Snow And Slush

I recently came up with a most funny concept, I believe, and dutifully sent it off to the two producers who I once knew and who used to always open my emails, Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel. According to Didtheyreadit.com, technology I sometimes use so I know if my emails are possibly being read. Problem with Didtheyreadit.com is that, when received on some computers, I cannot detect whether my emails are being read. I know this because I've received emails in response to emails I've sent that presumably were never opened, according to Didtheyreadit.com. I suppose if you're rich enough and organized enough, you might even know which of your computers is on this "radar" or not, and then determine whether you wish to be picked up on the "radar", depending on the email content (which you could first learn by first opening the email off the radar). Nowadays, sometimes the emails sent to these producers are opened, sometimes not. According to Didtheyreadit.com.

But I digress, that is, if this is about the funny concept itself (and not about someone doing something with it), and so without further digression or ado or whatever that was:

Someone visiting at a friend's house finds that his friend has purchased a "DoggyBarkBark" device. This is a speaker you strap to your dog's neck that produces the bark of a ferocious dog, triggered by the sound of your dog barking. If your little lapdog is barking because it senses an intruder, the intruder imagines that scurrying around somewhere is a ferocious dog. The big problem is that whenever the lapdog hears the ferocious barking, he barks back, thus creating an endless barking situation. Initially the lapdog responds to the friend's visit with a little bark, thus triggering the situation and a shouted explanation from the dog owner. The dog owner explains also that the video that comes with the "DoggyBarkBark" device reassures the owner that their dog will eventually become accustomed to the sound of a ferocious dog barking and not respond. This may not occur for a few months.

That's the version of the idea I sent out to two people who in the past have channeled a huge number of my ideas to people who then make use of them (Daily Show, Colbert Report, SNL, movies, other TV shows, people who create new TV shows, CNN Presidential Election Night Coverage producers, etc.). I simply wish to add to the above version, that perhaps at some point the dog's owner might plug his lapdog's ears with his fingers to stop the vicious cycle. Which succeeds in creating a momentary cessation of barking. Eventually, numerous stops and starts of the vicious cycle of barking puts looks of very serious apprehension into the facial expression of the guest at any occurrence that might potentially set off the lapdog into letting loose with a tiny yelp. Accompanied by deep sighs of relief, too soon, a yelp was coming afterall. I imagine an idea this funny is worthy of, I don't know, at least 45 minutes of screen time. It's very symbolic too, I think, you know, big guns (ferocious dog barking sound) always at the ready to turn things upside down on behalf of seemingly innocuous imbeciles (the yelping lapdog).

Speaking of big guns at the ready to turn things upside down, I have to see the recent news item about Bruce Willis' ski resort burning down as being in relation to my "reopening the investigation" into the death of Princess Diana in several of my recent blogs, "Word To The Wise" and "I Read The Clues Today". While my experience in these matters makes the connection particularly clear to me, I do find there to be one element built into it that has written all over it, "if there's that coincidence then it's all coincidence issue closed no need for investigation all logical deductions are tainted by there being a coincidence in the mix". Sometimes one must even conjecture whether certain apparent coincidences haven't been planted for those stupid enough to regard coincidence as the answer to everything, sure to win an acquittal every time, no matter the crime, no matter the other evidence. The coincidence to which I refer here is that (and by the way to follow this you would need to actually read my blogs referenced here that regard all this): on the one hand I've previously connected Steve Holland with Bruce Willis, and put the "Zig Ski" license plate spotted in 1997 in relation to this due to context (without my knowing at the time of making the connection that Willis owned a ski lodge); and then you have the fact that Bruce Willis owns a ski lodge (according to my research, Willis purchased it in 1996). The big bad coincidence is that Steve Holland's first movie, "Better Off Dead", which I refer to in my blogs on this subject, uses skiing as a significant element. The explanation may be that a mutual interest in skiing is part of Holland in relation to Willis - I don't know.

I would also like to add, as I've stated before, that whoever committed one crime (eg., the assassination of Diana Spencer) was not necessarily involved in any of the others. However, it is clear to me that there was a consciousness on the part of the perpetrator(s) that there would be an apparent connection to be made between the various acts discussed. For all I know, Bruce Willis read my blog and then set fire to his own ski lodge. The perpetrator(s) in Diana's death were trying to create a trail leading to McCartney and/or Harrison from what they left on my doorstep ahead of time - this could increase the likelihood of a few Spartacuses standing up at this point in "our story".