that's so uiboktih, o.j.

good afternoon, reeds! i've got so much to do, so much to write, yet so little time. crazy!

record-reed wrote:

my verification code for this post was "uiboktih" which I think is clearly an actual word and TDN is just the place to flesh out its denotion.

uiboktih

u‧i‧bok‧tih / [yew-e-bowk-tee]
-adjective

1. relating to, or similar to, the pain brought about by hitting one's testicles: when maria left me, the pain was so uiboktih that i wanted to cry.
2. unfortunate or unpleasant: that's so uiboktih that you had to stay late at work.

how's that for the "uiboktih" denotation? i'd say damn good. now how about the connotation, reeds?

remember, connotation is defined as:

the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning.
(dictionary.com, "http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=connotation")

i just gave the primary meaning, so it's up to you guys to create a secondary meaning. what comes to mind when you think of "uiboktih"? think long & hard, then post it in a comment!

now, onward towards crazy-goodness.

msnbc (ooo, that's, like, a real news-station or something) reports that o.j. simpson,

the man with the poker-face of innocence, has been paid $3.5 million dollars to write a book about the double murder of his ex-wife nicole brown simpson, and her friend, ron goldman.

"so, what's he writing? a blog on how sorry he is?"

no, actually. check it out:

Simpson is not actually confessing to the murder — rather, he’s writing a “hypothetical” book — which the Enquirer reports is tentatively being called “If I Did It.” The early part of the book tells how Simpson fell in love with Nicole...He goes on, according to the article, to describe in gruesome detail the killing of his ex-wife and Goldman; he stipulates that the murder scenes are “hypothetical.”
(msnbc, "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066202/")

gotcha. so o.j. simpson did not kill these two people, but he's writing a book on what it would be like if he did.

that's so uiboktih, o.j. for two reasons. one, because whether you truly committed these crimes or not, you're still desecrating the memory of these two people, and appallingly abusing the double-jeopardy law which is saving you from being arrested by merely publishing this book.

and secondly, because it sounds like you stole my book idea coming up for winter 07!

"in a chillingly realistic fashion, mike, of tiny damaged notions fame, expresses what an empire-wide struggle of both anti-government and undirected violence would be like if HE were tsar nicholas II in a book tentatively titled 'so tsar-ry, but i'm innocent: mike's russian revolution of 1905.'"

damn o.j.

well reeds, sad as it may seem, i have a choice right now: i can either end today's TDN post here--earlier than i had hoped--or i can save this and work on it some more later.

but i don't know when my previous commitment will be over, allowing me the time to return to bloggin' it up; so, sadly, i am parting with you for the day.

expecting more from tomorrow's post is not only a good wish, it's one that will be fulfilled!

i promise.