... the zalgo inquisition?
hello vonnie
RMH
Sade Olutola
Show & Tell

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
NASA

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
ojovivo
🪼
occasionally subtle

Discoholic 🪩

oozey mess
todays bird
One Nice Bug Per Day
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Not today Justin
DEAR READER
noise dept.

seen from TĂĽrkiye
seen from Mexico
seen from New Zealand
seen from TĂĽrkiye
seen from United States

seen from TĂĽrkiye

seen from Spain

seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
@ao3cassandraic
... the zalgo inquisition?

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The Fallen Angel (El ángel caĂdo), (Detail), (2007), by Arantzazu Martinez (Spanish, born 1977), oil on linen, 114.3 x 73.7 cm (45 x 29 inches), European Museum of Modern Art (MEAM), Barcelona
The original gag Crowley and Aziraphale were based on is that they are just some guys with a job. What if an Angel and a Demon were just some guys with a job? What if the Serpent of Eden and one of the Angels guarding the gates of weren’t symbols of temptation and divine punishment but just some guys with a job? What if the tropes of the hidden Devil in disguise and the mysterious stranger who is actually an Angel inspiring you to good deeds were just some guys with a job?
It just doesn’t make sense to me to end their story by turning them back into unironic mythical or spiritual figures. Into martyrs of Free Will, or the central figures in a Poetic Creation Myth, or some sort of Cosmic Entities watching over us all, or the embodiment of love or whatever.
They are just guys with a job.
And s2 set up Aziraphale specifically in a fairly relatable situation: New Job, First-Time Manager.
There is SO MUCH comedy potential in that! Scheming underlings (Michael and Uriel minimum), terrifying boss utterly determined on a really bad idea, remote unreachable CEO, skeptical peers (Saraqael, Sandalphon), giant new complicated project with huge stakes...
... and our poor angel somehow has to subvert the project (arguably the entire organization?) without getting caught and hung out to dry. Good Omens being Good Omens, ideally he'd do it without even meaning to -- or, let's say, he DOES mean to do it but the way he tries doesn't work, and something completely unexpected does.
Utterly squandered. All that funny. It's like nobody was even trying.
Daughters Of Time
November 1978. Downtown Denver. A line of women stretches around the city block, some clutching envelopes, others gripping checkbooks, a few carrying cash they'd hidden at home for years.
They weren't there for a sale or a concert. They were there to open bank accounts. At a bank that finally treated them like adults.
Just four years earlier, American women had won the legal right to get credit cards without a man's signature. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 said banks couldn't discriminate anymore. But laws on paper don't rewrite institutional culture overnight.
Walk into most banks in the late 1970s, and you'd find the same old attitudes wearing new masks. A woman's salary? Supplemental income. A female business owner seeking a loan? Too risky. A divorced woman trying to rebuild? Suspicious.
The system had been forced to let women in. But it sure as hell wasn't rolling out the welcome mat.
So eight Colorado women stopped waiting for invitations. Carol Green. Judi Wagner. LaRae Orullian. Wendy Davis. Gail Schoettler. Joy Burns. Beverly Martinez. Edna Mosely. Each committed $1,000 of their own earnings as seed money. Together, they rallied investors and raised $2 million to do something unprecedented in the West.
They opened The Women's Bank. Not a lending circle or a feminist fundraiser. A fully chartered, federally insured commercial bank. The first women-owned bank west of the Mississippi.
The founders figured maybe a few dozen curious customers would show up on opening day. Instead, women flooded in by the hundreds. By closing time, they'd deposited over one million dollars.
One million. In one day.
These weren't just transactions. They were declarations. Every deposit said: I trust you to see me as I am. Every new account meant: I'm done asking permission to control my own money.
The Women's Bank went on to finance businesses that male bankers had dismissed. It offered financial education. It proved that a bank centered on women's economic reality wasn't charity work. It was smart business.
Gail Schoettler later became Colorado's Lieutenant Governor. The bank eventually merged with larger institutions, as community banks did. But the message had already spread. Women across the country saw what was possible when you stop asking for a seat at the table and build your own institution instead.
Today, when a woman signs for a mortgage or launches a business without a male cosigner, she's standing on ground those eight women broke open. They didn't just start a bank. They proved that women's economic power was never the problem. Access was. And access could be seized, not granted.
I was 18 when this happened. I remember my mother opening her own account, and encouraging me to open my own account, when the bill was passed. I needed to write checks to cover bills for the horses in the back yard. It was MY account, with MY money in it. heady stuff.
Saw this on Twitter and wanted to share.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Do you live in a place that gets a lot of tourists?
Do you live in a place that gets a lot of tourists?
Yes
No
Mickey Ralph, the Good Omens production designer, on perhaps the most shut-book, closed ending finale in the history of TV finales 🤔
I like Mickey, and Mickey's work on the series was excellent, so I'm going to read this as someone who put a whole lot of creativity and energy into something not wanting to admit it was a bit of a black hole really.
I think Mickey believes this. I also disagree with it.
I appreciate Mickey leaving room for disagreement, and I shall do the same.
id you were taught a language in primary/secondary school. can you actually speak the language with some level of proficiency? beyond just simple words or phrases
(not counting if you learned most of the language outside of school)
If you were taught a language in primary/secondary school. can you actually speak the language with some level of proficiency? beyond just simple words or phrases
Yes
No
See results
Messaging people for the first time is so hard. What am I supposed to say? Like, "You seem really odd and your blog intrigues me. Do you want to have philosophical conversations or perhaps talk about fictional characters?" What! Whatever. I will just follow you back and stare at your blog with my big beautiful brown eyes.
Reblog if you're okay with people coming into your DMs with the "you seem really odd and your blog intrigues me, do you want to have philosophical conversations or perhaps talk about fictional characters"
You've had disappointments because you've been brave enough to have hopes. You've got scars because you're a foundational part of a big, wild world that leaves nothing unchanged. Keep going.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
FROZEN PLANET II 1.01 • Frozen Worlds
I would be delighted to snorgle manul belleh... until the manul took my face off.
For the sake of your mental health, let people think what they want. Their fiction is not your truth.
You can be the kindest person ever and people will still find a way to dislike you. Just let them. I promise it will be so freeing.
Especially important for educators. There is no world in which all your students will like and value you. You have to let that go, or you'll burn out.
Tell the truth.
Why are y'all single?
Good Omens 3: whose ending is it?
Since the finale of Good Omens was released, both fans who liked and didn't like how it ended have been discussing whose idea it was. Some say it is the ending Terry Pratchett had always planned. Others deny that and argue that it was Neil Gaiman alone who decided that it should conclude this way. There has even been some speculation that the new writers, Peter Atkins and Michael Marshall Smith, did a complete rewrite of the six original scripts before cutting them down to a single 90 minute-long episode.
I think the latter can be debunked quite easily. Not only would time and financial constraints not have allowed to write six new scripts, but there are also many evidences that apart from cutting and shortening scenes, changes have been rather minimal. While Peter Atkins and Michael Marshall Smith are credited for the "Teleplay" alongside Neil Gaiman, Neil Gaiman is the only one who gets credited for the "Television story", meaning that the plot of the finale was laid out by him. There are also lines and short scenes in Good Omens 3 that are rather obviously leftovers from plotlines that have been removed, like Michael's comment about the Metatron messing with the Book of Life or Dagon declaring war on heaven seconds before hell gets snapped out of existence. Even the word "pedometer" that Neil Gaiman had teased for the finale was still included in the crossword scene (cf. this post by @crowleysgirl56).
Moreover, the concept art for the final scene was created at the time when Good Omens 3 was still six episodes long and featured a plotline in America (cf. this post). People have pointed out that Crowley and Aziraphale look much more like older versions of themselves in it and have taken this as proof that they were initially meant to keep their identities and memories. But you have to keep in mind that a concept artist does not get to decide on the costumes. The human versions of Crowley and Aziraphale were created with the input of David Tennant and Michael Sheen (cf. this interview). Louis Ralph just put placeholders in his concept art to get an overall impression of what the scene would look like. Similarly, in the concept art for the Resurrectionist minisode, the image of Crowley in his Victorian outfit from season 1 was inserted (cf. this post). And if you've followed some news from behind the scenes, you will probably remember that season 2 was originally supposed to feature a nightmare in which the bookshop was the only place left in the entire universe - foreshadowing for an ending that Neil Gaiman claimed to have come from his "subconscious/unconscious" (cf. this post).
If this still doesn't convince you, Peter Atkins has explicitly stated that the ending itself remained untouched, and that "no big narrative or thematic changes" were made (cf. these screenshots on Reddit). Rachel Talalay has confirmed that, too (cf. this interview). When asked the question "What kind of conversations did you have about where Crowley and Aziraphale should ultimately end up?", she replied: "That was very much worked out by Terry Pratchett. That was an absolute. That was in the six episodes and stayed the same through the shorter version. That wasn’t a debate or dialogue. That was what was decided. That was the reason to make it because that’s the ending Terry wanted."
Which leads us to another interesting point: the involvement of Terry Pratchett. Many people assume that the ending could never be what he wanted for the story, mainly because it contradicts the core messages of the book. The nihilistic take on the state of the world seems to fit Neil Gaiman's style a lot more and was interpreted as an attempt by him to finally make the story his own (cf., for example, this reblog by @acatwithstockings of a post by @obsessivelollipoplalala). Initially, I agreed with this view, but Rachel Talalay has repeatedly emphasized how Rob Wilkins, Terry Pratchett's assistant, who also functioned as the executive producer of Good Omens 3, assured her that it reflects Terry Pratchett's philosophy (cf. both of the interviews cited above).
Marc Burrows, who wrote a biography of Terry Pratchett (but did not ever meet him personally), has voiced doubts about the alternate universe being Terry Pratchett's idea (cf. this post). He also pointed out how Terry Pratchett not being officially credited for the story of the finale is somewhat telling, and Rob Wilkins liked his post (cf. this post). But this fact is contradicted by Rob Wilkins's role as executive producer, and Rachel Talalay's statement. There is no reason for her to blatantly lie about her conversations with Rob Wilkins, so we have to take her word for the ending being, at least officially, the one Terry Pratchett had planned. But this still leaves us with the question what aspects of the ending came from Terry Pratchett.
The destruction of heaven and hell? Absolutely yes. That was a thing that was already heavily hinted at in the book. Adam complains about the influence angels and demons have over humans: "It's hard enough bein' people as it is, without other people coming and messin' you around" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 366; cited below). Another instance is the analogy between the Them and their rival gang, the Johnsonites, on the one hand and heaven and hell on the other and Adam musing that the adults of Tadfield (the humans) would probably be glad if both of the gangs just disappeared (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 320; cited below). He also criticizes the concept of life after death; Crowley's line in the finale in which he asks God why people are punished for behaving like people is actually a quote by Adam from the book: "I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people and then gettin' upset 'cos they act like people" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; cited below).
What's important to understand the context of this quote is what follows, though: "Anyway, if you stopped tellin' people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive. If I was in charge, I'd try makin' people live a lot longer, like ole Methuselah. It'd be a lot more interestin' and they might start thinkin' about the sort of things they're doing to all the enviroment and ecology, because they'll still be around in a hundred years' time" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; emphasis in the original; cited below). Adam proposes a much longer lifespan for humans as a way for them to experience the direct consequences of their actions rather than getting some rather unrelated reward/punishment in the afterlife. He wants people to have a chance to take full responsibilty for their actions: "If you stop messin' them about they might start thinkin' properly an' they might stop messin' the world around. I'm not sayin' they would, [...] but they might" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 368; emphasis in the original; cited below).
A godless universe? I would say also yes. I remember this quote from back when I first read the book, before watching the series: "I mean, maybe you just want to see how it all turns out. Maybe it's all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, him, everything. Some great big test to see if what you've built all works properly, eh?" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 392; cited below). It gave me the suspicion that the ultimate goal of God might always have been to end his/her existence once creation has proven that it can take responsibilty for itself. Although I assumed that God would simply back out of the existing universe, not create a new one.
Crowley and Aziraphale sacrificing themselves? Maybe. At the end of the book, they choose not to run away and help the humans fight Satan instead, despite knowing that they do not really have a chance (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 373; cited below). So I guess a noble sacrifice would fit their characterisation, even though it would give them an unusual importance in a story that had painted them as rather incompetent bystanders so far (cf. this post by @dustbunniess).
Crowley and Aziraphale deciding on the fate of the whole of humanity alone? I highly doubt that. A story that has always been about human agency, about how supernatural beings should not interfere with human lives, about how destroying the world as it is is not a way to make it better ending with an angel and a demon single-handedly choosing the erasure of the entire universe is more than odd. We know that a plotline involving Jesus and Adam was cut from the finale, so maybe they were meant to play a bigger role in Terry Pratchett's vision. The ending as it is, however, as I said above, goes against the core messages of the book, and I will stand by that.
Crowley and Aziraphale becoming human? Possibly. They were always trying to imitate humans, so it would be a fitting conclusion for their character arc. Although I thought that the point was that they are already human at heart. All the things Crowley envies humans for - mainly free will and imagination (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 47f; cited below) - are qualities he already possesses. It actually reminds me a bit of The Wizard of Oz, in which Dorothy's friends wish for traits they've had all along. The only two things that really distinguish Crowley and Aziraphale from humans are their immortality and their miracles. Take them away from them and all the other angels and demons and they are equal to humans. I don't understand why removing the power imbalance requires them to lose their identity as well, and I'm still not sure whether this was Terry Pratchett's intention.
But even if every aspect of the ending was envisioned by Terry Pratchett, you have to bear in mind that the execution was entirely done by Neil Gaiman. He used the narrative landmarks that were set and built the plot around them. His comment about not really knowing where the idea with nightmare of the bookshop came from further suggests that he was making a lot of things up as he went. And when it comes to the messages of the story, one has to admit that he did not add much that was of value. The scene with God and Satan in the bookshop that was supposed to represent the philosophical core of the finale, for example, did not contain much original dialogue, but relied on recycled lines from the book instead, like Adam's remark about punishing people that I quoted above or Crowley's musings about human nature (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 47f; cited below).
Neil Gaiman is also the one who made the romance between Crowley and Aziraphale explicit on request of the fans, only to have it end tragically ("There was a point where I started to go: You know, I can give you what you want, but you won't want it" - that were his own words; cf. this video, timestamp 11:56-12:04). If they were always supposed to get annihilated in the end, he should have left it out. Since the story had shifted its focus to Crowley's and Aziraphale's relationship, the only narratively satisfying conclusion would have included a happy ending for them. I'm sure there would have been a way to do that without betraying the core of Terry Pratchett's vision. What we ultimately got was a weird example of 'having your cake and eating it too', as Reddit user WAR_FROM_GOOD_OMENS put it in this thread, of putting a lovestory in but also staying true to the original ideas under circumstances that had changed from the book (see also this post by @i-only-ever-asked-questions).
So, what is the takeaway from this post? Well, the takeaway is that the ending of Good Omens 3 is not the result of a rewrite of Neil Gaiman's scripts, but something that was planned right from the beginning, most likely even back when season 2 was written. And that we will never know for sure how much of it can be attributed to ideas by Terry Pratchett and how much to choices made by Neil Gaiman.
I understand that many people are unhappy with the ending and are looking for someone to 'blame' for it. And that many find the idea comforting that what we saw is not the 'real' ending and that a truer, more hopeful version of it exists somewhere. But in the end, we have to ask ourselves: does it really matter? You are allowed to like or dislike the ending, no matter who wrote it. Actually, I don't think the author of the ending should have an influence on your judgment of it at all. The finale of Good Omens is what it is, it does not become better when Terry Pratchett came up with it or worse when Neil Gaiman, Peter Atkins or Michael Marshall Smith invented it. Just look at what we've got and use your skills in media analysis to decide whether it makes sense for the story, for the characters, and for your own taste and morals. And if it doesn't, you can't change it anyway, but you can create a version for yourself and for other fans that feels more fitting. You don't have to accept an author's word on the story, no matter how famous or how skilled he is.
Keep going, Good Omens fandom!
Work cited:
Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.
This is wise and fairminded and I largely agree with it.
I do think there's a thing missing, though, and it doesn't strike me as a thing that PTerry would be likely to miss.
Namely, does humanity want Crowley and Aziraphale joining its ranks? The other angels and demons?
I think Humanity Ensues is an ending that each angel and demon character should earn, over and above their own agency in the matter (which is also important). I'd argue that Crowley and Aziraphale have earned their places. Muriel and Eric(s)? Sure. Beez and Gabe? Maybe. Hastur, or the Metatron? Can go fuck themselves, humanity doesn't want them.
And what about God and Satan? (I'm at "fuck 'em both," but that doesn't necessarily signify.)
I can think of several ways to implement this narratively, but I do think that if we're taking free will seriously, it's a narrative issue that needs resolution.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Boss tries to fire me for poor performance but I punch the ground and spit out blood and say "No... this isn't how this ends" while my leitmotif plays
Boss fires me for my poorly-composed leitmotif
You just gotta get a beta composer to catch those parallel fifths.
hey gamers I just re-re-re learned about the product category of foldable personal shopping cart with removable (often also foldable) crates
this one is called Clax.
the baskets fold too
now all this helps eliminate Roommate Fear™ of accidentally murdering my immune system to death with someone else's baby piss or dog shit residue on a shopping cart. lot less cleaning of the cart before shopping (hypochlorous acid ultrafine mist for the epic winzors)
I personally think this kind of thing should become a standard product category with things like swappable solid baskets and mini coolers in standard and XL sizes. and whatever I wind up getting I plan to shove a cold bag in one of them so stuff stays cold or hot before it can reach the cooler in the trunk
but each clax™ basket is 14.96 x 21.26 x 10.26 inches which is kind of small. and most other brand name things like this are either single tiered fabric-ish bags or single tiered large folding crate or single tiered non-removable basket which are a lot less hygenic. there are a bunch of weird generic ones that have bigger foldable basket sizes. ClaxXl when
who among us utilizes this form of personal shopping cart with removable boxes? what do you use can you tell me? especially if yours is 2 tiered because shopping in bulk and being able to separate products by type is poggy woggies
even if you just use Clax™ do you like it or do you recommend something else
Commenting because I’ve been looking at Clax too
I got one after my brush with staph a few years back, when I got home and was Not Allowed To Lift Things with my left arm (since it had a central line in it). It's a handy little bugger, and it holds a lot more than you'd think it would without the least complaint. I'm a fan.