Do you think that now is the fUnky-taPpa-daPpa time for bOOmpa-bOOmpa-bOOmpa??

[WolfLarsen]

Do you think that now is the fUnky-taPpa-daPpa time for bOOmpa-bOOmpa-bOOmpa?? Well, Do You? Do You??
An essay by Wolf Larsen

As writers, shouldn't we ask ourselves bOOmpa-bOOmpa-bOOmpa? I mean, how else can you explain intercourse with six-vagina-giraffes at midnight?! Meanwhile, the verbs have been very upset lately, and the adjectives have been running amok in celestial orgies, and the nouns have become as big as a porn star’s penis! Yes, it's a very fUnky-taPpa-daPpa time for writers, and that's why we should ask ourselves bOOmpa-bOOmpa-bOOmpa!

Now, regarding intercourse with six-vagina-giraffes at midnight, I think it would be best if we would practice correct grammar with subway trains whenever Salvador Dali is present. This would help eliminate correct grammatical inconsistencies by traveling by balloon, whenever your testicles are floating from Canada to Russia.

Of course, traveling from Canada to Russia by balloon can make the verbs very upset, which is why I use Preparation H. Whenever the verbs are very upset, and the toilet is clogged, and the cockroaches are crawling all over the American president's face, I use Preparation H to soothe those itchy feelings that upset verbs can cause.

Which brings me to my next point – what are we going to do about the adjectives running amok in celestial orgies? I say it's time to launch a censorship campaign to eliminate all sex on paper! Of course, we will need the help of all the Olympic gymnasts and as many transvestite Pope pretenders as we can find. And once the corpse of Ronald Reagan is involved, I am sure we will get these ruNning-amOk-adjeCtives under control.

However, having nouns as big as a porn star's penis can only cause vaginas to become larger as well. If the situation regarding nouns as big as a porn star’s penis is not resolved soon I believe that most writers will have wives with vaginas as tall as the Empire state building! This is why correct grammatical structure is absolutely required at all times, even when you're sleeping!

So this being a fUnky-taPpa-daPpa time for writers it is obvious that bOOmpa-bOOmpa-bOOmpa is the answer to all of your correct grammatical structure cravings.

Copyright 2013 by Wolf Larsen


Oh! It's Our Wedding Anniversary!

[Jack of Hearts]

That is one sketchy rooftop. You look like Woody from Cheers.







J

[MANICHAEAN]

It is of course absolutely imperative Wolf, to indulge in a critical reflection on the art, culture and nature of the grammar you propose to use; to deal as it were with the nature of beauty, and of taste, implicit in the creation and appreciation of beauty. Thus, as way of illustration, Alfred Stieglitz, an American photographer and inveterate mud wrestler at the Playboy Mansion was instrumental in making photography an accepted art form. An alternate path would be to revert to “deus ex machina” as a plot device, whereby seemingly unsolvable problems are suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new grammar “a la Larsen.” Thus depending on usage, it can be used to move the story forward when the writer has painted himself into a corner and sees no other way out. The downside lies in dyschronic disparity in time perception between two or more people. Like when the day goes fast for you but slow for someone else. Again, another example was the writer Edmund Wilson, who was in the habit of putting together in one book, different kinds of reality--fictional, sociological, philosophic--and he did not hesitate to move back and forth between them. The resulting shift in tone and outlook had two effects. First, it extended the range of the book, which came at the reader not only from the expected side but on his exposed flank, enticing him into bewildered conviction. Then, once this conviction had been established, the shift to another kind of reality could be exploited to produce a sense of profound disturbance and unease until the reader, invaded by the book, began to feel with its characters, and they with Dr. Faustus, that "this is Hell, nor am I out of it."
Is this an ephemeral way of viewing it? I think not. One’s work sometimes is based on ethics as a first philosophy i.e. the "wisdom of love" rather than the “love of wisdom.” The irreducible relation, the epiphany, of the face-to-face, the encounter with another, is a privileged phenomenon in which the other person's proximity and distance are both strongly felt. As Emmanuel Levinas expressed it, “It is of the highest importance to know whether we are not duped by morality."
If you find yourself becoming a lymphatic klutz, then there is always a choice of mnemonic devices, somewhat akin to Viagra to give a kick start to your creative juices. You might care to indulge in Pelagianism. In this, there is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. This is still sometimes called “Limited Depravity,” a phrase I’m sure will get your attention. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to original sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin. According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon. Pelagius was opposed by Saint Augustine, one of the most influential early Church Fathers. When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will, Saint Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will. The Pelagians charged Augustine on the grounds that the doctrine of original sin amounted to Manichaeism: the Manichaeans taught that the flesh was in itself sinful (and they denied that Jesus came in the flesh) – and this charge would have carried added weight since contemporaries knew that Augustine himself had been a Manichaean layman before his conversion to Christianity. Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refuse. Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work. Pelagius did not believe that all humanity was guilty in Adam's sin, but said that Adam had condemned humankind through bad example, and that Christ’s good example offered humanity a path to salvation, through sacrifice and through instruction of the will.
I sincerely trust this may have been of help.
Best regards
M.