to a jury in the first place. The fact that it is a jury trial at all is an indication that there will be some disagreement among people who hear the case as to what the verdict should be. You can expect that some of the jurors will disagree with you. So how do you come to a unanimous decision? If you don't, it's a mistrial. Judges hate, hate, hate mistrials. You'll be sent back many, many times to try again and again and again before the judge will seriously consider declaring a mistrial.
Mistrials are expensive and inefficient. Court workers of all kinds aren't just twiddling their thumbs while the jury deliberates; they're efficiently doing other work, even if deliberation takes days or even weeks. But if a mistrial is declared, they have to reschedule the trial and go through it all again. Key witnesses may be difficult bring together again. A traumatized plaintiff may have to face her attacker's vicious attorney on the witness stand again. An innocent defendant may have to go back to jail to wait months or years for the trial to be scheduled again. As a juror the system depends on you to make every effort to come to a unanimous decision and so avoid a mistrial.
But just how do you do that? Some of your fellow jurors may be as stubborn as they are wrong.
What you have to do is patiently go through your reasoning, step by step, with each other, patiently answering probing questions about your reasoning. Eventually you'll reach a point were someone feels something very strongly but not for any rational reason. If you're that person, it's your job -- the system is depending on you -- to give up your irrational feeling and go with reason.
On the other hand, some people just have difficulty articulating themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean they're irrational. If you are better able to articulate yourself than jury members with whom you disagree, be patient with them and try to help them -- sincerely -- to try to articulate themselves.
Attorneys think jurors are stupid
It's a fact. Attorneys think jurors are stupid. They seem to think jurors have the mental capacity of about a 5 year old child. But why? I've been on 5 juries and although I've certainly met flawed jurors, I've not met a stupid one, or at least not nearly as stupid as attorneys seem to think we are. So what makes attorneys think so?
At the beginning of the trial, each attorney gets about 10 minutes to tell the jury what they think is important about the evidence that will be presented and the testimony they will hear. Then at the end of the trial they each get about another 10 minutes to summarize what they think are the main points the jury should consider during deliberation.
Then the jury goes back to the jury room, and, in my experience, more often than not, agree that the attorneys did not address the most pertinent testimony, and that the attorneys' speeches were of little or no help in coming to a verdict. The disconnect is often so large that it almost seems the attorneys weren't paying attention to what was said on the witness stand.
So the jurors eventually come to a verdict based on the evidence and testimony, and not on the often largely irrelevant blathering of the attorneys. There is usually much disagreement and argument among jurors at least at first, but not once did I ever see it be about what either attorney said. If the attorneys truly believe that they were telling us all about the most important points, no wonder they think jurors are stupid.
The attorneys often seem to see only their own side of the case, and don't seem to take into consideration any of the points in the other side's favor. So they often emphasize points that are easily shot down by other points. To the jurors, that makes the attorneys look stupid. I remember one case where I was just amazed at how unbelievably stupid both attorneys were, seemingly blind to the obvious best arguments for both sides, each emphasizing instead only points that were easily skewered. The two attorneys seemed by far the two dimmest bulbs in the courtroom.
It seems to me the attorneys are so focused on the points they are trying to bring out and the points they are trying to suppress that they don't notice other points, which perhaps in some cases did not come out at all until the trial. Also they often seem distracted when the other attorney is busy questioning a witness. But jurors are focused the whole time.
I think the main reason attorneys think jurors are stupid is because the attorneys live in their own world of confirmation bias (see above). Unlike the jurors, who's confirmation bias is confronted by the conflicting confirmation bias of other jurors, attorneys don't have to discuss it with 11 peers until they come to unanimous agreement. So they each live blissfully in their own confirmationally biased world until those "stupid" jurors mess everything up with a "wrong" verdict.
Having been on five juries, and selected to come in six times, has given me enough time and experience with the system to offer some reflections that may be helpful for others selected for their first time.
Selection process not so random
King County Superior Court insists that jury duty selection is 100% random, based on driver's license registrations. But I and many others are very skeptical that it is as random as they think it is. After first getting my driver's license, I went about 15 years without being selected. Then I was selected usually every other year almost like clockwork until I had been selected 6 times. Then I was never selected again; it's been about 10 years since the last time.
That doesn't sound very random, does it? But it's a very common experience. In fact, I've never spoken about it to a person who's jury selection experience did sound random, and I've asked many people. It would be very interesting to see the actual algorithm used that they imagine is so random. I'd bet a nickel there's a flaw in it that makes it so nonrandom.
Jurors Are the Least Informed
As a juror, prepare to be frustrated at being required to make a very important decision without important information that everyone else in the courtroom knows. Both attorneys will be at pains to keep you in the dark about various pieces of information that they think might influence the decision away from the decision they want you to make.
One of my cases was of a middle-aged man who had sexually propositioned a minor. We were tasked with deciding whether the violation fulfilled the requirements for a misdemeanor, and if so, whether it also fulfilled the requirements for a felony. We were given descriptions of each set of requirements. The first was easy but the second took some thought and discussion. We decided that it did in fact meet the requirement for felony. After the case the prosecutor came to thank us, explaining that this man had already been convicted THIRTEEN TIMES at the misdemeanor level, with trivial consequences for him, and that they'd been trying to convict at the felony level so they could put a stop to his propositions of minors.
Another case was of a man who assaulted a woman in a car. The key witness was not allowed to say much. With some difficulty we reached a guilty verdict. After the case the witness came to us to tell us all about what he had seen that he had not been allowed to tell us during the trial. We were all relieved that we had made the right decision, without having that important information at the time.
I have no doubt that there are many cases where the wrong decision is reached due entirely to withholding critical information from jurors. It's legal but abominable. My advice: as a juror there's nothing you can legally do about it, so make your decision as best you can with what information you are given. If it later turns out that information withheld from you would have changed your mind if you had known it, it's the system's fault, not yours. So don't beat yourself up about it. DON'T go out to the crime scene yourself or anything else the judge tells you not to do.
Confirmation Bias
During the trial, jurors are under strict orders not to discuss the trial until it's over and jury deliberation begins. Bring a good book or three, or a lot of work to do on your laptop. Even if you bring plenty to keep yourself busy, you'll still get lots of practice doing lengthy small talk with complete strangers with whom you have little in common.
But when it's time for deliberation to begin, there is often a big surprise. It's as if there were really two different trials, with different evidence and testimony, where some of the jurors went to one trial and others went to the other. Some of the jurors have little or no memory of evidence and testimony that other jurors remember very well -- and vice versa.
But in fact you were all at the same trial, all sincerely trying to listen closely. What gives? The reason for this is an interesting quirk of human nature called Confirmation Bias.
How does it work? During the trial, it's normal to start leaning toward one verdict or the other. There's no use trying to deny it. It's human nature. Resistance is futile. It's going to happen.
But that tendency in itself is not the problem. The problem is what happens next. Once you start leaning toward one verdict or the other, you start mentally pouncing on all evidence and testimony that confirms your leaning. And more importantly and dangerously, you start dismissing all evidence and testimony that contradicts your leaning. Soon after, you forget the evidence and testimony that you dismissed, while remembering very well whatever confirms your leaning.
So what can you do about it? First, just being aware of the tendency, and that it's normal human nature, and that it's going to happen to every jury member on every jury, is the most important first step. But there's more you can do.
The more you find yourself leaning toward one verdict or the other, the more important it is to make sure you fully understand every word, and every shred of evidence, that points toward the other verdict. Because your tendency is to dismiss it and forget it. Make every effort to understand the other side's case well enough that you can state their case as well and completely as they can state it themselves -- so well that they would have nothing to add.
Then you'll go into jury deliberation knowing that you attended "both" trials. You won't be surprised by anything brought up by jurors who disagree, and you won't wonder if it was really said at all, or said in quite the way they remember it. Because you'll remember it very well yourself -- and perhaps will be able to point out some nuance about it that they dismissed and forgot because it didn't confirm their bias.
Majority Doesn't Rule
The 12 members of the jury are expected to come to a UNANIMOUS decision. When you come out with your verdict, the judge will ask each and every juror, one by one, two questions: (a) was this YOUR decision? and (b) was this the decision of the jury? Everyone must answer yes to both questions, or you are all sent back to try again.
If deciding the case was easy, it probably would not have gone to a jury in the first place. The fact that it is a jury trial at all is an indication that there will be some disagreement among people who hear the case as to what the verdict should be. You can expect that some of the jurors will disagree with you. So how do you come to a unanimous decision? If you don't, it's a mistrial. Judges hate, hate, hate mistrials. You'll be sent back many, many times to try again and again and again before the judge will seriously consider declaring a mistrial.
Mistrials are expensive and inefficient. Court workers of all kinds aren't just twiddling their thumbs while the jury deliberates; they're efficiently doing other work, even if deliberation takes days or even weeks. But if a mistrial is declared, they have to reschedule the trial and go through it all again. Key witnesses may be difficult bring together again. A traumatized plaintiff may have to face her attacker's vicious attorney on the witness stand again. An innocent defendant may have to go back to jail to wait months or years for the trial to be scheduled again. As a juror the system depends on you to make every effort to come to a unanimous decision and so avoid a mistrial.
But just how do you do that? Some of your fellow jurors may be as stubborn as they are wrong.
What you have to do is patiently go through your reasoning, step by step, with each other, patiently answering probing questions about your reasoning. Eventually you'll reach a point were someone feels something very strongly but not for any rational reason. If you're that person, it's your job -- the system is depending on you -- to give up your irrational feeling and go with reason.
On the other hand, some people just have difficulty articulating themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean they're irrational. If you are better able to articulate yourself than jury members with whom you disagree, be patient with them and try to help them -- sincerely -- to try to articulate themselves.
Attorneys think jurors are stupid
It's a fact. Attorneys think jurors are stupid. They seem to think jurors have the mental capacity of about a 5 year old child. But why? I've been on 5 juries and although I've certainly met flawed jurors, I've not met a stupid one, or at least not nearly as stupid as attorneys seem to think we are. So what makes attorneys think so?
At the beginning of the trial, each attorney gets about 10 minutes to tell the jury what they think is important about the evidence that will be presented and the testimony they will hear. Then at the end of the trial they each get about another 10 minutes to summarize what they think are the main points the jury should consider during deliberation.
Then the jury goes back to the jury room, and, in my experience, more often than not, agree that the attorneys did not address the most pertinent testimony, and that the attorneys' speeches were of little or no help in coming to a verdict. The disconnect is often so large that it almost seems the attorneys weren't paying attention to what was said on the witness stand.
So the jurors eventually come to a verdict based on the evidence and testimony, and not on the often largely irrelevant blathering of the attorneys. There is usually much disagreement and argument among jurors at least at first, but not once did I ever see it be about what either attorney said. If the attorneys truly believe that they were telling us all about the most important points, no wonder they think jurors are stupid.
The attorneys often seem to see only their own side of the case, and don't seem to take into consideration any of the points in the other side's favor. So they often emphasize points that are easily shot down by other points. To the jurors, that makes the attorneys look stupid. I remember one case where I was just amazed at how unbelievably stupid both attorneys were, seemingly blind to the obvious best arguments for both sides, each emphasizing instead only points that were easily skewered. The two attorneys seemed by far the two dimmest bulbs in the courtroom.
It seems to me the attorneys are so focused on the points they are trying to bring out and the points they are trying to suppress that they don't notice other points, which perhaps in some cases did not come out at all until the trial. Also they often seem distracted when the other attorney is busy questioning a witness. But jurors are focused the whole time.
I think the main reason attorneys think jurors are stupid is because the attorneys live in their own world of confirmation bias (see above). Unlike the jurors, who's confirmation bias is confronted by the conflicting confirmation bias of other jurors, attorneys don't have to discuss it with 11 peers until they come to unanimous agreement. So they each live blissfully in their own confirmationally biased world until those "stupid" jurors mess everything up with a "wrong" verdict.
Interesting Opening Scene on The Simpsons
About two years ago, an episode of The Simpsons started with a very interesting and very elaborate scene that seemed to be a reference to something, but I had no idea what. I little Googling revealed what show was being referenced, and that the Simpsons scene was a parody of that show's opening sequence, which apparently was very highly regarded. I tried watching it on youtube but the quality was poor. So I rented the DVD of the first episodes of the first season.
I enjoyed the opening sequence and agreed that it was excellent; maybe the best I'd ever seen. Then, before returning the disk, I thought I might as well watch the first episode on it. The Fantasy genre isn't really my cup of tea, but I was surprised at how well written and acted it was. I was intrigued enough to watch the other episode on that disk, and then to rent the next couple of disks in the season. By the time I'd watched episode 6, I knew this show was really something special; one for the ages. I believe it transcends its genre.
We rented the rest of the season, and when the 2nd season came out on disk we rented it too. The show is on HBO and we don't subscribe to that, so we see the shows 11 months later each season when the disks are released. The season 3 disks have just been released, and we just finished watching episode 4. Another disk is due tomorrow. I am impressed as ever at the high quality of the writing and acting.
I recommend it very highly, especially if you are not really into the Fantasy genre (as I am not), because in that case you might assume, as I would have, that it would not be much to your taste. Oh -- there are many scenes that are not appropriate for kids; the author is at pains to show the grisly and earthy reality of life in England's brutal "War of Roses" period, though it is set in a fictional world, and HBO is at pains to make the show titillating. The show is called "The Game of Thrones".
The author is sometimes called "The American Tolkien". I think that's misleading. What they have in common is that they write fantasy set in worlds that in some ways resemble the Middle Ages, and that they write very well. That's about it. Everything else is much different. Whether or not you like Tolkien is no indication of whether or not you will like Game of Thrones.
I enjoyed the opening sequence and agreed that it was excellent; maybe the best I'd ever seen. Then, before returning the disk, I thought I might as well watch the first episode on it. The Fantasy genre isn't really my cup of tea, but I was surprised at how well written and acted it was. I was intrigued enough to watch the other episode on that disk, and then to rent the next couple of disks in the season. By the time I'd watched episode 6, I knew this show was really something special; one for the ages. I believe it transcends its genre.
We rented the rest of the season, and when the 2nd season came out on disk we rented it too. The show is on HBO and we don't subscribe to that, so we see the shows 11 months later each season when the disks are released. The season 3 disks have just been released, and we just finished watching episode 4. Another disk is due tomorrow. I am impressed as ever at the high quality of the writing and acting.
I recommend it very highly, especially if you are not really into the Fantasy genre (as I am not), because in that case you might assume, as I would have, that it would not be much to your taste. Oh -- there are many scenes that are not appropriate for kids; the author is at pains to show the grisly and earthy reality of life in England's brutal "War of Roses" period, though it is set in a fictional world, and HBO is at pains to make the show titillating. The show is called "The Game of Thrones".
The author is sometimes called "The American Tolkien". I think that's misleading. What they have in common is that they write fantasy set in worlds that in some ways resemble the Middle Ages, and that they write very well. That's about it. Everything else is much different. Whether or not you like Tolkien is no indication of whether or not you will like Game of Thrones.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Windows 8: At Last, a True Upgrade to Windows 3!
Windows 3.0 through 3.11, introduced in 1990 and replaced by Windows 95 in 1995, was until recently the best-ever version of Windows. Why? Because graphical elements were two-dimensional. Windows 95 ruined that with it's cluttered three-dimensional look.
Everyone knows that simpler is better. Three-dimensionality is more complex, therefore worse than two-dimensional.
It makes no difference that three-dimensionality helps you more quickly see the purpose and function of graphical screen elements. Who cares whether an operating system helps you know what's going on? The whole point of an operating system is to be beautiful, and that in turn requires simplicity. If that means the user must learn in books or by googling how to navigate around the operating system, it's a worthwhile tradeoff, and shows that the user is macho. Only wimps want operating systems that help them in any way. Remember, user-friendly really means wimp-friendly.
Also, the more time you spend just gazing at the beautiful simplicity of an operating system, and not trying to be productive, the better. It's about enjoying beauty, not getting work done.
When Windows Vista made the three-dimensionality smoother, it was admittedly prettier, but we were not fooled. Though pretty, it was still helpful, and therefore bad. Windows 7 continued that ruse.
So Windows 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 were all worse than Windows 3.x. But what does this have to do with Windows 8?
Windows 8 brings back glorious two-dimensionality to Windows. It forces the user to learn more from books and googling than by seeing them intuitively in the interface (though not always due only to the flat interface). So the users know they are macho and not wimps.
If, like me, you've never upgraded your main computer past Windows 3.x because you hate three-dimensionality and it's associated user-friendliness, you'll be right at home in Windows 8. You'll like how many tasks are not intuitively obvious and have to be googled. And then either memorized or googled again the next time you need to do that task.
Thanks, Microsoft, for making it harder for us macho types! We love it. All we need now is for Windows to be able to physically reach out and spank us. Now that would really be exciting! I mean macho. I think.
Everyone knows that simpler is better. Three-dimensionality is more complex, therefore worse than two-dimensional.
It makes no difference that three-dimensionality helps you more quickly see the purpose and function of graphical screen elements. Who cares whether an operating system helps you know what's going on? The whole point of an operating system is to be beautiful, and that in turn requires simplicity. If that means the user must learn in books or by googling how to navigate around the operating system, it's a worthwhile tradeoff, and shows that the user is macho. Only wimps want operating systems that help them in any way. Remember, user-friendly really means wimp-friendly.
Also, the more time you spend just gazing at the beautiful simplicity of an operating system, and not trying to be productive, the better. It's about enjoying beauty, not getting work done.
When Windows Vista made the three-dimensionality smoother, it was admittedly prettier, but we were not fooled. Though pretty, it was still helpful, and therefore bad. Windows 7 continued that ruse.
So Windows 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 were all worse than Windows 3.x. But what does this have to do with Windows 8?
Windows 8 brings back glorious two-dimensionality to Windows. It forces the user to learn more from books and googling than by seeing them intuitively in the interface (though not always due only to the flat interface). So the users know they are macho and not wimps.
If, like me, you've never upgraded your main computer past Windows 3.x because you hate three-dimensionality and it's associated user-friendliness, you'll be right at home in Windows 8. You'll like how many tasks are not intuitively obvious and have to be googled. And then either memorized or googled again the next time you need to do that task.
Thanks, Microsoft, for making it harder for us macho types! We love it. All we need now is for Windows to be able to physically reach out and spank us. Now that would really be exciting! I mean macho. I think.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
I Before E Except When...
I before E except when you leisurely weigh counterfeit caffeine freight above the ceiling to deceive sovereign veiled heirs and receive their heinous heirlooms, seizing the seismic sleigh reins at reveille.
Copyright (c) Greg Lovern 2014.
Inspired by this by Simon Taylor:
I before E ... except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbor.
https://mrsimontaylor.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/i-before-e-except-when-people-dont-credit-your-jokes/#comment-1498
Update Feb 21, 2018:
My first one above was 19/26, counting after "Except when". This one is 26/30:
I before E except when leisurely weighing counterfeit caffeine freight above ceilings to deceive Keith's feisty sovereign foreign veiled heirs and receive their eight heinous beige heirlooms, seizing their seismic sleigh reins at reveille. Weird.
Copyright (c) Greg Lovern 2018.
Copyright (c) Greg Lovern 2014.
Inspired by this by Simon Taylor:
I before E ... except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbor.
https://mrsimontaylor.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/i-before-e-except-when-people-dont-credit-your-jokes/#comment-1498
Update Feb 21, 2018:
My first one above was 19/26, counting after "Except when". This one is 26/30:
I before E except when leisurely weighing counterfeit caffeine freight above ceilings to deceive Keith's feisty sovereign foreign veiled heirs and receive their eight heinous beige heirlooms, seizing their seismic sleigh reins at reveille. Weird.
Copyright (c) Greg Lovern 2018.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)