clo_again: (Doctor Who - Fools in Love)
I hate cutting words out of things. -_- This 'Who article's meant to be 200-300 words and I ended up at around 560. Down to 390 now but it's reaching the point where I can't cut any more words out without rendering entire sentences incomprehensible. Which means deleting paragraphs.

More annoying is when you send an article in having madly cut things out to get it to length and the editor promptly rewrites it to add an extra hundred or so words. Grr.

Also, doing work after being a bum all summer is hard. It's suddenly hit me that I've got a week and a half left and I haven't even read all my main dissertation books yet. Um. Where did the summer go?

.
clo_again: (Doctor Who - Goodbye)
One of the articles I was meant to be writing was a Lady in the Water-directed review of Shyamalan... but, as far as I can tell and no matter what release dates IMDb is throwing at me, it hasn't even been shown at any cinemas I can conceivably reach, ever, and doesn't look set to be at any point in the future.

...

Was it that bad?

edit: Ah illusions. You are so shiny and defendable while you last.
clo_again: (LoZ - One of those days)
There's some lovely little snippets of hotness here, from all different fandoms. Nifty.

I'm starting to wonder about my obsessive-dreaming of Lancaster. Last night it was that I got there and had forgotten the letter I have to show to get my keys. Before that it was that I got there only to find there were no cupboards left for me. At this point it's going to be a relief just to get back and *be* there, *finally*. No matter how much I remind myself that you get cabin-fever if you spend too long in Lancaster, right now it's infinitely preferable to *anywhere*.

Okay so maybe if someone offered me free tickets to Australia instead I wouldn't exactly turn them down but... almost anywhere.

Found out a nasty little loophole-y trick of the post office today; apparently if you're sending a package under their smeggy new guidelines, you'll get charged more if you tell them there's a letter inside it. I mean, what? I thought they were judging this on size and weight, not content. 'Letter', 'large letter', 'package', I thought they were just titles for the sizes but apparently not. Thankfully we have lovely post office people -- last year one of them sent a parcel for me even though I was almost a pound short -- and when the lady was asking me today what was in it, I said "Letter-" only to get "No! Don't tell me that! It'll cost more if there's a letter in it."

Which to me makes no sense at all. Why should it make a difference if that few grams of weight is a letter or say, a pencil? Or a cd or notebook? It shouldn't at all. The Post Office FAQs are about as much use as a dead dodo but at least I know not to put 'letter' on the little contents stickers in future, just in case. Honestly Royal Mail. Do you have too much time on your hands, that you have to come up with these pointless diversions?

I should be writing up articles for the uni newspaper now. Reallyreally should since I promised R I'd have them done yesterday. Should probably go do that soon.

edit: Okay, so under the Royal Mail's list of prohibited items is 'filth'. That could cover anything from literal filth-mud, to moral-filth to things I haven't even thought of. WTF?

Then again they also list 'Indecent, obscene or offensive material' and I've sent and received slash by post before, so you know. Whatever. ;)

Profile

clo_again: (Default)
clo_again

November 2022

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
1314151617 1819
20212223242526
27282930   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 09:03 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios