There has to be a difference between Kerouac and drunk a.d.d.

Well...on second thought...

Drunk a.d.d. isn't trying to be anything more than that.

"I lie awake."

wow. that was some awesome reading.

get some sleep.

Consciousness? Did you happen to figure that little problem out?

Yeah, it's all about epiphenomenalism.

Yuengling Just arrived here in NYC around 3 years ago. I rejoiced when I was able to go into a store and get a six pack of it.

It only took 3 years of living in Philly to get me hooked on that beer.

Btw, great read boots

Two problems with lager in the nyc (yeah, lager = yuengling): 1) It's not a deal. It may not be as over priced as other beers, but quality/price ratio isn't what you're getting in philly. 2) You can't walk up to the bar keep and ask for a lager. S/he will look at you cross-eyed.

what's hipskid (confused)

oh, please. who the **** cares?

If threads of the past weeks are any indication, a fair amount of people do.
Paging Terror in Pink and Shants?

But, regardless, in a thread that I saw as evolving into a discussion on a piece of writing, I figured I'd chime in with a correction of a very common error.
Sorry to offend.

yeah, i spent about 20 minutes contributing to that nonsense.


but it wasn't incorrect. pay attention: a past-tense clause about "l[ying] awake," followed by a present participle clause about "dying on the inside" is acceptable. it's stating what happened in the past ("lay awake") with a present metaphysical state ("dying on the inside").
"I fell asleep, yet I'm still dying on the inside" makes sense.
"I fall asleep, yet I'm still dying on the inside" does, too.

"I lay awake, yet I'm still dying on the inside. Tomorrow I ride again, but will drink naught but the wind..."

I don't agree.
Which is not to say you're wrong.
I read it as present tense.
"Lying awake" is the present action, not past.
But, I guess therein lays the confusion with Lie vs. Lay.

"l[ying] awake" can be interpreted as present or past action, regardless of the intent of the author. we both have warrantable claims here, i'm just not sure why you made the "correction" in the first place.

eats, shoots & leaves

Does 'because I felt like it" suffice?

Boots... you study of the philosophy? I feel your pain, I haven't slept for more than 4 hours straight in over a week... First the morality of military intervention, then an exam on propaganda, then an exam on the philosophy of cognitive science and artificial intelligence, then a mind-f*ck of a paper on frege's theories of function concept and object... now my final exam on philosophy of language summarizing the views of Davidson, Austin, Putnam, Donnellan, Kripke and tying it all back to russell and frege. I feel like I've been brain punched... or mabye I wish I was... oh well sweet release will be my by the end of tomorrow. I plan on brain punching myself with a big old bag of the green stuff and as much booze as my body will hold and then some. I haven't had fun in weeks!!!!!

Edit: 'cept for riding my bike to and from work and the library... although my toes and fingers haven't been enjoying it I sure as hell have :)

Oh btw... philosophy students are the new arts students here on BF... don't say I didn't warn yah.

yeah, that one always works. :D

I'm gonna come out now and apologize for being a dick.
I felt the "but it wasn't incorrect. pay attention" remark was condescending and put me on the defensive.

sorry about that. i let my internet-ego get the best of me there. dick #2.

group hug!

yay!

grammar sticklers may read this: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/boo...628crbo_books1
excerpt from review of said book by The New Yoker:

The first punctuation mistake in “Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation” (Gotham; $17.50), by Lynne Truss, a British writer, appears in the dedication, where a nonrestrictive clause is not preceded by a comma. It is a wild ride downhill from there. “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” presents itself as a call to arms, in a world spinning rapidly into subliteracy, by a hip yet unapologetic curmudgeon, a stickler for the rules of writing. But it’s hard to fend off the suspicion that the whole thing might be a hoax.

The foreword, by Frank McCourt, contains another comma-free nonrestrictive clause (“I feel no such sympathy for the manager of my local supermarket who must have a cellarful of apostrophes he doesn’t know what to do with”) and a superfluous ellipsis. The preface, by Truss, includes a misplaced apostrophe (“printers’ marks”) and two misused semicolons: one that separates unpunctuated items in a list and one that sets off a dependent clause. About half the semicolons in the rest of the book are either unnecessary or ungrammatical, and the comma is deployed as the mood strikes. Sometimes, phrases such as “of course” are set off by commas; sometimes, they are not. Doubtful, distracting, and unwarranted commas turn up in front of restrictive phrases (“Naturally we become timid about making our insights known, in such inhospitable conditions”), before correlative conjunctions (“Either this will ring bells for you, or it won’t”), and in prepositional phrases (“including biblical names, and any foreign name with an unpronounced final ‘s’ ”). Where you most expect punctuation, it may not show up at all: “You have to give initial capitals to the words Biro and Hoover otherwise you automatically get tedious letters from solicitors.”