My favorite animal is the sutured double camel. Takes only three camels to make, and they can live for almost two weeks.
Type of guy who says she’s got jugs like an Amazon when he’s not talking asymmetry but rather sheer size of the gazongas.
Sitting in a lecture hall, the course was apparently something called “Physically Accurate Writing.” Maybe it wasn’t an entire course, maybe it was just a one-off lecture; I couldn’t recall how I had arrived, or why. Up on the overhead projector were the three rules of physically accurate writing. The first one made sense to me as the professor was explaining it, although the sense of it eludes me somewhat now, now that I’ve finally sat down to take notes on the course. Which only goes to show that it’s better to take notes during class than to rush home and attempt to transcribe what you’ve learned afterward.
The first rule was something like, since the time domain isn’t special, and because anything might happen or have happened or be happening somewhere in the universe, it’s not appropriate to have snippets of dialogue act as a microcosm of the entire story. As I said, this actually seemed to make some semblance of sense when the professor was conveying it, but that’s often true with logically shaky principals: somebody can be up on a stage conveying a thing with charisma, and you’ll sit there and nod along, agreeing, and only later reflect back on it with that whole “Wait a minute…” There was an explanation given, even, but I’ve lost grasp of the explanation, and then an example of something that was counter-indicated, a passage from some book I didn’t know that was apparently written in a physically inaccurate way.
Rule two I still know the explanation for: because we can write a proof for how large a sphere within R^3 we would need in order to ensure that any event that is occurring here also occurred, to some equivalency of detail, four seconds earlier at another location in the sphere, then there is no reason to include coincidence. Or maybe the point of the rule was that there was no reason to exclude coincidence. I followed along with the explanation, but somehow wound up not knowing whether the equivalence was supposed to be conveyed forward or backward. Apparently I learned nothing.
The lecture hall slipped away before the professor had a chance to convey the third point. Hopefully it was less important than the first two.