tablesaw: "The Accurate Tablesaw" (Accurate)
Despite a creeping throat cold, I ran a Christmas-themed trivia game at my family's Christmas Day party. I borrowed the scoring system called Trivia Football from NPL member Conundrum. Since that scoring system idn't going to work on the weblog, I'm going to offer a modified version.

Each of the questions below has at least eight correct answers. Without using any references, create a list of seven answers. Your score for the question will be the number of correct answers given before giving an incorrect answer. For example, if you were asked to identify the true love's gifts in the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas", and if your answer sheet looked like this:
  1. Maids a-Milking
  2. Lords a-Leaping
  3. Pipettes Piping
  4. A Partridge in a Pear Tree
  5. Golden Rings
  6. McDonald's Happy Meal
  7. Turtledoves
. . . then your score would be two. Although there are five correct answers in total, only two are given before the first incorrect one. Incorrect answers have no penalty, so if you run out of answers you are sure of, you can add other guesses to pad your list out to seven.

Tablesaw's Christmas Trivia Bonanza! )

Answers will be accepted by e-mail until the end of the year. The winner or winners will receive some stuff that's lying around my house.
tablesaw: -- (Default)
My Christmas tree is finally decorated, and most of my gifts are wrapped. There are still a few I need to get, and I ran out of wrapping paper for many of the others, so there's a bit more work to be done. Oh, and Christmas cards will be late.

Powered by audblogIt's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas powered by audblog
tablesaw: -- (Default)
So now that I have a tree and I'm feeling better, it's time for CAROLING!

Powered by audblogXmas Again (Now I Have It All) powered by audblog

You've probably never heard this song before in your life. It's by one of my favorite songwriters ever, Stew. It's only available on a CD of outtakes and "B-sides", and the CD has two different versions. Sorry, but I couldn't figure out how to logically work in the Hanukkah and Kwanza lines in an a cappella rendition.
tablesaw: A young Shawn Spencer learns proper saw technique from his dad. (Cartoon)
Yeah, there's that meme going around, zooming to every journal at once.

I don't like it, really.

Part of that's because I do know most of you, or at least your journals. The journals I don't know are ones that I just started reading (so it's my fault, really). I used to read a month's worth of posts every time I added someone, now, not so much. But I still keep adding people. ADDICTION!

I do feel bad, though, because I've been neglecting this journal for some other, more personal writing. And I do like this journal, and the people who read it, and I don't want to ignore it.

So I'll try to say something significant about me here, soon.

Regardless, I hadn't heard anyone rave about Friendster in a while, so I thought it might be time to sign up, especially since I was thinking about using Internet personals anyway. But now I can't log in. Is this just me? I try to log in and it returns me to the log-in page. Yes, I've got cookies turned on. In fact, I can watch my browser get dizzy by selecting "Remember My Password." Then, when the page redirects me to itself, it realizes that it's supposed to automatically log me in, which it does. Then it returns me to itself, where it realizes that it's supposed to automatically log me in, which it does. Then it returns me to itself . . .

Stunning, the networking that can be accomplished.
tablesaw: -- (Default)
[ profile] tyrsylvia offered a link to a post by [ profile] insomnia about LiveJournal's proposed "compromise" on discontinuing invite codes. In summary, users will be able to start a free account, but after thirty days, the journal will be "frozen" unless the user makes a donation or solicits an invite code. This leaves the original invite-code system in place, even if it puts it on a time delay.

[ profile] insomnia's post got me thinking about this, and I agree with his disagreement, although not for precisely the same reasons. Where he was focusing on the open-source aspects, I pulled a thread that he dedicated less time to, the propensity of the invite codes to discourage the inclusion of "outsider" voices. I was moved to add a dissenting comment, which I duplicate here:
The trial-account procedure seems to me to be wholly ineffectual, designed to placate opposing sides without making a firm statement of direction for the site.

The invite-code system was put in place, apparently, to prevent abuse. The means to stop rampant abuse appear to be in place, which one would think, would mean that the system is no longer necessary. I believe, however, that the system has subtly warped the culture of LiveJournal during its tenure as gate-keeper.

Some say that it's easy to get an invite code, but this is not precisely true. It's easy to give invite codes. A prospective user who does not know any members and who does not read any members' journal, a prospective user, perhaps, who saw an add in a movie theater and thinks it's a cool idea and wants to join, is told that he has to either find a friend on the system or pay. This is a major disincentive to the casual user who just wants to start a blog, and he is likely to look elsewhere rather than try finding some random user among the thousands who can offer him membership.

It's been considered that LiveJournal's greatest asset is the amount of community it provides through things like commenting, friends lists, etc. It's something that many LiveJournal users prize, and so it's understandable that so many are attached to the invite-code system. The system fosters this type of community by penalizing prospective users who are not already part of it. The majority of people who start journals with invite codes know and read at least one user before joining, since that user gave them their codes. These users, then, start using LiveJournal with a foot in a community already and are enveloped into it. But I believe, with others such as [ profile] insomnia, that the perpetuation of the invite-code system as a requirement to use LiveJournal works to suppress independent voices who might otherwise become members. By putting up these absurd obstacles, LiveJournal is squandering its own potential.

It has been mentioned elsewhere in these comments that users may wish to screen "trial users" from commenting on their posts. This option may provide a final disincentive against would-be spammers. But if a nonabusive blogger decided to start a trial account under this system without reading any other LJ blog and without seeking any other LJ user to read his, then he or she ought not be penalized for the decision. To require this user make a payment or solicit the aid of other users whom he does not care about in order to continue using the supposedly free service to avoid the deletion of his account is ridiculous.

If I were to propose a compromise to the compromise, I would suggest upgrading all current "Free Users" to another class such as "Free Members" or "Nifty People" or some such thing. The requirement to become a "Free Member" would be a payment to LiveJournal or the donation of a "member code" (once an invite code) by another user. Anyone could become a Free User by passing the Turing test and would have all the benefits of current Free Users. However, individual embers would be able to prevent Free Users from commenting on their journals or joining the communities they moderate at those other members' own discretion. This would allow new users to blog to their hearts content, but would allow those who value the sanctity of whatever community they define a measure of protection. I have no problem with users discriminating against users, but the site itself should not.

The Terms of Service say that " is a web-based service that allows its users to create and update online journals . . . ." The community is wonderful, but I think that LiveJournal now has the opportunity to let people blog for the sake of blogging. If, instead, the site is to be transformed into more of a social network, then I say go for that too. Change the TOS and make this site more like Friendster. But a direction must be chosen as soon as possible.
tablesaw: Futurama's Robot Devil, El Diablo Robotico (El Diablo Robotico)
This is definitely the best I've felt after a thirty-hour day. No, I'm not being ironic. I actually feel fantastic. No caffeine either. Just a great week powering me into and through a fun day.

How great? I was singing showtunes while driving home from [ profile] cramerica's house, inspired by a game of Music Man's guess-that-lyric game. My team didn't get the points, but I got a joyful earworm, which I share with you.

Powered by audblogaudio post powered by audblog
tablesaw: -- (Default)
My eye was drawn to an article in yesterday's LA Times:
Through an evolving and loose alliance of semiautonomous terrorist cells, [Al Qaeda] has been able to export its violence and "brand name" with only limited involvement in the attacks themselves. . . . "It's a movement that functions by franchise," [Olivier Roy of the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris] said.
Sebastian Rotella and Richard C. Paddock, "Experts See Major Shift in Al Qaeda's Strategy"

If there's one thing that the War on Terrorism has done well, it's to create a global market for terrorism. Peaceful anti-war protests, not so much. Get a few thousand people together to calmly state their opinions and it gets a few minutes. Send a car with explosives into anything at all, anywhere at all, and you get days of coverage on every major news network.

We're fighting a War on Terror, now, you see. We couldn't do that before, when attacks would happen once every few years or so. I mean, that's not a war, that's scattered skirmishes. But those attacks were designed to get people to pay attention. All terrorists are looking for attention. That's why they often target symbolic buildings on symbolic days in symbolic ways. They're trying to send a message. But now that the message has been received, the careful planning that went into these attacks is getting shoved aside, along with the time available to put a stop to them. Now, we've got prefab attacks that take hardly a few words to pull off.

And long-term training and sleeper agents? A thing of the past. Now we've got "'Kleenex kamikazes,' young men who are rapidly radicalized, used and then discarded." (Id.) Terrorism's not just a message to one's adversaries. It's also an affirmation of the beliefs of those sympathetic to your cause, which makes it the perfect recruitment tool. And now that the War on Terrorism is global, frustrated young men all over the world can have what frustrated young men have had in Palestine, Punjab and Ireland for years: a feeling of empowerment fighting against a perceived oppressor and, if their lucky, the celebrity of martyrdom.

It's gone beyond terrorism. Terrorism is just so eighteenth century. In the twenty-first century, it's terror marketing. Terrorist acts become commercials. They're on all the time, reminding you that Company S is honest and Group T cares about citizens and County U is a faceless Satan that must be destroyed. And the mass media are only the beginning. Terror's going to start showing up everywhere that ads do. It's been in the post for decades; it'll show up along with spam in e-mail. Terrorist hackers will pop-up like porn-site banners. And if this catches on with the Christianity, who until now have focused Terror on minorities and abortion doctors, we can look forward to Terror showing up in strip malls across the nation. Twenty-four hours, seven days a week.

Welcome to the era of McTerrorism. Please drive through and pick up your bomb at the second window. Have a nice day.


Nov. 18th, 2003 09:44 pm
tablesaw: -- (Default)
I'm glad I didn't even attempt National Novel-Writing Month. I probably couldn't hack National Haiku-Writing Month.
tablesaw: A young Shawn Spencer learns proper saw technique from his dad. (Cartoon)
Often, when washing my hands in the restroom or else, after I work up a lather on my hands, I unite the webs between my fingers and thumbs on each hand. I slowly draw them apart, leaving a round film of soap, then, I blow a bubble at my reflection in the mirror.


Home, to shower, then lector at my parents' parish. After that, I'm meeting them for dinner/breakfast. And after that, Dad and I will be going to see Matrix Revolutions [dead link changed 11/21/10; original link]. As I've mentioned before, I've seen every previous Matrix film in the theaters with him, so it'll be nice to cap off the series thusly.

SunNYTX: 26.
tablesaw: -- (Default)
Yes, Fine Corinthian Sperm.

Dude, Ricardo Montalban is a freak!
tablesaw: -- (Default)
So, yes, I saw Kill Bill on Sunday night. I had gone over to buy a ticket earlier, so when Alias ended, I briskly sauntered over to the movie theatre. I was surprised that there were so many people there. I thought that people had stopped going to 10 p.m. Sunday shows when summer ended. Of course, I'd forgotten that the next day was the it's-kind-of-a-holiday Columbus Day, so I guess that a lot of people were there for that. Also, I'd heard that the movie had been selling out earlier, so maybe there was some spillover. The movie was enjoyable, for the most part, and the part that wasn't enjoyable isn't Mr. Tarantino's fault.

During the second half of the movie (that is, the first half of the first half of the movie; so I suppose the second fourth of the movie). I started seeing brown dots on the screen. The first time I thought it was my imagination. It happened during an unusual transition fade, and I said to myself "What was that?" There'd been plenty of odd, deliberate choices throughout the movie, so I puzzled over it. Later, however, when the screen was mostly bright, they came back. Sick brown dots, arranged like a Braille letter, dead center on the screen for probably less than a second.

I'd heard about these dots, but never expected that I'd see them, certainly not on this film. They are part of what is being referred to as "The Crap Code." In a letter to Roger Ebert, a respected Chicago projectionist tells about this new movie affliction:
Have you been seeing spots when you go to the movies? It may not be your eyes! More than 20 years ago Kodak devised a system called "Cap Code" designed to uniquely mark film prints so that pirated copies could be traced to the source. Cap Code uses very tiny dots that flash occasionally but are so small that the average viewer almost never notices them.

Well, something new and horrible has been introduced on some studios' prints. Sort of a giant picture-marring version of Cap Code dots: Very large reddish brown spots that flash in the middle of the picture, usually placed in a light area. They flash in various patterns throughout a given reel while other reels of the same film may have none at all.

. . . .

On one movie technical forum they are referring to this new system as "Crap Code" or "Cap Code on Steroids."
Movie Answer Man: October 5, 2003.

I can't find any information on the web that doesn't link back to this original article, but I'd love to know more. It was impossible to concentrate on the frenetic action of some of the fight scenes in this movie while dots where flashing at me. It was like a demented vision/reflex test. If anyone has tips on how to avoid these things, I'd appreciate hearing them.
tablesaw: -- (Default)
So, a post from [ profile] swisscheesed led me to a post from [ profile] tamnonlinear asking for a new version of the ballad of Tam Lin as a response to Marriage Protection Week (The latest hit from the man who brought you the Month of Prayer to End Abortion.) For some strange reason, I responded, and the result is now available on the front page of Go. Check it out.

I'm not quite finished with it. I think it needs another verse, but I'm a bit lost on forging it. Anyway, I do like what I've done, and I'm glad it's up there.

Now, I'm going to go make a peanut-butter-and-honey sandwich.


Oct. 13th, 2003 10:32 am
tablesaw: Katsuhiko Jinnai, from El Hazard (Jinnai)
I've been trying to write a letter to Ex, but it's not happening. Well, something's happening, but it's not the letter I'm supposed to write. Ex got married last week, and I have yet to say anything about it. The problem is that every time I set down something, I start pouring out my own issues, which isn't the point. And trying to cut all of that out leaves me with something so stiff and impersonal that it's almost and insult. Not what I want to say at all.

(For those just joining us, here's some background for my relationship with Ex and my relationship with Ex after my relationship with Ex: 3/17/2002, 6/22/2002, 9/19/2002 and possibly some other entries I can't find.)

Ex and I became close friends in Washington, D.C, where we attended one year of college together. At the end of that year, we both moved to different colleges, but we kept in close contact, thanks largely to her weekend job as a secretary at a business with a liberal toll-free-phone-line policy. Eventually, on a visit to LA, we started dating, and tried to continue it long-distance off and on for a while.

Breaking up with Ex is directly tied in to my ultimate crash at the end of a very long slide into the depths of depression. I can clearly trace back my depression to my Sophomore year in high school, but I'd always managed, generally, to keep things more or less balanced. Leaving school cut me loose in many ways, and I just got very, very bad. Depression severely warped my perception of reality in the months after I graduated from college, and I alienated my friends and family until I was pinning a lot of my life on my relationship with Ex. That relationship was falling apart because, well, I was falling apart; but I couldn't see/accept it. Eventually, on a long-before-scheduled trip to her home town where she finally, actually, firmly broke up with me, I had a complete breakdown.

Since then, I've been able to put my mind back together to a certain extent, though it's still a journey. Anyway, I need to get back to Ex.

At the end of our "relationship," Ex started seeing someone, whom we will call Xi (because I like saying "Ksaie!"). Considering what I've told you above, and even guessing at my mental state at the time, you can imagine that my view of Xi wasn't very pretty, or very accurate. A lot of my residual rage from that time is directed at him.

If you've looked at my "research" posts, you'll know that Ex and I have been in touch with each other for about a year now, through web journals. I guess this may be a new and interesting use of the Internet, but it's been good for me. I've gotten used to Ex being in my thoughts in new situations, ones that don't involve me being a ranting madman. But with this wedding, I realize that I haven't quite gotten closure on that time in my life. I've moved on, but there's still a little bit open.

I feel like I need to see her again, to solidify the communication we've had since the break up, to know that it's real, to have something slightly more like what we had before things got strange, back when we were friends who could talk for hours about art, philosophy, anime, and anything else.

Also, I need to meet Xi again. No, not again. I don't really think that first time counted. I think I'm better off assuming that I never met Xi and that what I remember from meeting him was just an elaborate imagining from my brain which bears no resemblance to reality. Ex really only talks about Xi tangentially in her journal, so that doesn't really give me a whole lot to go on. I feel like I need some reality to counteract the nightmare of three years ago, so that I can actually see why my friend is marrying him.

Wow. Three years. It's been a long time. I haven't really caught up with that part of my life. It feels more like a year ago. So much wasted space.

I'm still iffy on the letter, so here it is. Any and all suggestions are appreciated before I send this out: Read more... )
tablesaw: Sketch of an antique tablesaw (Antigua)
The following article appears in the current issue of The Enigma, the publication of the National Puzzlers' League. It's an account of my experience at this summer's NPL Convention in Indianapolis. I've added some links to the article to help nonmembers follow along and to give members something more to look at.

In With the IN Crowd )

WedNYTX: 5:15. I think the AcrossLite font made one clue incorrect.


Oct. 8th, 2003 12:30 am
tablesaw: -- (Default)
Almost three quarters of precincts are reporting, so let's give some information.

Schwarzenegger has declared victory. Bustamante has declared that he will remain in his office of Lieutenant Governor. This means (a) office parties won't be quite as lively, (b) Sacramento is now twenty times more interesting than The West Wing can ever hope to be without Sorkin.

Eyeballing the figures, it doesn't look like there are any "spoilers." McClintock obviously hasn't hurt Schwarzenegger's chances; and currently, it doesn't look as if Bustamante could pull a win after consolidating the votes for the many smaller Democratic candidates. The Schwarzenegger camp was hoping for a majority, but the numbers have been slowly slipping. They do, however, look to beat the number of "No" votes for the recall.

I'm guessing that we'll find that Schwarzenegger pulled large numbers of young, otherwise Democrat voters. Although Los Angeles is only reporting one fifth of its precincts, Schwarzenegger has a strong lead over Bustamante. Compare to San Francisco, another traditionally Democrat-controlled city, where two thirds voted Bustamante.

Republican Tom McClintock looks to be the winningest loser in the election. He's easily getting over 10% of the vote, and he's not stealing the election away from wimpy centrist Republican Schwarzenegger. He's gained a national audience among conservatives, earned a large number of votes despite losing all official party support during the campaign, and probably won't get much retaliation for not dropping out. Definitely someone to keep an eye on from now on.

Green Party candidate Peter Miguel Camejo has earned 2.6% of the vote so far. That's still higher than withdrawn candidate Arianna Huffington (0.8%), but not as much as many thought they could get. In an open election like this, with Camejo working his way into the major debates, many had higher hopes for the party turnout. Perhaps there's still some backlash from the 2000 presidential election. Or perhaps Democrats were too scared of Schwarzenegger to vote anything other than Bustamante.

In fifth and sixth place, respectively, are non-candidates Arianna Huffington and Peter V. Ueberroth, both with adherents who either really believe in them or didn't get the memos. A local reporter said that she interviewed a teenage voter, casting a ballot for the first time, who'd been waiting for weeks to vote for Ueberroth. He was crestfallen when he discovered that Ueberroth had already left the race. Ah, our informed electorate.

Larry Flynt is taking seventh, and I'm glad. The prototypical example of the "joke" candidate who's not really joking. After the initial rush of coverage, Flynt was shunned by the major media, except when they wanted to use the words "porn king" in an article. And yet, he has deeply felt beliefs on civil liberties. "People who know me know that my primary concern is basic personal freedoms for all of us — and I will be diligent in securing those freedoms for all Californians."

But really, there's only one race that matters: Coleman v. Carey. Surprisingly, it looks like Gary Coleman is going to take the day, currently holding slightly over a thousand votes over Mary "Carey" Cook. I have to say that Coleman was surprised me on Who Wants to Be Governor of California?. It would be interesting to see if he tries to again, he might be successful running for a city office.

In between those two is the mystery candidate George B. Schwartzman. "I am a successful and compassionate businessman who is a fiscal realist," he says. Oh, well then that explains your popularity across the state. Or maybe it's that your name is directly below a name which is currently drawing 48.5% of the vote. There are a few other examples of this, like John Cristopher Burton, Cheryl Bly-Chester and Lawrence Steven Strauss, but Schwartzman has a very, very similar name, which is his ticket to greatness.

Another non-candidate Bill Simon loses another gubernatorial race. This time, to Gary Coleman, Mary Carey and a guy whose name kind-of-sort-of looks like "Schwarzenegger." I am so glad I'm not him.

Of those currently listed as having at least 0.2% of the vote, the biggest surprise is Bruce Margolin. It's likely that his success is due to his position as an attorney fighting for the legalization of marijuana. This probably had more influence than the opinion in his candidate statement: "We should teach basic criminal penalties and yoga in our schools."

My favorite underdog is moving up and down in the polls, but Georgina Russell now stands in thirty-second place. Hopefully, she'll be able to take out Angelyne.

And currently in last place, with 136 votes is Todd Richard Lewis aka the Bumhunter. Finally, an outcome that makes sense.
tablesaw: "The Accurate Tablesaw" (Accurate)

The [ profile] npl conversation drifted to dead guys named John, I was reminded of a session of the unusual guessing game French Toast in which the ultimate answer was "Dead Guys Named Buddy." Well, the Mud has never been one to pass up an interesting game, and soon we were playing. After one very simple session, and one rather confusing one, we really hit our stride. Behind the cut is a transcript of the round (with the mud names removed to protect the . . . well, them) which traveled a marvelous route. (I urge you to read over the rules to French Toast first, so that you understand what's going on. Because we were working in a text environment, sometimes questions that had backed up were answered simultaneously.)

It Ain't Freedom Toast. )

There was one other interesting session, but I don't have time to format it. Puzzle Party today, don't you know.

SatNYTX: 15:15.

tablesaw: -- (Default)
"penis" + humor = "pants"

You know it's true.


Sep. 9th, 2003 02:05 pm
tablesaw: -- (Default)
Recently, someone mentioned how she feels "loserish" when staying home on a Saturday night doing nothing. I responded:
See, I feel that bit of shame and loserishness on Sunday night (now Tuesday morning) when it's the very end of the weekend and I realize that I haven't done anything. Of course, while I'm actually staying home doing nothing, I usually feel great. Hooray for quiet!
I wrote that at work, before my weekend began. Now it's Tuesday morning, and those words have hit me like a deadly boomerang of angst.

I spent this weekend reading. And reading and reading. When I got home on Sunday morning, I opened the windows and the door and took off my shoes and lay on my couch and felt good. When my mother called to update me on things and ask me about things, I told her that I was reading with my shoes off. I went to bed late and woke up and read. I stayed up late reading, and then I slept in and woke up and read some more. I did go out and get some exercise, but then I came back home and read some more more, although I shook things up a bit by reading things on the Internet, not bound in books. And now it's late on Tuesday and I'm suddenly realizing that the reason I feel a bit odd is because all of the diverse voices I've surrounded myself with over the past forty-eight hours have been in my own head.

And the quiet is not currently hurray-worthy.

There was something I did besides read, this morning. I ran through my cd collection looking for tracks to sing along to. I sang loud and proud in my carriage house at four o'clock in the morning. And it filled me with the same intoxicating joy as the reading.

What's going on inside me is complex, and I can't seem to express what it is without using words like roiling. I can't bring myself to use those words, right now, so we'll move on. The point is that my mouth feels rusted, and the pressure of its disuse over this weekend is worrying.

And I should go to bed now, so I can get up and watch the new episode of MI-5 (Apparently it has Dr. Bashir in it), but something me going. And the main reason I'm writing this entry is because, if I don't I'll probably go back to reading, and then there'll be no end to it.

And strange things are happening. There's drama on LJ, there's still watermelon in my fridge, and I'm going to get an electronic monkey on my shoulder because I can solve cryptics.

It's been a strange weekend.

It will continue to be one until I go to bed.

It will continue to be one as I prolong this entry.

I swallow my Prozac (actually fluoxetine) and think about where I was three years ago. I don't get very far, because everything from then is pretty scrambled, but thinking about it reminds how odd it is that I enjoy my life. Even when I wake up and think my life is boring or tired or sad, I really like it. Before, even when I liked my life I hated it; now, even when I hate my life, I love it.

It's now the time of day when every extra minute I keep my eyes open will be felt by me at work later on. The clocks around me tick upwards passive-aggressively (well, only the analogue alarm clock ticks, the other silently change) and I try to ignore them while I add parentheticals to my writing.

I'm trying to work it out of me. I'm trying to work out everything I took in, but there's not enough time, and it's not working because through it all my mouth stays closed and my voice stays mute and I don't have an ending to this weekend. I need an ending to this weekend, something other than my time for today's crossword puzzle, which is apparently all I have. I need someone to sing me to sleep tonight, and someone to sing to sleep before I tiptoe out the door to read and proofread safe, soulless things.

TueNYTX: 7.
tablesaw: -- (Default)
I just took an annoying telephone poll, and you can too!
[Poll #177087]
"Are you for or against abortion?" "Well, I'm for abortion. All the time. I don't think there should be any more procreation. Ever. Or prophylactics. Just abortions, abortions, abortions."

I guess all of the good pollsters are too busy trying to figure out who's voting for whom for governor.

SatNYTX: 34:30.
tablesaw: -- (Default)
So, what made me sad today?

As I was cleaning up, I found a double word square that I had quickly written for Wendy.

Yes, I'm a geek.


tablesaw: -- (Default)
Tablesaw Tablesawsen

August 2017

131415 16171819



RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags