August 2007


by Suw on August 20, 2007

This morning, just before I woke up, I had a dream that my Wikipedia page was up for deletion, and that I was making the case for keeping it by saying that 83 pages had linked to it and that it's bad form to wilfully rot links.
I woke up somewhat bemused by my dream, but couldn't resist checking to see if my Wikipedia page is still there. It is, but only just – it's been
marked for deletion, you see. (And it only has about six pages linking to it. I just had to check that, too.)
I don't see anything psychic in this as it was marked for deletion – or, as they put it, merging with the Open Rights Group page – on 17 August but my psyche never bothered to mention it until this morning. Maybe the ether's got really bad latency. Anyway, Betsy Devine spoke up on my behalf saying that the stub should be retained, and now a couple of other people have too, which is nice.
I have always felt a bit strange about my Wikipedia entry. On the one hand, if it had never been put up, I never would have said that there was any need to create it – I'm not convinved that I'm that notable a person, except in the areas of British digital rights activism and social software/blogging, where I would like to think I have made a positive contribution. On the other hand, now that I have a Wikipedia page, I'd be sad to see it go. That's human nature I think – having something taken away is worse than not being given it in the first place.
Later… It has come to my attention that my pages is being edited a bit now, with some more information being put up, which is nice. I could have done that myself, but Wikipedia policy is that you're not allowed to edit your own pages, so I've stayed well clear. But whether it stays, or whether it gets deleted still, only time will tell.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Stories from beyond the veil

by Suw on August 17, 2007

I wasn't very sure whether I should blog this publicly or not, because I fear it might actually be quite boring unless you're really into making wedding veils. But it has been pointed out to me that you are the best judges of what you find interesting, not me. So I'm bunging it up, and if it's not up your street, you can always skip it. But I must warn you, there'll be yet more wedding blogging over the next few days…
So, a few weeks ago, I bought three metres of tulle in order to make my 'test veil', but when I spread it all out I realised that not only is three metres quite a lot of tulle, but that there's also just nowhere near enough room in our flat to spread it all out flat. I also learnt that it's really hard to fold that much tulle up on your own in a confined space.
Last Tuesday, I went back to Dorset to get some wedding planning done whilst Kev was away on his trip. Mum and Dad have a lot more room in their place than we do, so I took down the tulle so that I could work up the alpha version of the veil.
The main set of instructions I'm using were written by Jennifer Haley, but there's this Michael's Stores illustration of how to make a veil as well, and lots of veil pictures on The Veil Shop to give you an idea of how it should look. What I'm going for is a two layer veil, with a fingertip or waltz length lower layer, and a blusher that comes to just above my elbows. The exact lengths will be determined at my first fitting for the dress, so that I can make sure that the veil and dress work perfectly together.
So, right before we get to the whole making the veil thing, a little geometry. When you think about a veil, you think about something that's longer than it is wide, right? Hm, yes, me too. And when you read the 'making a veil' instructions, they all make it sound like you're making something that's longer than it is wide too. But the tulle is 108″ wide, and if the blusher is 50″ long, and the blusher is 35″ long, that's 85″ long… which means that the rectangle of tulle that I'm working with is actually wider than it is long.
The key thing to getting a veil that hangs well, with lots of wavy edges that cascade down your back, is the shape of the tulle. In Jennifer's instructions, she suggests that you fold the tulle in half, and round the corners off with a radius equal to half the full width. Indeed, the diagram makes that look like a pretty simple thing. But the problem is, with a rectangle that's wider than it is long, you run out of length before you've finished your half-width curves. Indeed, given that the curve for the blusher has even less length than the curve for the waltz layer, the whole thing ends up being, well, a bit squished.
Rather than the expected U shape, geometry insists we have a sort of asymetrically flattened 0 on its side.
So, right, Veil Mark 1. I cut the tulle to roughly the right length and rounded off the corners with a radius of 24″, which was at that time my estimate for the length of the blusher.
This is where I have to interject that tulle is a right bugger to cut. It doesn't matter how sharp your scissors, it's a nightmare to get a straight line or, indeed, a smooth curve. It's also quite hard to cut tulle if you have a kitten sat on it.
Anyway, back to the veil. I folded the blusher part over, and then used whipstitch to gather up the tulle along the fold, leaving 24″ on either side ungathered. I didn't have a comb so I had to test it out by pinning it to my hair with one of mum's spring-loaded interlocking toothy comby thingies. You know the sort of thing I mean.
Can't say that I was overly pleased with the way that this one worked. It didn't really hang all that well – you couldn't really see any of the edges cascading in a nice wavy way, nor was the blusher long enough.
Veil Mark 2. I'd only loosely sewn the veil up, so it was easy enough to undo the gather, and fold more fabric over for a longer blusher – this time, 34″. I also this time whipstiched all along the fold, from edge to edge, rather than just gathering in the centre. Whilst the blusher looked about the right length once pinned to my hair, it really didn't fall well, and the waltz layer looked again quite drab.
Mum kindly offered me her veil, but whilst it's a lovely veil it's way too short, but I spent some time studying it and trying to figure out how it had been made. It seemed to me to be made of two separate pieces of tulle, rather than one that's been folded, so I decided to try that tactic.
The problem with the folded tulle is that the gathers of the blusher become smooshed up with the gathers of the waltz layer, and it become hard to separate them when you bring the blusher forward to cover your face. That affects the way that the tulle falls, and it obscures the edges, so where they should be falling attractively to frame the face, they are buried in the depths of the longer waltz layer.
My veil experiment didn't take place all in one day, although if you had nothing else to do, one day would be more than long enough. Rather, I spread it out over three days, picking it up and putting it down. I'm pretty sure that I can make the real thing in one day, or maybe one weekend, given that the real thing will need more embellishment than this trial veil.
Veil Mark 3. I cut the tulle in two, one piece 51″ long (I had intended 45″, but it came out a bit longer), and the other around 34″, and then gathered the longer piece with whipstitch all along the flat top – now it really did have the fabled U-shape. The blusher piece I trimmed down further, so that it was the same width and length as the blusher on my Mum's veil, and then I gathered that too. I sewed the two together and again pinned them to my head.
Now the blusher was falling better, but because I am going to have it pinned quite far back, rather than on the crown of my head, it was producing a rather unattractive undulation in the hemline when brought forward. I pinned it where it was falling too long, then took it apart again, and trimmed the bottom into a smoother, more circular curve. Sewed it up again, and bingo, problem solved.
That just left the longer bottom layer to sort out. By this point, I'd figured out that to get a very subtle veil with few waves you need a U shape; to get what they call an 'angel' veil you need a V shape; but what I wanted was something in between, without the V point of an angel veil, but more curvy than a U veil, which has all it's drapes in the middle instead of the edges. (Bearing in mind, of course that the U and V are wider than they are tall.)
Veil Mark 4. I undid the waltz layer again, spread it out on the floor, marked out a longer curve with pins, sort of a half-oval, and shooed Castor away. (The little blighter had decided I was paying way too much attention to the veil, and had come to the conclusion that a good tactic to regain my attention would be to position herself in the middle of the veil and then move as if to sharpen her claws on the tulle. I will admit, it was a tactic that worked flawlessly.)
It took four attempts, but the last, more sweeping curve worked just fine. The edges of the tulle cascade nicely down the sides, and it works really well with the narrower blusher.
I then took my lace samples that I made a couple of months ago, and sewed three of them to the bottom of the blusher, just to see what they would look like. I was surprised that the wider sample actually looked far better than the narrower ones. I still need to find some other patterns to try, because it's going to take 4ft of lace to trim just the blusher so I need to be able to make it quite quickly. The rest of the veil would need 17ft, which is really rather a lot, so I need to think of an alternative trim for that.
Friday, we popped into Ringwood and I managed to get a proper comb, albeit black, and some satin bias binding, so I could see how the veil looks with the waltz length layer thusly edged, and with the whole thing attached properly to a comb. And I have to say, it looks good! The bias binding is a little bit stiff and it flattens out some of the curves, but it's a possibility.
That's as much as I can do, really. Next thing is to try it with the dress and see how the lengths work, and to buy the right coloured tulle. Obviously I can't do that until I have a sample of the ivory silk dupion that the dress will be made of. I might see if I can find some real silk tulle – although it's much more expensive than synthetic tulle, it falls much more softly.
I also need to decide how to decorate the veil, and how much decoration I should indulge in. The dress is going to be quite simple, so the veil can afford to be a little bit more flamboyant, but I don't want to overdo it! Still, we have time to think about all that yet!

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Stationery problem solved

by Suw on August 16, 2007

So, a couple of weeks ago, I realised that the burgundy card I had bought to make the invitations with was, well, the wrong colour. This was particularly painful, given that I thought I'd finally cracked it, just a few days before. Honestly, I felt like I'd been round every art supply shop in London, and had got samples from all of them.
The wrong burgundies
I really couldn't face searching out yet more art supplies shops to try and find yet more burgundy card, so I gathered together my samples and reconsidered the situation. See the burgundy mulberry paper – that's the one that's laid on top of the ivory coloured card? That's the colour I was trying to match. See that burgundy card towards the bottom of the pic, with the writing on it? I figured that was a pretty good match, but as a card it's just way too thin – it won't really hold up very well to having lots of thing stuck to it.
What to do? What to do?
I laid out all my supplies, and had a think.
Wedding stationery
Then, inspiration! given that I bought a ton of burgundy card that's just enough of the wrong shade to be usable, but the right thickness, why not glue the card that's the right shade to it? That'll give me a double thickness backing card, and the wrong coloured card won't be seen because it'll have ivory mulberry paper glued to the back of it. Sorted!
Of course, this means that we have the added tediousness of gluing together some 25 sheets of card, but it hopefully won't be too much of a chore. When I was home last I got Dad to make me a jig, just two bits of wood at right angles, so that I can more easily line up the two bits of card.
The only issue I then had was that the burgundy mulberry paper that I bought was also the wrong shade. I couldn't find the one that I wanted on the WeddingDIY site, so I had to email them. They replied really quickly and sent me the right URL and, well, frankly, it was just me being a bit dense and looking at the photos instead of the description, and therefore missing the right burgundy because it looked a bit lighter in the photo than I was expecting.
Last week, whilst I was down in Dorset, WeddingDIY sent me the right burgundy mulberry paper, and I am sending the wrong one back tomorrow. I have to say – this is fabulous customer service. They'd put the right paper in the post to me before I even asked them to! If you're looking to make your own wedding invitations, I couldn't recommend WeddingDIY more highly.
Tonight, then, is invitations night. Once we've had dinner, the laptops will go away and Kevin and I will start on making up the invitations for our family and friends who are travelling from afar. The rest of you, however, will have to wait. Invitations aren't usually sent out til about 6 weeks ahead, but given that people need to book travel and accommodation, I suspect we'll do our second batch when we get back from our holiday in mid-Sept.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Unexpected excitedness

by Suw on August 13, 2007

I just booked the register office (apparently, it's not registry, as I always thought it was) for our wedding in February, and had a sudden and unexpected burst of nerves and overwhelming excitement as I did so. Squeee!!
Now that I'm starting to get tangible evidence of impending nuptials, I'm starting to get much more excited than I have been since Kevin first proposed in January. We have the stuff for the invitations, bunches of lavender and rosemary drying, the 'trial veil' (which I'll blog about only if people actually want to hear about how you make a veil – I have lost the ability to tell what's interesting and what's dull now!).
It's all slowly become much more real, and I'm slowly getting much more excited. Indeed, every now and again I get a sort of flash of “Oh gosh! I'm getting married!”, accompanied by a little fizz of excitement and happiness. I'm glad that we didn't rush things – I'd be missing out on all this anticipation if we had!

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

World's Sexiest Writer 2007

by Suw on August 12, 2007

Vince and some of his pals at Crimespace have set up a poll to find the World's Sexiest Writer 2007. The nice thing about it is that you can add people to the list, not just be forced to vote for one of the existing entrants.
Of course, I entirely deny that I added any names to that list at all, and I most strenuously repudiate the implication that I voted for person whose name I most definitely didn't add. Equally, I would never, upon my life, ever suggest that you pop over there and vote for the person whose name I am completely innocent of typing into the little box that says “Add another option”.
I'm not sure when the poll ends, but I would hazard to propose that authors who wear a lot of black and are patrons of digital rights organisations are really rather dashing and lovely, although, of course, I would never attempt to influence anyone when they were just about to do something as serious as vote in something as important as the World's Sexiest Writer 2007 poll.
UPDATE: Recent developments in the poll require that I add a clarification to this post, lest anyone misunderstand. I might have possibly have added someone's name, but it wasn't mine! I'm quite embarrassed now, specially as if you look at Vince's post, I don't even qualify! *scurries away, blushing*
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: My name has now been removed from the poll. Mind you, I was doing quite well at one point, in the lead with 8 votes.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The thing about weddings is that the majority of the work is in getting the detail right. Luckily, I like detail. One such detail is how to do the place settings at the wedding breakfast. Everyone will have a specific place to sit, but how to we indicate who is sitting where?
I don't like traditional place settings – they're boring. So I struck on the idea that we could use a little posy of dried lavender, with a name tag attached to it with lace or ribbon. Mum and Dad have a lavender bush in the front garden, but it's not enough for the number of posies we need. In fact, it's probably only enough for one. But Mum teaches adult exercise classes, so she asked if any of her members had spare lavender that they would cut for me, and many of them said they had.
Sadly, the weather this year has been just dreadful, and the wetness during June and July has ruined much of the lavender which needs hot dry weather to flourish. The flowers came out earlier than expected, but when people cut them, they were so damp that they just went mouldy.
Despite this, some of Mum's members have managed to cut some nice lavender and successfully – to various extents – dry it for me. Mum has been keeping it in the airing cupboard, and yesterday i sorted it out. Some of it had gone a bit mouldy, so we had to throw out three large-ish bundles, but the rest of it was fine.
This is what we had left, and I've put it in a box in the loft, where it's nice and warm.
Mum got an additional bundle yesterday, which I prepared for drying in the loft, but I don't think it's going not be usable as it was picked after the majority of the flowers had died.
Rosemary and lavender
You can see how much greyer it is than the top photo. I bundled it and hung it up in the loft to dry anyway, as I might be able to use it for small favours.
Rosemary and lavender
Rosemary and lavender
If you look, you can see there are just a few actual flowers left on this lavender, the rest are just the dead husks of the flowers.
Rosemary and lavender
One other option is, instead of having posies of lavender, we use bundles of rosemary. Now, Mum and Dad do have an absolutely enormous rosemary bush in the garden, so yesterday we cut as many of the long stems as we could.
I've bundled handfuls of four or five stems together, and hung them in the loft to dry too.
It should take a couple of weeks for both the rosemary and the lavender to dry fully. It's hot up in the loft, and the weather at the moment is quite warm, so it should dry ok. The rosemary bush grows like the clappers, so Mum's going to do another prune in a few week's time so that I get a second harvest. Hopefully that will give us enough rosemary and lavender so that we can put one little posie on each place setting.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }


by Suw on August 5, 2007

I've had an interest in extreme weather events for as long as I can remember. Indeed, I very nearly did a meteorology degree at Southampton University, but had decided that it was just too close to home – only half an hour across the New Forest from where my parents lived. As it was, I opted for a joint geology/chemistry honours degree at Aberystwyth instead, only to find myself transferred to the geology department of the University of Wales, College of Cardiff when Aber's geology department was closed down. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I had done meteorology instead.
I've been particularly interested in flooding since reading Richard Doyle's Flood, in which London drowns under 10m of water. It's one of those books where the actual writing style is a bit clich?©d and clunky, and where it would have benefited from being a third of the length, but despite its shortcomings it's a gripping read. Pulp disaster fiction, maybe, but enjoyable stuff.
I had two reactions to Flood when I read it. The first was that I never looked at the London Underground quite the same way again. The second was that I wished I could have adapted it for the big screen. It would be just such a joy to take a book like this, with such potential, and turn it into a first-rate disaster flick.
So it was pretty inevitable that when I saw the headline on the BBC, Review of London's flood defences, that I'd click. Colour me surprised, however, to see this photograph:
Stills from "Flood"
Last I looked, London's never been flooded like that!
Turns out to be a still from the forthcoming disaster filmFlood. Fab! It's got Robert Carlyle in the lead, who I love, and Poirot, er, I mean, David Suchet as the Deputy Prime Minister, but what's more, it's being directed by Tony Mitchell. Mitchell also directed Supervolcano, a two part TV 'docu-drama' looking at what would happen if Yellowstone National Park – which is actually what's called a supervolcano – erupted. I rather liked Supervolcano, it seemed to me to be a pretty well thought-through piece of speculative fiction which was grounded in reality and which had paid attention to detail. I can see why someone like Mitchell would be attracted to a story like Flood.
Watching TV last night, I saw a documentary on flooding in the UK, which happened to include interviews both with Richard Doyle and a guy from the Met Office who, surprisingly to me, seemed to be supporting Doyle's point of view that the Thames Barrier is becoming inadequate and that London really could be at risk of a flood event. But according to that wonderfully reliable source of journalistic purity, The Daily Mail, the 'Environment Agency dismissed it as nonsense, saying: “It may make for a good read but it is not good science.'”
The reaction from the Environment Agency, who are responsible for the Thames Barrier, is slightly strange. On their website they say:

Media reactions to the fictional tale are being compared to the hysteria that swept the United States in 1938, when a radio adaptation of HG Wells' War of the Worlds saw Americans gripped by panic at the thought of martian invaders devastating their country.

Really? Where? The press release is dated 1 August, just a few days ago, but I can't say that I've seen any media hysteria over this film. Indeed, I've had to look pretty hard to find any sort of reaction at all in the media, and have found only the stuff on the BBC and The Daily Mail. That's hardly a media frenzy, now, is it? Unless you count the East London Advertiser (nice photos there, by the way).
The Environment Agency then say:

As a result of the interest, Lionsgate and the Environment Agency have resolved to work together to highlight the actions that people can take in the face of real-life flood events and to reassure London of the Thames Barrier’s efficiency.
In reality, a team of Environment Agency engineers and operations staff at the Thames Barrier work continuously to ensure that this type of scenario remains firm fiction, with most recent modelling showing that the Barrier can withstand expected flood pressures for many years to come.
The possibility of London’s defence structures succumbing to a major flood is currently estimated at having a 1:2000 or 0.05 per cent chance of occurring. The last major flood was a 1:300 event in 1953 and it was this event that led to the construction of the Barrier.
Steve East, Thames Barrier technical support team leader said: “The recent flooding and heavy rains in Britain will have made people more aware of the dangers of extreme weather. In fact, our current modelling already takes into account the many different factors that contribute to tidal flooding including weather conditions, fluvial flows and known tidal cycles.
“Even with all of the possible worst case scenario statistics included, our calculations can not be combined to create a wave that could pass over the top of the Thames Barrier. The defences that we have in place can presently cope with the worst that can realistically be thrown at it, but of course it is right that we plan for the future, to ensure that this level of protection is at least maintained in the decades to come. The Thames Barrier protects 125 square km of central London ‚Äì encompassing 1.25 million people and an infrastructure valued at ¬£80bn.”
The Thames Barrier does not stand alone as a defence system – rather it is part of an integrated system of defences stretching from Teddington in west London, to Shoeburyness in the outer estuary. The estuary is also protected by over 300 km of floodwalls, embankments and numerous small gates and barriers. London’s flood defences compare with some of our European neighbours such as Italy where for example, flood protection in Venice is also being designed to 1:1000 year level. Defences in other major cities such as St Petersburg are also designed to the same level.
Producer Justin Bodle said: “The best way to create a programme about an unpredictable scenario like this one is to work with the real-life experts. The Thames Barrier is a structure admired the world over for its efficiency and resilience. Our production may be a work of fiction but it has served to highlight the challenges and investment needed to maintain effective flood management programmes in the UK.”

So the Met Office say on TV that the Barrier is getting on a bit and needs to be reassessed, and the EA are saying that all's well, and Lionsgate will say whatever they've agreed to say. I find it rather disturbing that the EA should react to the release of Flood by immediately going on the defensive, especially when there actually are causes for concern. London is sinking and sea level rising; the Barrier was designed after the 1953 floods and so isn't cutting edge anymore; and a report by the London Assembly's Environment Committee into flooding in the Thames Gateway found 1.25 million people living in areas at risk from flooding, 5% of East London defences in “poor or very poor condition”, and that flood planning is inadequate. I find it even stranger that the EA and Lionsgate should form an agreement to 'work together'. Perhaps it was a condition of their being able to film in the Thames Barrier itself. If so, that's more than a little distasteful to me.
But back to the BBC article that set all this off:

Westminster's head of contingency planning, Brian Blake, said: “Central London is very well protected thanks to the Thames Barrier to the east and Teddington Weir to the west.
“But given the uncertainty created by climate change and the intensity of some of the downpours we've had recently, it is only prudent to review our plans.”

In my opinion, it's only wise to ensure that London's flood defences are up to snuff, but that's something to be determined by the evidence, not through media posturing and press releases. Saying that the Barrier is fine doesn't make it so – I want to see the evidence. Equally, Richard Doyle has done a fair amount of research but he's published only his conclusions, and not his sources, so it's hard to see if he's on the money or grasping at the wrong end of the stick.
Anyway, back to the film. Here's another still I found:
Stills from "Flood"
The trailer is on the official Flood site, although I can't find it on YouTube so I can't embed it, sorry.
Unlike The Dreck, sorry, Dark is Rising, I fully expect Flood-the-film to be a good adaptation of Flood-the-book, not necessarily because the source material is as good as Susan Cooper's books, but because I don't see any evidence that Mitchell has messed about with essential elements of the story in the way that Cunningham did. I fully expect Flood-the-movie to be a fun romp, with some great special effect and possibly, even, a better plot than the book, although we'll have to see whether I'm right or not.
Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing it on the big screen!

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Waily! Waily! The wrong burgundy!

by Suw on August 4, 2007

Dammit. I don't believe this. Not only is the mulberry paper I bought the wrong one, but the burgundy card I got isn't actually the right burgundy, even though it looked like it was in the shop.
Waily! Waily! Waily!

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Mornington Crescent on Twitter

by Suw on August 3, 2007

I blame Lloyd for this morning's game of Mornington Crescent on Twitter. I don't think that everyone could see every player – Lloyd has some people that I didn't see, and I know I had some that he couldn't see, and there were some players that I tried to follow but Twitter wouldn't show me their tweets… so all a bit of a mess, really. But still the best 20 minutes of the day, frankly.

LloydDavis omg @bowbrick that gives me an idea – Mornington Crescent on Twitter
LloydDavis So I'll start with my usual opening local gambit of *Pimlico*
bowbrick @lloyddavis I think you night be on to something. And with GPS you could play with real locations!
bowbrick Duke Street
LloydDavis some strikingly pedestrian moves so far. time to stir things up with a couple of blue tokens at *Lancaster Gate*
LloydDavis clearly stunned the fools into silence, building my empire with *Baker Street*
bowbrick Poland Street
LloydDavis intrigued by @bowbricks W1 strategy, but undeterred *Green Park*
Suw /thinks that @lloydDavis's Green Park is a predictable follow on to Pimlico and goes *Mundania Street*
kevinmarks Well, I me be confused by the jubilee extension showing up since I left London, but there are enough podumes for *Victoria*
LloydDavis clearly @suw has not seen the green podumes in my…curses! @kevinmarks comes out of nowhere
bowbrick Meard Street. Hah!
LloydDavis trying to think on my feet and ignoring @bowbricks scatology *White City*
LloydDavis wondering why I just got an invite to stay at Holiday Inn, Solihull. No, that's not part of the game… unlesss
bowbrick Is it my go?
LloydDavis @bowbrick – yes for heaven's sake, the clock is ticking
bowbrick Hey. I'll just take a moment to tell you how absolutely brilliant Harold Moore's Records in Great Marlborough Street is.
imajes @lloyddavis: frankly i go for the middle of it all and stick my pin in *Burnt Oak*
Suw Well, i'm going to double-switch podumes and nullify kevinmarks' Victoria with a Mudchute.
bowbrick And in Foyle's cafe they've now actually replaced the power sockets with blank plates!
Suw @browbrick: curses upon their foul and pestilent corpses!
kevinmarks Well, thanks to the Greenwich Ferry and the Millennium Bridge, that leaves me an escape route to *St Pauls*
imajes there's fantastic podumes to be had with Gloucester Road
LloydDavis @imajes shhhhh! don't tell the newbies
chrys got diverted to West Brompton this morning on my way to Hammersmith. damnation.
LloydDavis heh! lining up for some monster LV with *Fulham Broadway*
LloydDavis taking momentum from @kevinmarks Central Line opening to break into *Upton Park*
imajes @lloyd: Ruislip is unquestionablly next.
Suw Damn! i was going to go Fulham Broadway, but now you've blocked LV, I'm spenging Fairlop.
febake gets off the central line at *shepherds bush*
bowbrick Jaunting to Flask Walk!
febake and lines up a parallel line manouvre: gets on the H&C *Shepherds Bush*
imajes @Suw: i think we can divert around the LV and ensconce ourselves in Mansion House
Suw And a late joiner from @febake! and possibly @chrys, although that could have been a coincidence. Snaresbrook!
londonfilmgeek @lloyddavis Aurora Gambit, *Poplar*
LloydDavis drat @suw getting sneaky must think fast. *St John's Wood*
LloydDavis @londonfilmgeek – welcome, thank you and *Angel* for your trouble
LloydDavis does anyone have any pink tokens?
imajes @londonfilmgeek: if you're going to visit poplar, clearly next is Elephant & Castle.
Suw omg! the Aurora Gambit! I haven't seen that played in 20 years! My hand is forced. Neasden via the long way round.
LloydDavis erm pink tokens anyone?
febake Drops a “cleveland steamer” by moving to *Rickmansworth*
imajes @lloyd: low on the pinks, but i have a few spare reds. might that work?
londonfilmgeek @suw luggage spilled at All Saints, walkaround to *Whitechapel*
LloydDavis @imajes – how many can I have for two greens and a taupe podume?
Suw Feels a pincer movement from @Londonfilmgeek and @febake. Collusion! Collusion! I demand a Cockfosters!
LloydDavis *Holland Park* opening Parks and Recreation
imajes @lloyd: a dozen, bakers or otherwise. Cab at Whitechapel takes us to Lancaster Gate, which may or may not open.
LloydDavis swingin' @imajes it's a deal which makes my *Wembley Park* quite interesting I think you'll agree
imajes @lloyddavis: i think we can come to an accord, but only at *Sloane Square*
londonfilmgeek @suw is the Amicus shuffle up for grabs, if so *Hanger Lane* for 50
LloydDavis @suw : I think your Cockfosters is upheld, please people keep to Trott's Civility wherever possible
bowbrick I don't like the way you're all playing stations and I'm playing streets. I feel a bit intimidated: Denmark Hill!
imajes Excellent. Amicus shuffle played. now possible to do the Daisy Maneuver. I'll go all in for *Goldhawk Road*
Suw @londonfilmgeek: I take your Amicus Shuffle and swap you a Complexification and agree on Maida Vale.
febake tries an advanced pre-construction gambit *Wood Lane*
LloydDavis meh! Scoble's Retreat – *Warwick Avenue*
LloydDavis oh @imajes btw nice Daisy 🙂
Suw @LloydDavis: thank you for your ruling and a reminder that Trott's Civility is now in force. May I presume upon Boston Manor?
LloydDavis i don't think I'm ever going to get any work done ever ever again
imajes @lloyd: i think you're playing the california variation which was declared unsafe in the 1986 rulebook. go back 4 and start at *Kilburn*
LloydDavis @suw you're welcome, be aware though that Metcalfe's Interruption is still a possibility
londonfilmgeek @febake i call foul, it's clearly a post-construction move, we can settle for the dangerously close *Camden Town* Charring X/Edgware share
Suw @parkylondon: Invisible sammich exchange at Queen's Park.
LloydDavis @imajes – this is twitter, man, your 1986 rules hold no sway here!
LloydDavis oh if you must – *Leicester Square*
imajes @lloyd: you must stick to the agreed rule book as per the MC Rules Committee. it's the only way to preserve a level playing field at *Oval*
Suw Foul against @febake upheld, no deconstructionism allowed under the '64 rule 237a which clearly states all constructionism illegale. Oval.
LloydDavis @imajes – duh! haven't you heard of MC2.0 ? it's all pastel shades and round corners here matey *St Pauls*
Suw Damn! Gazumped! *panics* Morden!
LloydDavis *Dollis Hill* …. /sniggers
londonfilmgeek @suw, @febake has his Longhorn manual out, this isn't fair, therefore Inspector Sands
kevinmarks Aha, twice round gives enough momentum for me to play *San Jose Diridon*
LloydDavis @londonfilmgeek & @suw Oh, I knew we shouldn't have played on a Friday..
febake @LloydDavis sails past on a fast metroploitan bound for *Baker Street*
imajes @lloyd: no, MC is a strict rules-only game. one must adhere, it's the only way one can play safely. i bid 2 stickles in baron's court
Suw /calls on the Great Arbiter. In 1924, McCutchley-Spriggins held the Longhorn Manual as a fair move. Suck it up LFG. All Saints.
imajes @suw: all saints has been played. i suggest Amos Grove.
Suw Ah, the Baker at Baker Street – smooth! I play the Butcher at Heron Quays.
LloydDavis @imajes I'm not against rules, just suggesting we go along with the Winer Addendum which is much more appropriate to twitter
bowbrick Ladies who lunch sitting next to me are discussing that fact that their respective husbands are going to get iPhones for them…
bowbrick Mugs. Beak Street.
imajes @lloyddavis: if needs must… then i have no option but moving to close at Latimer Park
Suw Sidesteps both Latimer Park and San Jose Diridon with an Epping Swing.
LloydDavis time for a quick Semple's Surprise before I go to lunch – *Amersham*
febake Attempts the Cranbrook retreat and asks an American tourist how to reach *Aldwych*
LloydDavis now while I'm out, *nobody* touch my pieces…
kevinmarks well, depends on which Winer addendum, I'll take either *Oxford Circus* or *The Great Northern Hotel*, as that bridge is out in Minneapolis
londonfilmgeek *Finsbury Park* should stop @imajes in his tracks
LloydDavis @kevinmarks – ooh nicely done old chap
Suw Short and sweet. Kentish Town.
imajes depositing @lloyddavis in *Mill Hill East* whilst luncheoning myself
Suw Which sets me up really nicely for, and I'm sorry to say this as it pains my heart, Mornington Crescent.
imajes @londonfilmgeek the finsbury park play did in fact derail me. alas, @suw played the middle piece – the jigsaw is now complete.
dantekgeek Mornington Crescent! (I win, right? You brits are so silly)
plasticbagUK Does anyone know what the hell Suw is doing on Twitter? I'm completely puzzled.
Suw @dantekgeek: Sadly, you are too late as Mornington Crescent has already been played.
chrys @plasticbagUK ,… and i'm not even a brit!
Suw @plasticbagUK: Sorry, got a bit carried away there. *giggles* shan't do it again, promise.
kevinmarks oh, neatly done, @Suw, very perspicacious use of Pilgrim's exegesis in the Universal Parser
Suw @Kevinmarks: your kindness, as always, warms my cockles. thank you for such kind words.
LloydDavis sneaking back in while nobody's looking with a quick *Mansion House* now lunch, really
Suw /pats LloydDavis on the head. Poor Lloyd. That's what you get for going to lunch at a crucial moment.
londonfilmgeek @suw I didn't see the erudite spaniard for the tress. Good Job!
bowbrick Dhhh. Didn't see that coming. Slick play @suw
Suw thank you, thank you. 🙂 I can only thank my parents and the rest of my family, my MC mentor, my accupuncturist, my chiropractor, my frie…
rachelclarke I missed the game! @suw, @lloyddavis need to start it later next time 😉 although @kevinmarks made it I see, must have never gone to bed
Remy @kevinmarks: Can I just note, witht the game is over, that I am still giggling that you dared to play the Winer addendum. That takes gall.
londonfilmgeek For the future i insist on the hastily drafted Twitter Compendium following the Clive Sinclair Manifesto
LloydDavis gasps. sulks. plots revenge…

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The Seeker: The Dreck is Still Rising

by Suw on August 2, 2007

Walden Media have changed the name of their abominable adaptation of The Dark Is Rising to “The Seeker: The Dark is Rising”, and have reposted a new version of the trailer to YouTube. Conveniently, this gets rid of all the comments from the old one, so I suggest that if you're as unhappy about this movie as I am, go rate it low and leave a comment expressing your feelings.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

A suffusion of… puce, I think it is

August 1, 2007

Good to see that Neil's Official Web Elf has our best interests at heart, rather than his.

Read the full article →