tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post115101811585683290..comments2023-10-11T09:22:33.136-04:00Comments on Paperback Writer: Friday 20Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-32065687951839403862008-09-23T21:00:00.000-04:002008-09-23T21:00:00.000-04:00Hi. I just have to jump in at this... (been readin...Hi. I just have to jump in at this... (been reading questions and superb answers on this blog for a hlaf-night now).It's just that everyone seems to have a problem with writing too much... mine is the opposite... for instance, a plot outline like this:<BR/><I><BR/>John is a cop, Marcia has a stolen diamond, real thief tries to kill them, diamond is cursed, demons also pursue, thief uses demons against John and Marcia, John reveals he is half-demon, Marcia reverses curse, thief almost kills her, John sacrifices his human side to save Marcia... </I><BR/><BR/>or chapter-timeline like this: <BR/><BR/><I>Chapter One<BR/><BR/>1. John sees Marcia at Halloween party, accidentally spills his drink down her costume.<BR/>2. Marcia puts on the wrong coat with stolen cursed diamond in pocket and leaves party.<BR/>3. Diamond thief uses spell to make Marcia's car crash.<BR/><BR/>Chapter Two<BR/><BR/>1. John uses his demonic strength to rescue Marcia from car crash, takes her home to his haunted house.<BR/>2. Marcia discovers John is a cop and has a strange tatoo.<BR/>3. John finds stolen cursed diamond in Marcia's coat pocket.<BR/><BR/></I><BR/><BR/>For me, would end up in a 2 paged shortstory.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm too much of an amateure for this blog, or I have a different problem(?)... Any thoughts? Also, if you've got the time, could you please summerise what you do before starting to write? I've gotten bitts and pieces but always seem to have missed out on stuff (like all the shortenings of etc.. like VIP (which by the way I figured out). This site is so huge, I can't seem to find for instance a description of the 3 questions about character you ask...<BR/><BR/>Oh yes, I'm foreign by the way (swedish), which might explain why I don't get everything and also why this looks as if written by a child.<BR/><BR/>Sorry and THANK YOU!! Amazing page! (probably the best use I've got off of internet ever.<BR/><BR/>/Swedish MarkusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151338533739878622006-06-26T12:15:00.000-04:002006-06-26T12:15:00.000-04:00If copyright doesn't expire, what becomes of deriv...If copyright doesn't expire, what becomes of derivative works? Stories build on one another - Shakespeare himself rewrote stories he had heard/seen/read. The Aneid is clearly derivative of the Odyssey. There are only so many storylines out there. When copyright expires it gives a clear guide saying "At this point, you may stand upon the shoulders of these giants." <BR/><BR/>A last story link and a poem:<BR/><A HREF="http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2005/01/people-who-owned-bible-story.html" REL="nofollow"> The People Who Owned the Bible</A><BR/><BR/>When 'Omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre,<BR/> He'd 'eard men sing by land an' sea;<BR/>An' what he thought 'e might require,<BR/> 'E went an' took -- the same as me!<BR/><BR/>The market-girls an' fishermen,<BR/> The shepherds an' the sailors, too,<BR/>They 'eard old songs turn up again,<BR/> But kep' it quiet -- same as you!<BR/><BR/>They knew 'e stole; 'e knew they knowed.<BR/> They didn't tell, nor make a fuss,<BR/>But winked at 'Omer down the road,<BR/> An' 'e winked back -- the same as us<BR/>-- Rudyard KiplingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151121809382677432006-06-24T00:03:00.000-04:002006-06-24T00:03:00.000-04:00Too bad you can't mail this list off to the ones i...Too bad you can't mail this list off to the ones in need of it. :DJordan Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00437563784716604402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151102928794414772006-06-23T18:48:00.000-04:002006-06-23T18:48:00.000-04:00The whole copyright issue is, indeed, a thorny one...The whole copyright issue is, indeed, a thorny one, and worthy of further debate. Here in the UK it's been given a new twist by the plight of artists like (Sir) Cliff Richard. OK, so he's not short of a bob or two, but the law on performance rights as it stands at the moment means that in the next year or two he will no longer receive any royalties whenever 'Living Doll', 'Summer Holiday' and other memorable tunes are played - not cover versions, but original recordings featuring his voice, simply because he recorded the songs so young and has lived longer than the people drafting the laws ever considered likely.<BR/><BR/>There are other singers and musicians who rely on the meagre income from their hits in the fifties for their pension, and who will soon be left without that major income stream. At least authors get to keep their royalties until they die, and then pass them on for many years afterwards.<BR/><BR/>That said, the latest wonderful idea from the European Union is a levy on art sales so that every time a painting, sculpture or other work of art is resold, a percentage of the price goes to the creator. In theory this sounds like a good scheme, but in practice it just means the European art markets will move to New York and Tokyo.<BR/><BR/>Things get so much more complicated when money's involved.<BR/><BR/>A question? Sorry, can't think of one. But I did like the list. It reminds me of the apocryphal story about Naomi Campbell admitting that she hadn't even read her book.JamesOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09332376784689207703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151089590735681022006-06-23T15:06:00.000-04:002006-06-23T15:06:00.000-04:00Correction to the above comment on Steinbeck's rig...Correction to the above comment on Steinbeck's rights: complete control over the estate was handled or owned by his heirs' stepmother, Steinbeck's third wife, who seems to have profited at the expense of his children. The articles aren't clear on exactly who owned what and when, so the publisher involved may not be the villain of the piece. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151088052698135432006-06-23T14:40:00.000-04:002006-06-23T14:40:00.000-04:00Joel wrote: I strongly agree that writers should b...Joel wrote: <I>I strongly agree that writers should be paid. However, as Macaulay argued, extending copyright to perpetuity is not a way to remunerate authors - it remunerates right holders.</I><BR/><BR/>Which is why I was happy to see Steinbeck's heirs win their case. The copyright holder -- a publisher -- has made millions off Steinbeck's work while his offspring have not seen a dime of that money. <BR/><BR/>It's a good reminder for all authors to give some serious thought to how they write their wills, and to whom they leave their estate. This is assuming the anticopyrightists don't strip us of our property before we're dead. Then we might as well burn everything and take up knitting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151087625555191202006-06-23T14:33:00.000-04:002006-06-23T14:33:00.000-04:00Reading your blog is a better training for the sto...Reading your blog is a better training for the stomach muscles than those boring sit-ups.Gabriele Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205770868139083575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151087036625448692006-06-23T14:23:00.000-04:002006-06-23T14:23:00.000-04:00I strongly agree that writers should be paid. How...I strongly agree that writers should be paid. However, as Macaulay argued, extending copyright to perpetuity is not a way to remunerate authors - it remunerates right holders. <BR/><BR/>From Macaulay's speech: <BR/>"If, Sir, I wished to find a strong and perfect illustration of the effects which I anticipate from long copyright, I should select,—my honourable and learned friend will be surprised,—I should select the case of Milton's granddaughter. As often as this bill has been under discussion, the fate of Milton's granddaughter has been brought forward by the advocates of monopoly. My honourable and learned friend has repeatedly told the story with great eloquence and effect. He has dilated on the sufferings, on the abject poverty, of this ill-fated woman, the last of an illustrious race. He tells us that, in the extremity of her distress, Garrick gave her a benefit, that Johnson wrote a prologue, and that the public contributed some hundreds of pounds. Was it fit, he asks, that she should receive, in this eleemosynary form, a small portion of what was in truth a debt? Why, he asks, instead of obtaining a pittance from charity, did she not live in comfort and luxury on the proceeds of the sale of her ancestor's works? But, Sir, will my honourable and learned friend tell me that this event, which he has so often and so pathetically described, was caused by the shortness of the term of copyright? Why, at that time, the duration of copyright was longer than even he, at present, proposes to make it. The monopoly lasted, not sixty years, but for ever. At the time at which Milton's granddaughter asked charity, Milton's works were the exclusive property of a bookseller. Within a few months of the day on which the benefit was given at Garrick's theatre, the holder of the copyright of Paradise Lost,—I think it was Tonson,—applied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction against a bookseller who had published a cheap edition of the great epic poem, and obtained the injunction. The representation of Comus was, if I remember rightly, in 1750; the injunction in 1752. Here, then, is a perfect illustration of the effect of long copyright. Milton's works are the property of a single publisher. Everybody who wants them must buy them at Tonson's shop, and at Tonson's price. Whoever attempts to undersell Tonson is harassed with legal proceedings. Thousands who would gladly possess a copy of Paradise Lost, must forego that great enjoyment. And what, in the meantime, is the situation of the only person for whom we can suppose that the author, protected at such a cost to the public, was at all interested? She is reduced to utter destitution. Milton's works are under a monopoly. Milton's granddaughter is starving. The reader is pillaged; but the writer's family is not enriched. Society is taxed doubly. It has to give an exorbitant price for the poems; and it has at the same time to give alms to the only surviving descendant of the poet.<BR/>...<BR/>One of the most instructive, interesting, and delightful books in our language is Boswell's Life of Johnson. Now it is well known that Boswell's eldest son considered this book, considered the whole relation of Boswell to Johnson, as a blot in the escutcheon of the family. He thought, not perhaps altogether without reason, that his father had exhibited himself in a ludicrous and degrading light. And thus he became so sore and irritable that at last he could not bear to hear the Life of Johnson mentioned. Suppose that the law had been what my honourable and learned friend wishes to make it. Suppose that the copyright of Boswell's Life of Johnson had belonged, as it well might, during sixty years, to Boswell's eldest son. What would have been the consequence? An unadulterated copy of the finest biographical work in the world would have been as scarce as the first edition of Camden's Britannia."<BR/><BR/>(Sorry for such a long quote. I tried to rewrite it, but Macaulay words are much better than mine.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151085340640574552006-06-23T13:55:00.001-04:002006-06-23T13:55:00.001-04:00Peggy wrote: Patents are not perpetual.I didn't me...Peggy wrote: <I>Patents are not perpetual.</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't mean to imply that they were. To clarify, my friend suggested setting up copyright like a patent, except that unlike patents, it would never expire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151085324470553382006-06-23T13:55:00.000-04:002006-06-23T13:55:00.000-04:00Thanks... :-) I waste so much time starting over...Thanks... :-) I waste so much time starting over when something isn't working and I've decided I'm a little tired of it.<BR/><BR/>and... <EM> This is getting too damn interesting. Anyway, you get the idea.</EM> you're right. it does sound interesting.... I'd love to read more.<BR/><BR/>*G*Shiloh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785046046157000126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151085225197570852006-06-23T13:53:00.000-04:002006-06-23T13:53:00.000-04:00Joel wrote: Sorry to keep pestering, but if copyri...Joel wrote: <I>Sorry to keep pestering, but if copyright is perpetual, wouldn't there be serious cultural, scholarly, and creative repercussions?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sure there could be. That's why it's such a polarizing issue. <BR/><BR/><I>I'm thinking of cases such as James Joyce's heir - where he has blocked scholarly studies of Joyce and prevented public readings from Ulysses.</I><BR/><BR/>However unhappy that makes folks, as the rights owner, that's his prerogative.<BR/><BR/>You link to some good support for the other side of the argument. But people can be very creative about getting around copyright law and depriving writers of their rights for other than ethical reasons. If it were all done for non-profit purposes, I'd even agree with you. But when there's money involved, and there always is, then it gets a bit more sticky.<BR/><BR/><I>If you would like me to stop discussing this issue here, please let me know and I will.</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. I enjoy discussing the issue because I'm not sure there ever will be a one-size-fits-all solution that makes everyone happy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151083758938096602006-06-23T13:29:00.000-04:002006-06-23T13:29:00.000-04:00Patents are not perpetual. Per the US Patent Offi...Patents are not perpetual. Per the US Patent Office:<BR/>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent<BR/><BR/>Other countries' laws may vary (and probably do).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151083706724955822006-06-23T13:28:00.000-04:002006-06-23T13:28:00.000-04:00Shiloh wrote: I know you're big on plotting.Huge. ...Shiloh wrote: <I>I know you're big on plotting.</I><BR/><BR/>Huge. Think Nebraska. :)<BR/><BR/><I>I've only started ACTUALLY trying to plot out the book before I write it in the past 12-18 months and it's a heck of a lot different than writing by the seat of your pants.</I><BR/><BR/>That it can be.<BR/><BR/><I>It's a lot HARDER for me. any suggestions on how to actually get more into the habit of plotting something out?</I><BR/><BR/>Keep it as simple as possible; don't try to plot with a huge amount of detail in the outline. Think through your story and get the basic storyline worked out:<BR/><BR/>John is a cop, Marcia has a stolen diamond, real thief tries to kill them, diamond is cursed, demons also pursue, thief uses demons against John and Marcia, John reveals he is half-demon, Marcia reverses curse, thief almost kills her, John sacrifices his human side to save Marcia...<BR/><BR/>This is getting too damn interesting. Anyway, you get the idea.<BR/> <BR/>Once you have that, the easiest way I know how to plot bare bones is with a timeline or list of sequence of events, i.e.:<BR/><BR/>Chapter One<BR/><BR/>1. John sees Marcia at Halloween party, accidentally spills his drink down her costume.<BR/>2. Marcia puts on the wrong coat with stolen cursed diamond in pocket and leaves party.<BR/>3. Diamond thief uses spell to make Marcia's car crash.<BR/><BR/>Chapter Two<BR/><BR/>1. John uses his demonic strength to rescue Marcia from car crash, takes her home to his haunted house.<BR/>2. Marcia discovers John is a cop and has a strange tatoo.<BR/>3. John finds stolen cursed diamond in Marcia's coat pocket.<BR/><BR/>It's like a "just the facts, ma'am" rundown.<BR/><BR/>If that's too detailed, try a sparse single summary line for each chapter:<BR/><BR/>Chapter One<BR/><BR/>At the party, John and Marcia meet, Marcia leaves with diamond, thief makes her car crash.<BR/><BR/>Chapter Two<BR/><BR/>John rescues Marcia, reveals he's a cop, finds cursed diamond. <BR/><BR/>...and so forth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151083173390988112006-06-23T13:19:00.000-04:002006-06-23T13:19:00.000-04:00Sorry to keep pestering, but if copyright is perpe...Sorry to keep pestering, but if copyright is perpetual, wouldn't there be serious cultural, scholarly, and creative repercussions? <BR/><BR/>I'm thinking of cases such as James Joyce's heir - where he has blocked scholarly studies of Joyce and prevented public readings from Ulysses. Link to <A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060619fa_fact" REL="nofollow">New Yorker Article</A> <BR/><BR/>Alternately, Spider Robinson explored creative problems with perpetual copyright in <A HREF="http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm" REL="nofollow">Melancholy Elephants</A> <BR/><BR/>For a more in depth discussion of the reason for limited duration copyrights, Macaulay gave a <A HREF="http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm" REL="nofollow">speech to the Parliament in 1841</A> that explains why copyright is limited.<BR/><BR/>If you would like me to stop discussing this issue here, please let me know and I will. Again, thank you for your time and keep on writing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151082463074220632006-06-23T13:07:00.000-04:002006-06-23T13:07:00.000-04:00Thank you kindly, PBW! =)Thank you kindly, PBW! =)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151081665579133952006-06-23T12:54:00.000-04:002006-06-23T12:54:00.000-04:00you are evil!!!I love the list. maybe it should b...you are <EM>evil</EM>!!!<BR/><BR/>I love the list. maybe it should be made into a little pamphlet to send to all celebs turned writers.<BR/><BR/>;)<BR/><BR/><BR/>I've got a question... I know you're big on plotting. I've only started ACTUALLY trying to plot out the book before I write it in the past 12-18 months and it's a heck of a lot different than writing by the seat of your pants.<BR/><BR/>It's a lot HARDER for me. any suggestions on how to actually get more into the habit of plotting something out? I started and stopped my next contracted book like four times already before I finally hit on an idea that seemed to work. <EM> now i just hope my editor likes it...</EM>Shiloh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785046046157000126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151080646155147142006-06-23T12:37:00.000-04:002006-06-23T12:37:00.000-04:00Joel wrote: What I would like to know is what you,...Joel wrote: <I>What I would like to know is what you, as a professional author, consider to be a good duration for copyright - 5 years, 20 years, 100 years, forever minus a day?</I><BR/><BR/>I was thinking about this very question when John Steinbeck's heirs won back the rights to some of his works earlier this month. <BR/><BR/>I don't have an answer, but one of my friends suggested making copyright more like patents with no expiration date. That way the author's heirs can choose to sell the rights or hold onto them and collect royalties for as long as they wish. An allowance could be made so that the work could be reprinted at no profit for educational purposes, like textbooks, so no one could yell about depriving kids of the reading experience. That's about the most reasonable alternative I've heard so far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151079375215265412006-06-23T12:16:00.000-04:002006-06-23T12:16:00.000-04:00Miss Kate wrote: Eva's all set.I'm so relieved.If ...Miss Kate wrote: <I>Eva's all set.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm so relieved.<BR/><BR/><I>If a reviewer screws up the facts of a novel (as much as a novel has facts) is it possible for a writer to NOT look like an asshole making a correction?</I><BR/><BR/>I think she should tell the reviewer, "Your constructive comments are truly appreciated" and leave it at that.<BR/> <BR/><I>I suppose you'd insert a lot of sincere thank you for the review and taking the time and whatnot before making the correction is called for. . . </I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't have read the review in the first place. See, if you don't read reviews, you don't know about this kind of thing. The reviewers can write whatever they want without having to deal with any criticism. Everybody's happy! Lol.<BR/><BR/><I>It's not one of my books. I'm trying to convince a friend not to bother. Any arguments for or against?</I><BR/><BR/>Have her read my reviews. She'll feel a lot better about hers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151079193179266762006-06-23T12:13:00.000-04:002006-06-23T12:13:00.000-04:00Thank you for your response. I understand that co...Thank you for your response. I understand that copyright is vital to authors. I strongly support the existence of copyright (without copyright, I wouldn't have nearly as many books to read). What I would like to know is what you, as a professional author, consider to be a good duration for copyright - 5 years, 20 years, 100 years, forever minus a day?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151078497132179842006-06-23T12:01:00.000-04:002006-06-23T12:01:00.000-04:00Joel wrote: I did some digging in your blog, but c...Joel wrote: <I>I did some digging in your blog, but couldn't find an answer. What do you think of the current state of copyright, particularly the current duration of copyright? I'm glad Bram Stoker's copyright has expired so even our litigious society can enjoy books like yours.</I><BR/><BR/>Not to sound testy, but the only thing my books and Bram Stoker's have in common are some characters in them who are dependent on blood to live. Vampiric creatures are quite common in myths from many different cultures around the world which predated his novel. He was one of the first popular authors to explore the myth of the vampire in a very successful novel, so he's often incorrectly thought of as the "inventor of vampires."<BR/><BR/>As for copyright law, I've touched on it a few times here, but never really in depth. It's a difficult, polarizing topic that makes people crazy and offends a lot of writers.<BR/><BR/>My stand, in a nutshell: Copyright law is the only thing that protects writers and the small amount of royalties we earn from the publication of our books, which are generally our only source of income. Without that protection, anyone can profit from our work or do anything they like with it. For these reasons, I support preserving the integrity of copyright law. <BR/><BR/>There are some young writers out there who believe we should "give it all away for free." I don't object to them giving away their rights, if that's what they want to do, but I don't believe that they have the right to tell me what to do with mine. I've given away plenty of my work for free -- over two million words of it, in fact -- but I deserve the right to <I>choose</I> to do that. <BR/><BR/>It is in the best interests of major publishing corporations and other corporate entities to eradicate copyright law so they can do as they please and profit without having to consult or pay royalties to the individual (or heirs of the individual) who created the work. I have no doubt they will eventually succeed, and writers will have no means with which to protect their work and preserve what little income they may receive from it. <BR/><BR/><I>I'm looking forward to reading Dark Need as soon as I can pry it out of my wife's hands. Thanks for another good series.</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for the generous compliments, and sorry if I sounded a bit cranky in the above response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151077639212404382006-06-23T11:47:00.000-04:002006-06-23T11:47:00.000-04:00Thank you for the laughs, I've definitely needed t...Thank you for the laughs, I've definitely needed them this week. I've even gotten a couple of my coworkers addicted to your blog. Have a good weekend, AnnAnnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17968479919482739686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151077095656771272006-06-23T11:38:00.000-04:002006-06-23T11:38:00.000-04:00Eva's all set. The SB novel written for her is AT ...Eva's all set. <A HREF="http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/eva_longorias_romance_novel/" REL="nofollow">The SB novel written for her is AT LEAST worth the price you'll pay to read it. </A><BR/><BR/>My question:<BR/>If a reviewer screws up the facts of a novel (as much as a novel has facts) is it possible for a writer to NOT look like an asshole making a correction? <BR/><BR/>I suppose you'd insert a lot of sincere thank you for the review and taking the time and whatnot before making the correction is called for. . . It's not one of my books. I'm trying to convince a friend not to bother. Any arguments for or against?Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02495558736099438348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151076164531242602006-06-23T11:22:00.000-04:002006-06-23T11:22:00.000-04:00I did some digging in your blog, but couldn't find...I did some digging in your blog, but couldn't find an answer. What do you think of the current state of copyright, particularly the current duration of copyright? I'm glad Bram Stoker's copyright has expired so even our litigious society can enjoy books like yours. <BR/><BR/>I'm looking forward to reading Dark Need as soon as I can pry it out of my wife's hands. Thanks for another good series.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151072511921787002006-06-23T10:21:00.000-04:002006-06-23T10:21:00.000-04:00Lynda wrote: What's your opinion of this author's ...Lynda wrote: <I>What's your opinion of this author's rant on all-male nominees for the ITW awards?</I><BR/><BR/>I boycott all genre awards, so I'm opinion-neutral.<BR/><BR/><I>Is it sour grapes because she wasn't nominated, or a real issue?</I><BR/><BR/>Elaine Viets writes chicklit, so sour grapes probably wouldn't be applicable. I'm sure that the issue, and the battle over it, are as important as the awards are to the egos involved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8343238.post-1151072010454649632006-06-23T10:13:00.000-04:002006-06-23T10:13:00.000-04:00Milady wrote: Thanks PBW!Anytime, ma'am. :)Trace ...Milady wrote: <I>Thanks PBW!</I><BR/><BR/>Anytime, ma'am. :)<BR/><BR/>Trace wrote: <I>*snort*</I><BR/><BR/>No snorting on my blog, you. <BR/><BR/>Bernita wrote: <I>Thank you, PWB,from the bottom of my petty little heart.</I><BR/><BR/>Hey, we petty-hearted have to stick together. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com