Written In Stone (And Why The Book Was Better)

Permanent Photograph Of Something Written In Evaporating Ink Before It Evaporated
The big news is that I have begun posting accumulations of the text of these blogs at Archive.Org, for the purpose of giving them an unalterable timestamp (i.e., copyright), unlike the malleable timestamp given by this blogsite, "Blogspot" (aka blogger.com). That means no videos, photos, etc., only the text is being posted at Archive.Org.

Due to the fact that I won't be doing this after each blog posting, but periodically, all of my blogs will receive this timestamping, but the timestamping will only prove the general timeframe: if this blog I'm writing now gets posted as part of a volume at Archive.Org on December 31, 2009, it will only prove that it was written no later than December 31st, not that it was written today. On the other hand, those who read this blog today will know with certainty that it was written today, and so a week from today they will know I never reedited it. The one posted volume (Volume 1), containing everything I've blogged thus far going back to August 2008, is considerably larger than the volumes that will follow - it will not be another year and 3 months before the next volume is posted at Archive.Org.

Big Bangs Theory Disproven
I have been growing hair for as long as I can remember, though the length of my hair does not actually evidence this (my hair gets cut from time to time). For this and other reasons, I can only reproach myself for a terrible error made in my blog of October 25th. I shudder to think of the damage my mistake will surely do to my credibility and all that relies upon my credibility. I erroneously referred to a certain configuration of Jennif Aniston's hair as "bangs". I honestly thought it was called bangs. It appears I did not know the meaning of the word, "bangs".

Those who have been paying closer attention to the process of growing hair, which is in so many ways connected to the process of cutting hair, will find it impossible to believe that I spoke out of ignorance, and instead presume there to be a more fundamental misinformation involved. I can already hear them: "Oh, you knew what bangs were, and you tried to claim Jennif Aniston had bangs, but now we see, she has no bangs, and therefore your claim to have seen her, and all that you say was connected with your having seen her, reveals an attempt to perpetrate a hoax. Therefore you are not secretly important in relation to Spielberg and McCartney, as you also claim, therefore you are not secretly important to Western "culture", therefore there were no terrorists who chose your doorstep to leave their terrorist clues, therefore no serious investigation is warranted, the world is not at stake in choosing against performing such an investigation." It sounds silly, but I fear that the world may yet suffer for my being mistaken in what I thought bangs are.

I will attempt the now Herculean (if not Atlasean) task of setting the record straight. I thought bangs were when the hair of a girl or woman is cut so that it curls up on each side of the face and comes to a point. This picture here of Victoria Beckham isn't quite it, but may help illustrate my point. Okay, now: imagine the ends curling up.

I was asking a woman where I work what bangs are, suddenly suspecting that I may have gotten it wrong, and in the process of my description someone else actually came up and said, "Do you mean that thing Jennifer Aniston sort of does?"
He may have been a follower of my blogs, and so may have known what to say. As perhaps may also have been true of the next person who entered the conversation - a woman where I work who goes to movie openings and the Oscars because her brother's limo service has many top celeb customers, thus generating an "in" for her over the years. She actually described to me how Jennif often goes to openings wearing a short hair wig, where the hair on the sides, well, she basically described exactly what I saw when I saw Jennif drive by me. Which I described on October 25th in my blog only because of a specific matter, and not out of a desire to record celeb sitings. The photo of Jennif shown here, incidentally, was published on the Internet with regard to a very recent event (in the uncropped version of the photo she is next to Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, Demi being Bruce Willis' ex-wife. We (myself and the woman at work) then had a brief discussion about David Arquette, husband of Courteney Cox Arquette, Jennif's BFF. Today on my way to work I may have seen (you guessed it) David Arquette (though his face seemed too large). I only mention this in the context of this Jennif stuff, which is in the context of - oh, go ahead, put everything in whatever context you please, don't mind me. No wait, stop, I didn't mean it!