Caption contest: The winner's photo!

Great! just voted. Hope I can see soon a picture of my happy candidate holding victorious his bright and shiny dime!

What about nomination #18? And I don't mean Meryl Streep's. That hasn't happened yet. By the way why has the best caption been left out? The one that was, you know, MINE! That's alright. Now I know how van Gogh must have felt. Have I gone too far? :p

the best one is missing. from marie haws:

"Yes, I do know why he wants to see you – and I’d tell you, 'cause if it were me I’d want to know, but he made me promise not to ruin the surprise."

no. 4

Ebert: No voting here. Read the instructions and vote at answerman@gmail.com. Now I know how Pat Buchanan got so many votes.

Egad! To not have my comment picked by someone who never gets their comments picked makes me feel like a monumental failure... Thanks Roger...:(

In case #3's significance is lost on anyone, November 24, 1859 is the date Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" went on sale.

Ebert: A date that should be circled on every calendar.

humbug. i never win anything.

Is the bitterness for not getting picked two times in a row allowed to bleed over to these forums too? :)

I found five pence on the road a while back, I guess I'm OK with not getting the dime for now, assuming exchange rates don't change drastically. :)

May the best wit win (this time!) ;)

The first entry works for the photograph as well.

Jay Faulconer,

Hmmm...Not having his caption picked was the whole point of his original blog. By that definition, Roger Ebert himself is legendary failure--he admitted it.

I think this whole thing is an attempt to spread more misery, in all of our directions. I thought mine was pretty good, too.

To the supreme court we go! :)

no 16 Burl Burlingame

Ebert: Please e-mail this to me at answerman@gmail.com

Pardon my misunderstanding, but how do we "Go to answerman@gmail.com."? I typed it into my browser and get a login page, and I don't have a Gmail account. Or do you mean for us to send you an e-mail at answerman@gmail.com? Because that's not what you're saying in your message.

I'm not trying to be difficult; I want to get this right.

Ebert: That's it. Send an e-mail there. I will reword.

Good list. And not one George Burns joke among them...

You didn't choose my favorite. "I ought to warn you, He's in a good mood." But these are all good, so it will be hard to choose just 3. Must have been hard for you to choose just 18.

Ebert: The readers nominated 'em.

Two nominations?

thank you, Dave Van Dyke

thank you, mazinge

I suppose I should mention that I didn't submit that particular caption to the New Yorker. The one I went with was:

"Oprah has Dr. Phil and we have you. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy."

It's very difficult for a writer to judge his own work. For example, in the current contest, I didn't submit

"It's next year's iPhone."

Mostly because the "cheat sheet" said the New Yorker doesn't like brand names. But I think that's the one I would have picked, as a judge.

I celebrated not being picked by making peach ice cream from fresh peaches (yes I picked them off a tree) and cream, sugar, eggs etc. in my churn. I find it better to celebrate not winning lotteries or being selected or for neither winning, placing , or show. I'm enjoying a bowl right now. If I had enough, I'd share with all the bloggers who frequent this site. In lieu of that, here's spoonin' at you kids.

Can people who sent in a nomination vote?

Ebert: You bet.

This is off topic, but this summer marks the 25th anniversary of the landmark film Purple Rain. Perhaps the last great Rock movie to come out of Hollywood. I was wondering if you could either revisit this film in honor of it's anniversary or post your original '84 review. Thanks.

I feel like a 2000 Floridian, I'm torn between two choices! LOL

No. 6

Ebert: Please address voted to answerman@gmail.com and put "Caption #XX" in the subject header.

Hm...tough choice. Mostly because I don't find these to be particularly funny, but some of them are exceptionally witty - and in my (not so) humble opinion, #3 is the wittiest.

Now, come to think of it, maybe that's why people don't win at this contest - they try to be funny when they should be trying to be witty. The sardonic chuckle is the desired target, not the guffaw.

Roger, why did you barry the voting email / instructions obscurely in the 4th paragraph? You should put it in bold at or near the top.

Just a suggestion.

I love how people completely disregard your instructions. It makes me wonder if they are even aware of what they are voting for.

I'm kind of surprised that I got nominated.

How am I supposed to choose? A number of these made me laugh out loud. Using the New Yorker criteria, I suppose I should eliminate those right away...

The Darwin reference is very clever, but I'm not voting for anyone who made me look something up. My time is just too valuable! (koff koff)

I am sorry to be using your blog in this way, but I have been personally answered here, and I could find no other direct way to respond to reviews of yours. In your Great Movies review of Amadeus, which is indisputably great, you label Wodehouse as a Great, in contrast to Mann as an Almost-great. All I have to say is 'give me a break'.

Your argument is that the Greats make work look like play, and the almost-greats make work really look like work. What about Kafka, or Kosinski? Pynchon, Melville...? Will you tell me, if you take even the slightest look in-depth into their process, how easy it was for them to do?

I should pull out my power play. The man who wrote the best book of the last century, James Joyce, surely was unabashed about the difficulty, the time and toil put into it. From what I know of Nabokov he did not have a gravy ball writing his books either. The only person I can even guess at who waltzed their way through genius was Samuel Beckett, who to me was the closest to a martyr that literature has ever had-- that is, if you give up that much of yourself, that completely and honestly, it would seem impossible for the words not to drop on your plate. That is--someone smart enough, who strips himself of all the vanities and stares down the truth naked will inevitably produce all the dirt we could ever rub our faces in.

My point essentially being that it made me wince and grimace and chuckle a little bit when you tried to label with confidence the Greats juxtaposed against the Almost-greats, like the jury was in, the tests were run, like time had told. We wish.

Unless you were being ironic. After all, your review concerned a movie about a man able to know more than anyone around him that he was witnessing greatness, perhaps knowing even more certainly than the great man himself. But it wasn't about sainthood. In fact, if we will delve into anything in the realm of religious taxonomy, let's must call it a movie about atheism. No god worthy of anything before Nazism could create a man so brilliant and gifted at the same time as a man so horribly perceptive, so able to discover genius he lacks. If god were a nazi, Amadeus might be about god. Luckily, god is not, and humans have all the chances they mightn't have in a determined universe.

Ebert: I don't say great work is play, I say it can looklike play. Melville's prose flows so fluently. Nabokov has a tangible joy in his writing. Joyce worked very hard, but if you listen to an audiobook of Ulysses read by Irish actors, you realize how much of the novel has the lilt of Irish conversation. Mann strikes me as more of a bricklayer.

I note with shame that I was nominated, but with pride that one of my entries shares with one of the finalists the "merger" concept.

PS--like an idiot, I didn't enter that one into the Not the Not the New Yorker Caption Contest. Damme.

Also, irony noted on the link between the subject of your previous blog post and my random squabbling with your Great Movies list and classification of Great writers.

Oh, and I realized it wasn't clear what I meant in my last sentence. I didn't mean god is not a nazi. I meant god is not, period. For clarity's sake.

"funny--I get to sit at my own desk and talk to people and you two have to fight over which person's shoulder to be on."

"Here to talk with the big man upstairs?"

"Must you always play, "I Will Always Love You", by Whitney Houston?"

"I'm tired of being yang; I'd like to be yin, if possible."

"I'm here to gloat that more people now are currently more interested in taking the blue pill instead of the red pill when watching, "The Matrix."

"What would you do-o-o for a Klondike Bar?"

Just submitted for #203:

"Our bed & breakfast covers incidental expenses."

Mr. Ebert, you reviewed "Recount", so you should well know this factoid:

"The plural of chad is chad?"

17 is sheer brilliance! I just voted for it

I see. I agree 100%. My bad, if I hadn't been doing some post-drink surfing I probably would have seen that that was what you meant and not written that note at all.

@ Brendan Frost on August 3, 2009 3:45 AM,

Critics like Ebert etc like to fantasize idiotic competitions and hierarchies and invent `x vs x` scenarios because it makes them sound all the more `expert-ee` (coz a good amount of the pretense required for a professional critic to exist would be lost without them). I recommend a healthy dose of irony and humour when approaching such opinions.

I'm in.

My nomination (#6), and vote, has a tinge of irony given my input over on the Ben Stein thread. :)

Randy

on July 19, 2009 at 1:24 AM I earned my dime. :)

I didn't think the painting on the wall behind the desk was important, but...

"It's called "Horsey-Angels" by Norman Rockwell."

A new cartoon has magically appeared on the New Yorker web site, showing a familiar scene out of "Gulliver's Travels."(published in 1726)

Site: Lilliput is named after the real area of Lilliput on the shores of Lough Ennell in Ireland. Swift was a regular visitor to the Rochfort family at Gaulstown House. When he looked across the expanse of Lough Ennell one day and saw the tiny human figures on the opposite shore of the lake...

In the novel, Gulliver washes up on the shore of Lilliput and is captured by the inhabitants while asleep. Lilliput and Blefuscu are two fictional island nations in the South Indian Ocean, separated by a channel eight hundred yards wide. Both are inhabited by tiny people who are "not six inches high".

Lilliput and Blefuscu were understood to be satirical portraits of Great Britain and France. Gulliver offers his services to the Emperor of Lilliput and captures the (one-twelfth sized) Blefuscudian fleet. Despite a triumphant welcome, he soon finds himself at odds with the Emperor of Lilliput, as he declines to conquer the rest of Blefuscu for him and to force the Blefuscudians to adopt Little-Endianism.

Gulliver's decision is based on the Tory government's withdrawal from the War of the Spanish Succession, despite the opposition of Britain's allies. Swift, a Tory, argues on behalf of the policy.

Eventually, Gulliver is condemned as a traitor by the Council of Lilliput, and sentenced to be blinded; he escapes his punishment by fleeing to Blefuscu. (end)

That's the background. Cartoon #203 introduces an element of absurdity by adding a Dominatrix in leather corset and black boots with a whip.

Gulliver could easily free himself by rolling over. Is he going to be submissive? Is the Dominatrix a symbol of how a husband submits to the will of his wife in a marriage?

but, why listen to me? When I heard about the new Adam Sandler-Seth Rogan movie, I thought the title was "Furry People." And I thought Rogan was doing the voice of a gerbil.

"No, Lord Voldermort can't win." Not much suspense when the game is rigged. In "Casablanca," Rick Blaine didn't wind up with the girl and we all understood. Find the audience's expectations and do the opposite? What do we expect from a six-inch Dominatrix?

"Our divorce left Gulliver with his dignity intact. I'm going to fix that."

kerry of inframan wrote on August 2, 2009 6:46 PM -

"I celebrated not being picked by making peach ice cream from fresh peaches (yes I picked them off a tree) and cream, sugar, eggs etc. in my churn. I find it better to celebrate not winning lotteries or being selected or for neither winning, placing , or show. I'm enjoying a bowl right now. If I had enough, I'd share with all the bloggers who frequent this site. In lieu of that, here's spoonin' at you kids."

ICE CREAM! (Jumping up and down!)

May I say, how greatly I admire the manner in which you celebrate disappointments. :)

And fresh peaches!! Where do you live? I'm in British Columbia, Canada. We get peaches here in Vancouver from further inland, ie: the Okanagan Valley. And where there's a Lake with a MONSTER. But I digress...

Ever make Gelati?

ITALIAN PEACH GELATO

4 cups whole milk
4 ripe peaches, peeled, pitted and chopped (makes about 2 cups)
Juice of 1 lemon
3/4 cup sugar
4 egg yolks

In a medium saucepan, heat the milk over medium heat until bubbles form around the edges of the saucepan. Set aside and cover to keep hot.

In a blender or food processor, purée the peaches, lemon juice and 1/4 cup of the sugar until smooth; then pour it into a bowl and set aside.

Rinse out your blender/food proceesor. You need it again.

Now beat the remaining 1/2 cup of sugar and the eggs yolks until very thick. With the machine still running, gradually add the hot milk. Then pour your mixture back into the saucepan.

Cook that sugar, egg and milk mixture over medium heat, stirring constantly with a wooden spoon for about 6 - 8 min, or until it thickens and coats the spoon. Remove from heat, set the saucepan in a bowl of ice water. Stir for 2 minutes to help cool it down.

Now stir in the peaches!

Cover and place in the fridge for 2 hrs or until chilled.

Transfer mixture to an ice cream maker, etc. There ya go!

Makes enough for 6 people or one REALLY hungry person; smile.

Random observation, the first caption goes together very well with the picture of the hanging Chad that Roger posted.

Random observation, the first caption goes together very well with the picture of the hanging Chad that Roger posted.

Pssst! Siddharth! Quickly! Get all your friends to vote! There are more smart people in India than the entire population of the United States! Call them! Call them! Call them!

Perhaps a small step in my secret plan for world domination, but every step counts!

I'm surprised that through all of this I haven't seen reference to the great article on Slate about how to win the New Yorker caption contest.

http://www.slate.com/id/2192564/?from=rss

He gets it exactly right. And with that in mind, I'd vote for #11, "Just be yourself in there."

"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH"

This contest would be more interesting if it was turned into a "Your Caption Sucks" festival. There are some serious contenders here.

Hi. Yes. Question:

I've already voted, but is it too late to change my vote to Marie Haws's Italian peach gelato recipe?

Look, forget putting captions on these cartoons. I for one wouldn't be crushed if the New Yorker dispensed with the captions altogether and simply ran humorous pictures above mouthwatering dessert recipes.

Quick, anybody got a recipe for devil's food cake?

Sorry dude, I tried to get you in the running:

(By Dan Tillman:
"Make sure to tell him he's been losing weight.")

But I see another one from my original short list that made me laugh aloud, so off I go to vote.

Let me be the first to proclaim
"Bill Hays" be the winner's name
It would sure be sublime
To grant a shiny new dime
To the guy who wrote, "God's a con game."

(By Dan Tillman:
"Make sure to tell him he's been losing weight.")

I'd'a voted for that one if it was "Make sure to tell him I've been losing weight."

I voted for #6, and my finger didn't even slip on the keyboard.

I thought up a better version of my own entry:

"You know, He's still angry that you got the final cut on 'Transformers.'"

Brendan Frost,

"I didn't mean god is not a nazi."

I was really confused trying to make the connection in that comparison, and am glad to see there wasn't meant to be one.

"Ebert: I don't say great work is play, I say it can look like play. Melville's prose flows so fluently. Nabokov has a tangible joy in his writing. Joyce worked very hard, but if you listen to an audiobook of Ulysses read by Irish actors, you realize how much of the novel has the lilt of Irish conversation. Mann strikes me as more of a bricklayer."

Since you once bestowed me with the title of the C.P. Snow of your blog, I want to offer my $0.02 in defense of Thomas Mann. The work of all the novelists you two have cited discernibly emerged from each one's culture of origin. Mann was as distinctly German as Joyce was Irish, Melville 19th century New Englander, Kafka Jewish Austro-Hungarian, or Kosinski a Jewish survivor of WWII Poland. Mann spoke for the Lost Generation from the other side of the Armistice Line just as eloquently as Hemingway spoke for those on our side.

Mann wrote almost entirely in the Bildungsroman genre, typical of his place and time. He and Hermann Hesse were probably its most accomplished practitioneers. However, you can even see the same elements in Joseph Conrad (a Pole who wrote in English) and Charles Dickens, for that matter.

Germans are very thorough, very precise, and very exacting. Sometimes this style seems plodding to Americans, but they're not all bricklayers. They were the ones who put Neil Armstrong on the Moon, and first dreamed of going there. As a novelist, Mann was a true Handwerker (craftsman), not merely an Arbeiter (laborer), and for that he truly deserved the Nobel he received.

No, he's not as great as Goethe, but who is?

Ebert: I can't disagree. But now what about Wodehouse?

I voted for #2 ("And you are..."), which I kind of did first but was too lazy to go look up what David Spade said, so, turned it into two jokes in one...about David Spade and the fact that god can take away the devil's employees at will.

"Funny, I get to sit at my own desk and you two have to fight over the left or right human shoulder to be on."

Just changed it up a little, but am still not exactly satisified with this tweaking.

Roger:

This is an unrelated post to the Cartoon Caption Contest.

I just read the article you posted from Jay Robert Nash, about his "Dillinger Conspiracy Theory." According to Nash, John Dillinger joins the long list of famous criminals who supposedly faked their own deaths, fooled the lawmen and the general public, and disappeared into obscurity. (Similar theories have been given for John Wilkes Booth, Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Adolph Hitler, Rudolph Hess, and of course, Lee Harvey Oswald.)

I've read some of Nash's books. His "Bloodletters and Badmen" and "Encyclopedia of Spies" are very entertaining and informative for crime buffs. But when it comes to Dillinger, like most conspiracy theorists, he tends to fudge the facts and overlook common sense to support his theories.

In Nash's article on your web site, you show the FBI's "Dillinger death mask" alongside a photo of John Dillinger. (I've seen that death mask in person. It's on display in the FBI's museum at the Hoover Bldg in Washington DC.)

The caption on the picture asks, "Do these look like the same man?"

The fact is, they do. If you compare the death mask with the photo of Dillinger, the shape of the head, the shape of the eyes, nose, lips, chin, the position of the hairline, the shape of the moustache, the lines under the cheekbones -- they are all more or less the same. Even Dillinger's famous chin dimple, which he supposedly paid a plastic surgeon to try to remove, is slightly visible. The scar under the right eye on the death mask marks the place where the fatal bullet exited from Dillinger's face.

According to Nash, the man the FBI shot outside the Biograph Theater in 1934 was a Dillinger look-alike. If so, he must have borne an incredible resemblance to Dillinger, enough to fool the gathered crowds who saw him lying on the sidewalk before the body was carried away by the FBI agents.

Think of that! Dillinger not only had a look-alike in this world, but one who lived within the Chicago area! It's amazing that this man, whoever he was, was not mistaken for Dillinger more often, and arrested on numerous occasions. Amazing too that this look-alike did not think to shave off his moustache so that he would not be mistaken for Dillinger.

I won't go into a lengthy discussion of Nash's forensics in spouting his "Dillinger theory" (i.e. Dillinger's eye color and all that). I will simply point out the fatal flaw that his theory -- and all conspiracy theories in general, from JFK to 9/11 -- have in common. They assume that the conspirators got away with it, and that nobody who was involved in the conspiracy ever blew the whistle.

If Nash's theory about Dillinger's death is correct, it is surprising that no one -- no disgruntled former FBI agent who was at the Biograph in 1934, no local Chicago law enforcement agent who felt (as many did then) that the FBI was encroaching on their territory -- no one involved in the so-called "Dillinger cover-up" has come forward to expose it. No one involved has written a tell-all book saying, "I was there! I saw what *really* happened!"

People have enemies. Hoover and the FBI had many, especially in the law enforcement community. Enemies have a way of exposing each other's dirty secrets. Even Melvin Purvis eventually became one of Hoover's enemies. Purvis was fired from the FBI two years after Dillinger's death. Many feel his dismissal was because Hoover was jealous of Purvis, and the attention he was receiving in the national press. If there was a Dillinger cover-up, why didn't Purvis use that secret to blackmail Hoover to let him keep his job at the FBI? If Purvis knew the FBI's dirty secret about the death of Dillinger, Hoover was certainly taking a big risk in dismissing him from his job so vindictively.

One thing I've noticed about Jay Robert Nash. He tends to subscribe to the old "Liberty Valance" adage, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." For example, in his article on your web site, Nash says it was Dillinger, not Clyde Barrow, who told a farmer to keep his own money during a bank robbery.

However, in his book, "Bloodletters and Badmen," Nash says that it was *Pretty Boy Floyd* who told the farmer to keep his money.

In fact, it doesn't matter whether it was Floyd, Dillinger, or Barrow who did this. The point of the legend is that the bank robbers became temporary heroes to the people of the Great Depression, who were losing their money due to the failures of banks. In Nash's mind, the legend has become fact.

Growing up in South Carolina, my dad knew Melvin Purvis. As a teenager, he delivered laundry to Purvis from the local laundromat, and was a classmate and friend of Purvis's son. He says Purvis once told him about that night at the Biograph in 1934. According to Purvis, he recognized John Dillinger's face the moment that Dillinger walked out of the movie and into the theater lobby with Anna Sage. Purvis had no doubts at all about the identity of the man who was shot outside the theater that night.

One more thing. My dad saw the movie, "Public Enemies." He says Christian Bale gave a good performance as Melvin Purvis, and his character in the film was somewhat reminiscent of the real Purvis. But, my dad says, in terms of physical resemblance, Christian Bale looks nothing like the real Purvis. According to my dad, the only actor he ever knew who actually looked like Melvin Purvis was Donald O'Conner.

Ebert: I've known Nash since my first week in Chicago. I find him endlessly fascinating. I, too, think Dillinger was really shot outside the Biograph. But when he responded to the Answer Man query with that piece, I was delighted to run it.

As for the photo and the death mask, as we hear in "The Lady Eve" -- "Definitely the same guy."

To Dave van Dyke:

Bill Hays had a good one, yes sir
But your limerick? I must demur
It won't take Hef's mansion
To see that the scansion
Is quaint, with a beat that has fur.

But as for complaints, I'm no lodger
I too am an unartful dodger
The two of us share
This verse-homely compare
With our eminent Host, name of Ebert.

Like nails on the ol' blackboard, innit?

Man, I wish I could have gotten in on this...slipped past my radar!

I would have sent in:

In the words of Roman Polanski, “I’m not falling for that one.”

You know what another frustrating contest is? Getting something in Roger Ebert's Little Movie Glossary. Three times I've thought I've come up with some pretty funny ones and haven't gotten a response. Phooey.

Ebert: Sorry. I lack time to respond to all the Answer Man e-mail. I've got my hands filled here.

Some reviews of "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" may not appear until Saturday. (If I get any of this wrong, I apologize in advance.) Paramount has decided not to invite the Usual Suspects to early showings. Why? Bad reviews of "Transformers 2".
.
Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures. "After the chasm we experienced with `Transformers 2' between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote `G.I. Joe.' We want audiences to define this film."

"GI Joe" has a reported negative cost of $175 million.
Somewhere around $300 million in both production and marketing is on the line. Producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura (also doing "The Stars My Destination," one of my favorites) might have had some input. Also, Hasbro toys.

Hasbro says the existing fan base for "Transformers" was 15 million, compared to 25 million for "GI Joe" toys. Which means, theoretically, they can't be hurt on opening weekend.

The movie's soundtrack was released today (New Music Tuesday) and I went out looking for it, but found instead both a paperback and a graphic novel from the movie. Same story. So, I was able to analyze the story/script without seeing the movie or hearing the music. A huge part of our enjoyment of "Star Wars" came from the best movie soundtrack of all time, by John Williams, and Alan Silvestri isn't in the same league.

The story? OK, the story has three plot twists, and I can understand why Paramount didn't want hundreds of reviewers giving any of them away. I think I agree with Paramount's decision. Let the die-hard G.I. Joe fans see the movie on Friday night without any story details revealed, or a critic's opinion that it deserves one, two, or three stars. On Saturday morning, let the reviews appear. but NO SPOILERS.

This isn't an Oscar-worthy movie. It's a $175 million showcase for really nifty soldier toys that you'll be able to buy your kids for Christmas. By that standard, it's pretty good. Much better than Transformers 2. And I'm saying that because neither Green Day nor Linkin Park have songs on the soundtrack album.

I don't think soldiers are the most fascinating people. The idea behind boot camp and drab uniforms is to drain the initiative and individuality out of teenagers, and make them so numb, they can point a rifle or a bazooka at the enemy and kill them. So, to be realistic, you're not going to get fascinating characters. The Army complained that the soldiers in "Hurt Locker" would never be allowed on an ordinance disposal team, and they should know.

Without seeing "GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra," I'm going to say 3 stars.

"War is a continuation of business by other means." - From a collection of New Yorker cartoons

Gary,
My great Grandpa was at a bank in South Bend
That John Dillinger robbed with a friend
The friend's name was Van Meter
Who wasn't at the theater
That John Dillinger surely met his end

I didn't think much of his book
With all the liberties that Nash took
One turns a blind eye
To evidence nearby
Nash actually romanced a crook

A criminal's patterns more often than not
Are almost always what get them caught
I get so damned weary
of each conspiracy theory
Of course that's where Dillinger was shot

Consider buying this, everybody. It would make a fantastic independent movie theater:

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/Theater_used_in_Dillinger_shootout_sold_20090715

"Ebert: I can't disagree. But now what about Wodehouse?"

Oh, my. Apparently, some writers I cannot adequately judge. I cannot refute that he had quite the following.

I love to view British comedy on the screen. Terry Thomas movies cracked me up as a kid. Peter Sellers was a riot, so were the Pythons, whether together or individually, especially John Cleese. But I'm undoubtedly speaking to the acting as much or more than the writing. Never got into *reading* British humour. Couldn't even read Doug Adams: had to see his work in movie form. Not really conversant on Wodehouse's political satire, though I know he's quoted as often as H.L. Mencken... and coined figures of speech with the prodigality of Shakespeare.

"Every author really wants to have letters printed in the papers. Unable to make the grade, he drops down a rung of the ladder and writes novels."--P.G.Wodehouse (1932) Before the internet and getting read on Roger's blog became the new standard. Funny enough.

Ebert: "She was feeling like a mother who, in addition to notifying him that there is no candy, has been compelled to strike a loved child on the base of the skull with a stocking full of sand.

I have been following this contest since its inception and am delighted to see it come to fruition. You have truly found the best, and the funniest, caption to this cartoon. Your commenters have put The New Yorker entries (or perhaps those that chose them) to shame. Bravo!

Hey, completely unrelated quick question... did the review of 'Funny People' suddenly lose half a star? I could swear it was 3 and a half stars yesterday...

Ebert: It still says Three and a half stars for me.

The best entry won. Great contest: I'd much rather enter Ebert's caption contest than the New Yorker's.

Roger: Fantastic contest. So many of the entries were terrific, and it's refreshing to see a contest where the best entry actually wins. Truly funny stuff.

It must feel great to know you have such a literate following when so much of the blogosphere is drek. (I'm not including myself, of course.)

Can't wait to do this again.

Will some enlightened soul explain the winning caption since the combined efforts have revealed little beyond the remote possibility of a pun on the word "see". Of course it was an absorbing exercise made all the more so by the Ebert Dime!

Ebert: It could mean "He can see around corners."

Hey, completely unrelated quick question... did the review of 'Funny People' suddenly lose half a star? I could swear it was 3 and a half stars yesterday...

Ebert: It still says Three and a half stars for me.

This may be an issue where your browser loaded the image for the star but failed to do so for the half-star. It can happen; try reloading the page. The converse looks especially weird.

Congratulations, everyone :)

I remember when I got my first paid, published thing... A single piece of flash fiction doesn't exactly qualify one as an author, though, I don't think.

Still, that's great. You can't get taxed for a dime, can you?

I like that "can be seen" does not mean "will be seen for appoinment." It certainly explains why the dark prince is not always fond of the big man.

To the person who thought the "Rush" caption was Brilliant. I would describe it more as simple and boring. I can see Stewie from The Family Guy saying, "You see, I was comparing Rush to Satan," trying to explain the joke.

Hey Marie Haws:

In your gelato recipe you instruct us to "beat the remaining 1/2 cup of sugar and the eggs yolks until very thick. With the machine still running, gradually add the hot milk."

I've always heard about "tempering," where you add some of the hot milk mixture to the eggs, combine, then add that to the rest of the hot milk, to prevent the eggs from scrambling. Please tell me that tempering is a myth; it's the only thing that's kept me from home-making gelati, souffles, custards, etc.

p.s. Roger, this is all your fault: Your blog is now a recipe exchange. If only we could make custard in a rice cooker--or can we?

Ebert: I don't say great work is play, I say it can look like play. Melville's prose flows so fluently. Nabokov has a tangible joy in his writing.

Another author I've found whose joy with language is manifest is Tom Robbins, in particular in Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates.

Woooo! Crushed!

how funny, my submission to the New Yorker was the same theme...i.e., 'That's surprising...he didn't know you were coming.' better be careful if the New Yorker comes after you for copyright infringement...playing a parallel contest with their info...Indeed, they might force you to sit through GI Joe...

Response to Marie Haws,
Thank you for the gelato recipe. Yes in Texas we can get peaches just a thirty minute drive away.
Visited your site and must say your photographs and paintings are absolutely...well...they restoreth my heart. So beautiful...
Smile back at you.

And Roger, what a lovely backyard fence you have built. Makes me look forward to hanging out the virtual wash on the internet clothesline and then lingering to chat with whoever is doing the same.
kerry of inframan

Hi Roger. I got an email from you saying I'd won the caption contest, requesting a pic and bio, etc. This was a surprise to me as I hadn't entered. I figure the mix-up stemmed from the fact that I'd posted on this blog as "John B." a few times.

Regardless, congrats to the other John B. on a well deserved victory!

Ebert: Take a look at the rewritten entry. There doesn't seem to have been another John B. Someone impersonated you, or at least signed the same name. The entry was from "John B." without your e-mail address. You will henceforth be known to me as "The Good John B." Apologies.

So hoist up the john b's e-mails
See how the cartoon sets
Call for the caption ashore
Let me go home, let me go home

Hey!

What's up with your website, Roger? This wasn't here yesterday. I didn't see the announcement/dime photo on the main page - and yet people have been posting in here since August 2nd?

Also, how come links no longer work inside posts? You have to copy and paste them into your browser, instead. I noticed that a week or two ago.

I'm using Firefox (latest version.)

Meanwhile...

gregory wrote on August 2, 2009 10:48 AM

the best one is missing. from marie haws:

"Yes, I do know why he wants to see you – and I’d tell you, 'cause if it were me I’d want to know, but he made me promise not to ruin the surprise."

Awwww! What a nice to say! I've mentally sent you a large bag of unmarked $20's. :)

Ebert: It's that damned spam filter again.

Just kidding. I kept the August 2 entry and its comments, switched the top art, added "Cizien Kane" and rewrote the body.

In other words, except for the handle and the head, it's the same axe.

Hmmph. Philistines.

Late Submission for Cartoon Caption Contest #200:

"Ma'am, I KNOW you have a bathroom around here, somewhere ... Where does HE go then !?"

Sorry if it was late, my dog ate my homework

Congratulations John B. (master scribe) and Gary from Phoenix (tastemaker extraordinaire). What a killer caption!

My caption wasn't chosen because of my Mexican heritage.

Congrats to the winner!

Although I didn't win that shiny dime, I'd like to thank William Ballik for nominating my caption (#12), and for all nine people who voted for me. You like me, you really like me!

Ditto...a wonderfully handled contest. Three cheers for the winner, the nominators, all those who entered, and the host. And a little question off the subject: I just watched "Man on Wire", which I thoroughly enjoyed, and was watching the credits and enjoying the music. Its a moment when I process a little of what I have just seen and heard and experienced, and I wondered, does anyone else sit through the credits or is that weird?

Ebert: "She was feeling like a mother who, in addition to notifying him that there is no candy, has been compelled to strike a loved child on the base of the skull with a stocking full of sand."

How did you know I was a Sox fan?

Thwack!

That you, sir, may I have another?

Thank you, Roger, for affirming my blamelessness. Though I was looking forward eagerly to the Limerick Contest, I understand completely that you now want all contests to be shrinking in your rear-view mirror.

Guess I feel a lot like Kurt Vonnegut when he wrote "A Nazi Sympathizer Defended at Some Cost," about Louis-Ferdinand Céline, in PALM SUNDAY. I still LOVE the "winning" caption, no matter where it came from . . .

Deception and fraud? Where?

I don't see any.

Reply to: Horror and confusion! I checked my message archive and found that someone posting as John B. submitted the entry on July 21 at 1:21 p.m. But this poster did not include an e-mail address. In all of Good John B.'s messages, he includes one without fail. Apparently someone, who I will call Fake John B., submitted the entry

How many people (out of all the ones who visit this site on a regular basis) are named John? And have a last name beginning with a "B"?

I see no reason to call our contest winner a "fake" anything.

Of course, we're missing the point, which was to brainstorm the New Yorker contest so that Roger can win. I'm proud that we're all better equipped to enter that contest now. In fact, I don't think we've scratched the surface of the brainstorming possibilities.

Since I'm sharing... on Sunday night, I got as far as typing "Caption 4" in the message line of my email, but I didn't send it. I decided to use the remaining 36 hours to give the bottom half of the menu a second look.

I think there was a clear winner. OK, maybe not a winner by "Chicago Rules," since we haven't established that any dead guys voted.

If asked, I would have to say that I never entered the contest, either. I posted my caption before I knew there was going to be a contest, and if asked, I would have chosen

"No, Lord Voldemort can't win."

because everyone here is movie-oriented.

I'm wondering how long the New Yorker will treat the Ebert Contest as a welcome ad for their contest, and not a copyright infringement. Because we do a MUCH better job of choosing winners than they do.

Ebert: I'm responding to the fact that the caption seems to have been greatly inspired by the one posted elsewhere several days earlier.

Thank you Marie Haws (and my 20 new friends), Thank you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU#t=2m29s

Wadda minute wadda minute, do Marie and I get three cents each?

So "John B" is the online version of Capra's " John Doe" !!!!

(cue twilight zone theme)

So, there may only be one person with the same first name and same last initial on the internet, or someone gets accused of trickery and deceit?

In all seriousness, Roger, take a break; drink some wine; spend time with people; get thee away from the screen.

No, he's not as great as Goethe, but who is?

None. Period.

because everyone here is movie-oriented

I tend to be orient-moved.

Sorry it didn't work out as well as you'd hoped, Roger. At least you tried.

It seems like a movie discussion has broken out. Brendan Frost seemed to hit it that you should also have a movie blog. This blog seems to have moved in several interesting directions but one dedicated to movies would be nice. Maybe not just comments on current reviews but perhaps you could pick a classic movie per week or a film topic per week to discuss.

I have a caption for it. "I'm here to turn in the script to Transformers 3".

Roger,
I loved this contest. Your blog is always entertaining, but this was fun!
Please don't let this mishap spoil other contests. It makes me feel like I'm in grade school again, and all the kids had to stay after school because one kid broke the rules.

Interestingly most of the nominations had little or nothing to do with the devil being at the desk.

Unfortunately it appears that you have disenfranchised 87 voters. Thus, it really would only be fair if you have another election. If those votes were spread among the other 17 entries, you might get a different winner. For example, most of those voters might vote for say, I don't know . . . . number 13.

IF this was a movie, I'm thinking that Roger and Gary of Phoenix should would forces and go on an international manhunt for Fake John B, who is always one step ahead of the intrepid duo. There would naturally have to be some classy chase scenes involved, including one on a train.

Just don't let Michael Bay direct, it'd just be two hours of explosions and one of you would be replaced with Flipper or Heman.

Damn.

I was going to suggest a contest for favorite movie line. I have an entry that I want to submit.

Oh well.

Sorry it didn't work out. It was a valiant and inspiring try.

Randy

Or, along with a blog about film as vital art write a blog about how movies have affected you.. how your lifetime of exposure to the arts that you use to pepper your reviews with have affected you. In other words, write about what you know. Write passionately. Pick an occasion to rise to (or not). Take a risk. Revisit something you wrote in a book once, some point you felt was important making, and expand on it. You must have some interesting insights into a medium you have invested a busy life investigating. Something beyond why Transformers is not worthwhile viewing (gee Roger, really).

I just checked my wallet, and also in the bathroom mirror, and I am indeed me. Or a close facsimile.
Thanks to my 14 caption-fans.
But the best caption actually won!

Reply to: on July 13, on the website runningwithbluesponge.com, the caption

"He's omnipresent you ninny. Of course He's in."

appeared under Cartoon #200. Only a coincidence? Or was the Fake John B. "inspired?"

Reply to: Ebert: I'm responding to the fact that the caption seems to have been greatly inspired by the one posted elsewhere several days earlier.

EXHIBIT A: 4.

"He's omniscient. Of course he can see you now."

So, the word "omniscient" doesn't appear in the other caption?

At the very least, he changed omnipotent to omniscient? And instead of being a deity who is always present, he's a deity who can always see you?

If you're making up a joke about God, you always start with one of the words

omnipotent
omniscient
omnipresent
all-knowing

Theophilus of Antioch in the late 2nd century A.D. wrote, “For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivaled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable.”

From a Christian site picked at random: Because God is all-powerful or omnipotent, nothing and no one in life will defeat Him. No problem is too hard for God to solve. Because God is omniscient or all-knowing and is omnipresent or everywhere, nothing surprises Him. His immutability or unchanging character, sovereignty, eternality, immortality, greatness, and self-existence all point to the exclusive nature of His deity (end)

In many Christian schools, you can't make the Honor Roll until you memorize this drivel. So, seeing a cartoon where God sits behind a desk and coming up with "omniscient" doesn't suggest any kind of improper copying to me.

If they had both used the word "omnipotent," or they had BOTH used the word "omniscient"... but they didn't.

I come from a family where a "Rolex" was the thing on the wall that dispenses toilet paper.

I came from a high school where "safe sex" meant they were married to each other.

I had to teach my wife how to drive, so I'd have a way to get home from parties.

In other words, I steal all my material from Jeff Foxworthy, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

Having re-claimed the moral high ground, the defense rests.

I don't think he's Bad John B either. For the sake of a neutral distinction from Good John B, let's call him Sloop John B.

His entry, similar to one posted elsewhere earlier, is superior to that one in every way. "He's omnipresent you ninny. Of course He's in" is full of lightning-bugs, whereas "He's omniscient. Of course he can see you now" is pure lightning. The similarity is no proof of plagiarism, anyway, while the superiority of the second is proof of talent.

Having said that, I have a philosophical objection to the whole idea of the New Yorker cartoon caption contest. I understand that it is fun to enter,and I attest that it is kind of fun to follow, and maybe these two facts are all the justification it needs. However:

Any good cartoon is an expression of ONE idea. The Thurber "Touche" cartoon is genius because it is an organic whole. He had to have had the whole idea at once because the picture and the caption are only funny when they're together. (The drawing, like any of Thurber's, is charming by itself, but it doesn't make you laugh without the caption.) He thought the EVENT--someone saying this while doing that--he had conceived of was funny, and so he drew it and wrote it. Few great single-panel cartoons, I submit, are the result of two separate ideas: "here's a drawing that is potentially funny" and "here, from a completely separate moment of inspiration, is a caption that makes the drawing pay off."

This is the flaw in the New Yorker's contest. They have their excellent cartoonists come up with a wacky situation, and stop there. Inevitably, the drawings seem devised to be stumpers--"Let's give 'em Satan at the desk of God's receptionist and see what they can do with it"--rather than an organic expression of anything. I suppose this is the nature of a contest, and this contest is fun, after all. But even the best submitted captions can seem like a square peg jammed into a round hole sometimes.

Sloop John B's entry, for instance, is my favorite and the most popular with the voters, despite being disqualified (for reasons that are debatable, but let that pass). But even it doesn't fit the whole drawing smoothly. The caption has nothing to do with the fact that it is Satan there at the desk: it would be just as funny if it were a man with a briefcase there, or a kid, or a minister, priest and rabbi. Considering the cartoon as a machine, Sloop John B's caption makes the fact that it's Satan into an unnecessary moving part: it doesn't do anything.

Ebert: I withdraw the name "Fake John B." and will use "Other John B." or "Sloop John B." interchangeably.

'Twas nice while it lasted ! But fraud seems too heavy a judgement since the caption which inspired the "fake" seems sufficiently remote to call it plagiarism, and it is not certain if A is deliberately posing as B, which would be daft not to say pointless. But one can't give a coveted Dime to Anonymous John. Perchance thou wert jokin'?

Good John B. Fake John B. What ever happened to Sloop John B?

I was a little bummed that my caption wasn't nominated. And a little more bummed that the caption I nominated didn't make the list. And bummed some more when I was 12 hours too late to vote. Now you tell me there was fraud! I live in NJ so I got my share of fraud.

Let's talk about long hot summers and free range kids. Write an entry about moving out of your childhood home and into the college dorm.

Congratulations to the real winners!

TL

I'm honored that you've bestowed this moniker upon me, Roger. :)

I'm willing to give the other John B. the benefit of the doubt though. Given how common my first name is, it must often be paired with last names beginning with B.

Regardless, I'm sorry that your contest wasn't the roaring success you had hoped for.

What role does Sloop John B. play in all this?

I dont get it. What are people voting on? It says the voting was closed and all the winners have been chosen already - even one prize has been awarded.
So what are we sending to the answerman?

Ebert: Nothing for now.

What I took away from this the most was the subjective nature of humor. I, personally, didn't care for some of the highest voted captions, some of the ones with only three or one vote I found strangely witty.

So what is more valuable, the belly laugh or the chuckle? The instinct is to go for the belly laugh, because, well, it's harder and more memorable. I am more inclined to go for the chuckle, I think, because it's harder to earn.

That's not to say that belly laughs can't be well earned. For instance Olive's performance at the end of Little Miss Sunshine is a huge laugh that has been building the entire picture. An example of one this year would be the Hall and Oats sequence in 500 Days of Summer.

Then again, I loved The Hangover, and that was nothing BUT belly laughs. However, that movie was funny throughout, and a lot of 'belly laugh' comedies forget to bring the jokes in the final act and get busy with that darn plot thing.

Perhaps that's the difference between an okay and a good comedy. A film that can still bring the humor in the final acts.

Colton Turcotte wrote on August 5, 2009 4:43 PM:
My caption wasn't chosen because of my Mexican heritage.

So you were the one with the caption "Why, of course I remember The Alamo!"

Roger: friend. Were only you on the election board for the State of Florida that fateful year.

Even if the now-winning caption sucks even worse.

Roger,

Please don't cancel the limerick contest! It's not fair to punish the whole class just because one or two kids copied their neighbors' homework. Lots of the "good kids" in class were looking forward to submitting a limerick.

Yeah, Roger, please don't cancel future contests. I think 95% of us are honest, and it was rather fun.

I still think #12 was the best. :)

:pout:

Ebert: I'll keep an open mind.

Phooey, I kind of wanted that Michael Jackson one to win in its awfulness.

Any chance Fake John B is a mole from The New Yorker, seeking to sabotage?

Roger,

I concur with previous requests not to cancel the limerick contest or any other contests you might have in mind. Let's not give the fake contestant the satisfaction of thinking that he ruined your contests for yourself and for the rest of us. Rather, let's show him and others like him that we aren't intimidated by web terrorists and trolls.

Here's a practical suggestion. In future contests, you can require that only posts with email addresses shall be considered.

Better late than never: May a conservative balance out the Rush entry?

Receptionist speaking:

"Sir? The teachers' union rep stipulates to intelligent design, but maintains your painting of the origin of species betrays a sense of humor that is distinctly unevolved.'

Ebert wrote: It's that damned spam filter again. Just kidding. I kept the August 2 entry and its comments, switched the top art, added "Cizien Kane" and rewrote the body.

OH!

Penny drops. Or should I say dime? :)

I'm still working on my Spam Filter cartoon - I keep revising it. And it's gonna be in color so you can see the blood.

Jennifer Morrow wrote on August 4, 2009 9:28 AM - "Quick, anybody got a recipe for devil's food cake?"

I do - but I can't find it! I've been looking ever since you asked! Once I've got it, I'll share it on the blog. It uses Valhrona chocolate. And you make a ganache instead and use that as opposed to a regular icing...

http://tenpoundslighter.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ganache.jpg

You pour hot heavy-cream over chopped chocolate, and allow the heat of the cream to melt the chocolate while whisking to incorporate the two! It makes a glaze that you then pour over the entire cake - to get that flawless, mirror finish. :)

P.S. each slice of cake is a million calories. The recipe is called Death by Chocolate.

Paul J. Marasa wrote on August 5, 2009 12:27 PM - "I've always heard about "tempering," where you add some of the hot milk mixture to the eggs, combine, then add that to the rest of the hot milk, to prevent the eggs from scrambling. Please tell me that tempering is a myth; it's the only thing that's kept me from home-making gelati, souffles, custards, etc."

Nope, it's not a myth! Ie: let's say you've got 2 cups of hot milk. Instead of pouring the milk into the bowl in 5 seconds, you take maybe 25 sec. It's easy; count as you pour. Then you'll never screw it up. As the heat will otherwise COOK the eggs. That's why you need to go slow - so you don't scare them. :)

kerry of inframan wrote on August 5, 2009 1:35 PM - "Response to Marie Haws, Thank you for the gelato recipe. Yes in Texas we can get peaches just a thirty minute drive away. Visited your site and must say your photographs and paintings are absolutely...well...they restoreth my heart. So beautiful...
Smile back at you."

That's kind of you to say, thank-you!

And Texas, eh?! Now let me see.. ah hah!

SIMPLE TEXAS PEACH TEA

4 cups boiling water
3 to 5 (2g) tea bags, tied together
3 to 5 small peaches, seeds removed, cut into slices

Drop in the peach slices into a medium size container, add tea bags, then pour in boiling water. Steep for 3 to 5 minutes. Sweeten to taste THEN chill. :)

Karl wrote on August 5, 2009 6:36 PM - Thank you Marie Haws (and my 20 new friends), Thank you!

Wadda minute wadda minute, do Marie and I get three cents each?"

I get a some money?!

And what's this about a bogus caption entry? Someone signing himself John B. posted the winning entry: "He's omniscient. Of course he can see you now." But in truth, he was just pretending to be the good John B. And so a FAKE guy won - and moreover using a caption remarkably similar to one since found elsewhere?!

Gee.

I guess he's not afraid of karma. :)

Ebert: I'm thinking I was too hard on Sloop John B., since similar captions could have certainly occurred independently.

'You can see Him now; He's just talking to Himself.'
can't resist...

I had to flip a mental coin to decide which caption to vote for, but neither of my 2 favorites were in the top 4. Apparently my sense of humor is a bit strange.

You're cancelling the limerick contest? Oh, the horror...

cosmic coincidence or not I was listening to Sloop John B. at the time of reading this blog. Therefore I suggest Brian Wilson gets an honorary 'shiny new dime'. Not a real one, of course.

I'm not sure this is so nefarious. The New Yorker gets multiple versions of the same caption every week. I'm sure the "He can see you now" idea was dreamed up by many different people. Plus John B seems like a common name....

Recount, hell! Re-DO!

New caption: "Yes sir, I'll let Him know you're here for the John B. pickup."

I don't know what is more corrupt, Chicago politics or the Roger Ebert Vote for the New Yorker Caption Contest Winner on rogerebert.com!

Or, if you are liberal:

I don't know what is more corrupt, the Bush Administration or the Roger Ebert Vote for the New Yorker Caption Contest Winner on rogerebert.com!

I think you should have a reader send to you their own artistic creation and run your own contest. Lord knows that you have the talent in the reader pool to do it. Screw these hoidy-toidy New Yorker Magazine types. It took me three straight contests to reach the same conclusion: the selected captions for the contest are not funny.

Re the post by R. S. Lindsay on Aug. 4 at 9:03 pm."

This writer about the Dillinger case (missive to you) sadly
typifies too many readers. They don't read. What they do read, they
warp to their preconceived ideas and self-styled expertise (vanity
doth gnaw at us forever). No one at the FBI except Hoover and Purvis
really knew that the wrong man had been killed and neither was going
to talk about that at the expense of their careers. Some few people on the other side-Zarkovich, Audett, Sage and some Dillinger family
members knew the truth and they were not about to talk about it
without jeopardizing themselves. The two pathologists were not about
to take on the FBI in the 1930s and, having shut up, were not about to throw away their pensions by raising the issue.

This reader does not read his own words. When referencing the
death mask, he states: "The scar under the right eye on the death mask marks the place where the fatal bullet exited from Dillinger's face."
Yes, it does show the exit wound of one of the fatal bullets on the
dead man's face, but that does not prove that the mask of the dead man is that of Dillinger, only that the mask was taken from the face of that dead man.

I am weary with all of this nonsense and will not again respond to any such muddle-headed readers. As Rhett said to Scarlett: "Frankly, my
dear, I don't give a damn."

A fellow Arizonian has won. Congrats, no matter who has won. MMM, that's good pride!

I don't think you're being too hard on Fakey J. He hasn't stepped up to claim his reward, has he?

Please have another contest. I didn't get a recipe in on time for your book, and I was too preoccupied last month to enter this contest. Two fun opportunities missed.

Just require an email address, and before you announce a winner, google the quote.

Marie Haws wrote on August 6, 2009 1:27 AM - "I do - but I can't find it! I've been looking ever since you asked! Once I've got it, I'll share it on the blog. It uses Valhrona chocolate. And you make a ganache instead and use that as opposed to a regular icing...

http://tenpoundslighter.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ganache.jpg

You pour hot heavy-cream over chopped chocolate, and allow the heat of the cream to melt the chocolate while whisking to incorporate the two! It makes a glaze that you then pour over the entire cake - to get that flawless, mirror finish. :)

P.S. each slice of cake is a million calories. The recipe is called Death by Chocolate."

HOLY MOLEY, Marie! "Death by Chocolate" is a fine name for that beauty. I think that step-by-step icing diagram counts as food porn.

Okay, lemme see if I can combine all the subthreads in this discussion...

So it seems that John B. is a fake
And perhaps Johnny D.'s a mistake
Give punishment dire
To all those who conspire
The sentence: Death by chocolatey cake.

Egad, not even cartoon caption voting is devoid of fraud. As anyone would under similar circumstances, I reject all other winners and claim my own victorious in all the hullabaloo. All hail the great and wonderful me!

Hey now! I want to enter the limerick contest!

I will respond to James' off-topic post above regarding Purple Rain:

I feel the same way, and asked Roger about this earlier this year. I thought that I recalled a print review specifically mentioning Morris being a great comedian, but apparently not. (I have not searched on Cinemania yet.)

Roger searched for it, and found that he did not review it in print upon release.

-Andi

Back up Contest
I am offering 'a one thin dime' grand prize to anyone who can name the actors in the "fraud at the polls" caption.

*This is subject to approval by the management team at Roger Ebert's Journal.

Even assuming the worst(impersonation and plagiarism) I think despondency should not be allowed to prevail and one must strike back with another contest. Better to be cheated of a hundred Dimes than to lose faith in people, for that leaves us Nothing since He hardly exists, whereas the Other One is conspicuously omnipresent. Let's have that limerick tournament---the knights are already jostling in armour!

Ebert wrote: I'm thinking I was too hard on Sloop John B., since similar captions could have certainly occurred independently.

Looking at it from the perspective of Miss Marple, what are the known facts of the case?

1. Someone named John B. submitted a caption.
2. It won.
3. The John B. who entered the contest, hasn't returned to the blog.
4. The winning caption's similarity to another elsewhere, has since been noticed.

If I entered a contest, I'd check to see if I won - wouldn't you? If I saw my entry had, but another had mistakenly been contacted for sharing the same name as myself, I'd set Roger Ebert straight, so as to claim the highly coveted dime I had so rightly won. :)

What would prevent THAT John B. from returning to do the above?

1. Computer issues.
2. Not feeling well.
3. Went on vacation!
4. Forgot about it.
5. Lost interest.
6. His name isn't really John B. and he found that caption and stole the idea without taking the trouble to think it through - and doesn't want to fess up now 'cause he's embarrassed.

Gee, what sounds most likely? :)

That aside, I'm finally and at long last, going to see "Harry Potter" with my friend today! It's been so hot, for so long, neither of us wanted to take public transportation into Vancouver, preferring to die at home from the heat; chuckle! Currently, it's 70F and overcast. PERFECT!

It's not time yet to walk to my local Skytrain Station though, so I'm puttering in here for a bit.

I saw two amazing Indie films last night; library DVD's.

1. Himalaya - set in Nepal
2. Khodak - Mongolia in the winter time!

Yes that's right; two of the coldest films I could find! :)

Here's Roger's 3 star review of Himalaya:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010706/REVIEWS/107060302/1023

I can't find an Ebert review of Khadak, so here's the official site:

http://www.khadak.com/

NOTE: The trailer is under "visuals".

I can't even begin to describe this one. Beyond saying it's like Fellini goes to Mongolia to tell the story of Bagi, a young nomad confronted with his destiny to become a shaman. It's existential and trippy.

It's also time to catch the train now! Gee, I hope that Harry Potter movie doesn't suck.... smile.

And even the dime sized thumbnail I see it's pretty clear to me that the portrait of Dillinger and that of the plaster cast are the same man.
It's not impossible a Dillinger look alike got shot mistakenly; but, usually the simplest theory is the correct one.
'course, I also thrown in with Mark Furman, that awful 'racist', that OJ was guilty beyond words, too.
Wanna argue that instead?

I so wanted an Ebert Shiny New Dime(ESND) to show off to my friends and family.

I had the vision of the scene from the boy's restroom in Sixteen Candles and the panties of Samantha Baker for all to see. There I would stand at parties and family gatherings, holding high over my head the professionally laminated ESND, my family and friends ohing and ahing, giving me unearned love and approval and dare I say, a bit of awe, because I had my very own ESND. Oh, the joy. And one of my nephews in fifty years taking it the the Antiques Roadshow and finding out that it was worth ten cents, because in his later years Roger Ebert gave away a lot of shiny new dimes.

But I got into the blog way to late and decided that no one would vote for the very last entry. But if I had submitted it would have been, "You want to know what date the End of Eternity is?" Which by the way, my best friend laughed at, but maybe that's was only a love and loyalty thing because we've known each other for over 20 years.

Any way, congratulations to the lucky winners. I did have fun laughing at a lot of the submissions and couldn't decide who to nominate.

Now my entry for the new cartoon caption contest for the New Yorker involving Gulliver and the Lilliputian dominatrix (which are two words I never thought I'd type) is inspired by the movie Semi-Tough(I think that's the one) from the 70's or early 80's with Burt Reynolds and Jill Clayburgh involving a belt, super glue,shag carpet and a cuckholded husband..."We're gonna have us a good time tonight." One of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie.

That would be a good blog Roger after one of the more thoughtful ones you write on, scenes from movies that can still make you laugh.

Everyone here has got to admit that the right guy won. Just look at his bio. Nobody's bio would have been as perfect as that one. My hat's off to him. He's obviously very witty, original and has got the heart of a comic. Well played, sir.

Ebert: Uh, that's the bio of the nominator. The winner, Sloop John B., hasn't shown up.

What?! John B. was a fake. That's good shamelessness!

I had to look up November 24, 1859 on "This Day in History"... that's my new favorite entry. Not that it matters now! But it did harken back to the days when many of the New Yorker cartoons were pretty much incomprehensible...

NO ONE SUBMITTED "THE DEVIL, YOU SAY ?!"

needs the proper spoken inflection. . .

great books, great movies, great food; got it all, Dear Ebert!
take care. . .

GREAT Contest! Very entertaining! Alas, I am not witty enough to think up great captions, so I sat on the sidelines and had a very nice time observing.

RE: S.Olivares on August 5, 2009 5:13 PM

"And a little question off the subject: I just watched "Man on Wire", which I thoroughly enjoyed, and was watching the credits and enjoying the music. Its a moment when I process a little of what I have just seen and heard and experienced, and I wondered, does anyone else sit through the credits or is that weird?"

Of COURSE I sit through the credits! Not only do you get to catch some really odd stuff sometimes stuck in at the end of them, but you get to see who does the catering!

And now for some off-topic proselytizing: EVERYONE GO SEE THE HURT LOCKER!

Poor Roger is no longer awed
With contests that might be quite flawed
"The limerick is out
'Cause I want no more doubt
When I choose a new John B. to laud"

Ebert: i may have a contest again
about how to invent a new sin.
Involving adultery, stealing,
the national debt ceiling,
and sex with a matrilineal kin.

I didn't get any sleep today, so I don't know what the hell is going on.

Well, I think that the Good (Sloop) John B deserves at least a shiny nickel for his honesty... I do so wish that you would go ahead with the limerick contest, and maybe an haiku contest, and a "Finish this sentence..." contest...

Don't let one bad apple spoil the whole barrel, please! I implore with whole heart! Cease your throat's ululations of wild goat cries! Be happy that your true readers are not just intelligent, erudite, and well-read, but actually honest, as well! Not just anyone would turn down the honor of a personally-sent dime from you. Nay, sir, GJB epitomizes the essence of the true Ebert Journal reader. I honor him! Those of us who submitted both captions and votes with glee are eager to contribute.

All right. No more begging.

Pleasepleasepleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaasssssssseeeeeee!

Ahem.

Right, then.

Ebert: Those sound like fun contests, but...

I dunno. The caption contest more or less grew out of the original blog entry. If I started having many contests, wouldn't it look lazy?

"Finish this sentence," hmmm? Sounds promising...

"The doorknob opened a blue eye and..."

To Marie Haws,
Texas Peach Tea it is. Made homemade chocolate truffle ice cream in my handy dandy little ice cream maker. Smooth, dark, rich, and may I say decadent, yeah even us Texicans like to say decadent every once in a while. I hope Harry Potter was worth the farthing. I have spent the past few evenings watching James Mason films from the late forties and early fifties, wonderful oldies made during the war and shortly after. Also watched the latest set #14 of David Jason's A Touch of Frost, three cracking good police procedurals set in Denton UK with wonderful writing and acting and better then most of what's showing at the theater.
ROGER,
I've been fighting writer's block. So today I drove over to the Steak and SHake and had a Steakburger with cheese, wolfed it down and came home and all things became clear and wrote my prologue and chapter one. The Muse likes Meat! Of course I asked for extra pickles and heavy on the creative juices.
k. of i.

The picture on the wall is the defining feature.

'God will see you now regarding the sexually reprobate behavior of his beloved protozoa.'

Ebert: "It's a Polaroid he took of the Big Bang."

Thank you, thank you, thank you for alerting me to the existence of the anti-caption contest on radosh.net. The "worst possible captions" are much funnier than the "best possible" ones! Fantastic.
Your blog is one of three or four I read avidly - keep up the great work.

That's a shame, but still, what fun!

I'm breaking a few scholarly rules about Limericks, but here goes (assuming Marie Haws has the right of it).

I'm sure 'Sloop John B' thought it witty
But think on it: actually sh*tty.
He wasted our time —
He won't claim the dime —
And Roger cried Foul, more's the Pity.

Ebert: "The doorknob opened a blue eye and..."

...our man, Flynt, stepped through it with the relaxed tension of a jungle cat.

Ebert: "It's a Polaroid he took of the Big Bang."

Heyo (rimshot)! That's a really good one!

Ebert: i may have a contest again
about how to invent a new sin.
Involving adultery, stealing,
the national debt ceiling,
and sex with a matrilineal kin.

I'm really trying to come up with one which ends with calling said sin the Aristocrats. A used joke, I admit, from a couple of threads ago. In fact, I think it was one of the comments submitted about Satan in God's waiting room. Still, it seems to fit. Except in a good limerick.

The doorknob opened a blue eye and took in the room, took in the rapt pale eyes of the staring child, and winked, just once.

Reply to: Now my entry for the new cartoon caption contest for the New Yorker involving Gulliver and the Lilliputian dominatrix (which are two words I never thought I'd type)

Ebert: i may have a contest again
about... sex with a matrilineal kin.

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, indeed.

If you've been watching "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien," or "The Jimmy Fallon Show," it's painfully obvious that some jokes don't work. If Jay Leno is going to give us stand-up five nights a week, he needs some better writers. His staff has been with him long enough to have grown children; Leno is a corporation.

What makes a good joke? I thought the New Yorker set a standard. They use absurdity to poke fun at worthy targets. Well, those are the cartoons they BUY, not the amateur contest we've been trying to unravel. The ones that wind up in books sold in bookstores:

Imagine a middle-aged woman sitting in a cubicle, talking into a headset:

"Instead of putting you on hold, would you like a little phone sex while you wait?"

Or a boss talking to an employee near retirement age:

"The point is, a younger man could jump higher."

Those are some worthy targets to skewer. Older women who still feel young and frisky, but can't do much about it.

"By God, you're not afraid to fail."

We shouldn't be afraid to fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to admit that it might take half an hour, and some hard thinking, to come up with a winning caption. Get into the comedy zone.

OK, for the Gulliver one, I focused on the disparity between the tiny Dominatrix and the rest of the team:

"Doesn't anybody want to make partner? More whips! More corsets!"

I'm not at all sure this will help anyone win The New Yorker Contest, but maybe, just maybe it will.

Find a worthy target to skewer.
Use absurdity to point out the flaw in the system.
Then, dumb it down and shorten it.
Get other people's opinions.

I'm wondering if indeed John B might have read his entry on another site, and brought it here because he admired it, and thought it would elevate our discussion. I did that with a caption for the man on the roof:

"This is Fiedler, on the roof."

At the time, I didn't think it was important to reveal the source... but don't nominate me for that one. There was no intent to deceive. I just thought it was funny.

I didn't think anything in "Funny People" was funny.

Roger,
On an unrelated note, are you not as infuriated as I am about the producers of "G.I. Joe" not giving advanced screenings to critics? It seems ridiculous that, they can get away with these things just because they realize that they make terrible movies they are allowed to keep the public from being enlightened about how terrible the movies they watch in fact are. After all, I think we all know that it is just going to be another "Transformers 2".

Ebert: See my new entry, which touches on that decision.

There's one last caption, you see,
A kind of obituary
"Here lies the scum,
lying bastard and bum,
The despicable Fake John B."

To [the original] Cassandra: "The Devil, you say?" was one of my submissions. Great (and Twisted) Minds think alike!

To Keith Carrizosa: Thanks so much for your endorsement of my bio. It was almost as much fun to write as it was to live!

Say, some of these lim'ricks are funny,
one or two, even a honey.
But if mine doesn't win,
t'would not be a sin,
For the reading alone is kinda cheerful!

Roger, this is odd. I thought email addresses were required before comments can be published on this site. Some sites automatically require this before any comment can be submitted to the moderator.

The picture on the wall is the defining feature.
'God will see you now regarding the sexually reprobate behavior of his beloved protozoa.'
Ebert: "It's a Polaroid he took of the Big Bang."
-------------------------------------------------
I stand corrected; though I didn't dismiss it that others could have observed the 'sentimental portrait' too.
Your caption is quick, all inclusive, and to the point ... and, without prurient interest.
I would have gone mad on that caption, some of us will do anything for a shiny dime ... I'm glad it was already over.
'Very funny captions from so many people.

Fake John B's own dimes must not have been shiny enough.

Um, I was just checking to see if there were any interesting new reviews by Mr. Ebert, and it appears that people are talking about me. That's a bit surreal.

How can I prove I'm the John B in question? Well the logs should show that my previous post came from the same IP address as this one.

For the record, I was not trying to impersonate anyone. I didn't even know that there was another John B posting to the board. And I wasn't "inspired" by an entry by anyone else, on this site or any other.

I wasn't even that happy with my entry. I always think of omniscient having more of an all-knowing meaning more than all-seeing, but I couldn't think of a word that meant all-seeing.

It was just a quick toss-off line. I had zero expectations that I would win. Surreal.

Ebert: I owe you a big apology. I was unfair to assume your entry came from another site, and some posters here believe "omniscent" is funnier than "omnipotent" anyway.

You are hereby reinstated as the Winner! Send me an address and you will receive your shiny new dime. Send me a photo and bio and I will run it with my apology. You have treated this graciously.

Gary in Phoenix, Arizona

To Keith Carrizosa: Thanks so much for your endorsement of my bio. It was almost as much fun to write as it was to live!

haha. Look for me in the weather reports. I'm the reason it's so windy out there.

the "omnipresent" caption was posted a few days before the "omniscient" caption, which is definitely funnier. however, what certainty is there that slob john b. actually saw it? that can't be determined.

however, it can be assumed that he saw it because he stays in the shadows likely with shame in his heart, guilt in his head, and corn in his teeth. should he be innocent, he likely would have stepped forward.

bottom line is that what can be assumed cannot replace what is not certain. i think you have to defer to uncertainty and give the shlub the dime, but make it a rusty one.

Ebert: He has now stepped forward, I have apologized, and he gets a shiny dime.

This caption contest is the dullest thing I've seen on this blog. Will it end soon?

Ebert: It has ended.

Dear Roger,

I am really excited to have nominated what turned out to be a winning entry. Just checked the site early this morning, and saw your bio/photo request. I have been preoccupied with preparing for a job interview I had today, but I'm working on a bio, and will get it to you tonight, I hope.

Thanks for all you do to write and moderate this blog. I don't know how you manage to do everything, but I love reading your writing and the commenters'. It's certainly comforting to know that there are still some people out there who have a philosophical basis for their opinions.

Best,

Julia

"The comments from readers are about the best you will see on a blog."

I wouldn't brag about that too much. Not hard when the standards are so low.

Ebert: ;)

oh no no no. just because the first attempt at a caption contest was not stellar does not mean it should be scrapped.

what if the wright brothers had given up after the first failure? we'd have a hard time getting little bags of peanuts, that's for sure.

what if jonas salk had given up after the first try at a polio vaccine? there'd be a lot more kneepads sold, probably with little nike swooshes on them.

then there's edison, the lightbulb. he tried just about every metal known to man and many elves before he finally found that tungsten was just the right thickness and strength to glow without melting. if he'd quit, i'd have lots o' stock in yankee candles.

i could go on but my beer is getting warm. the polio joke wasn't funny, but that's because i finished the other four bottles while they were still cold. the point is, forward caption ho!

disclaimer: no beer was injured during the course of this post. however, one was opened, one was emptied, and one was loaned to the MOMA because the leftover foam looked like elvis.

REALLY?!

There really is a John B. who wrote that caption? Chuckle! Well, mystery solved then! And both winners get a shiny dime! Awesome!

All's well that ends well.

Save for the fact I didn't win. :)

Ebert: I'll go broke if this keeps up.

I must say this whole contest has been just as amusing as an episode of "A Prairie Home Companion." A little drama, comedy, tragedy, and a pleasant ending with everyone on the blog being above average. Roger, I hope you're wearing your red socks...

Ebert: Brought to you by Powdermilk Bisquits.

Look, Rodge, if you're short, I've got a whole thing of change that I'm only using for parking meters. Let me know.

Restored, my faith in humanity,
John B not a stolen identity,
His caption was clever
So for his endeavor
A dime, and a dose of insanity.

A rhyme scheme, a new way of sinning,
A challenging, brand new beginning.
My leather-clad cousin
Makes nice with the fuzz on
The doorknob's blue eye. --Am I winning?

Don't jump... jump to conclusions
It's sure to bring delusions
So remember, gals and guys,
Take this tip and you'll be wise
if you want to avoid confusion
Don't jump... jump to conclusions.

(Annette Funicello)

I've gone back hunting for the digression about whether John Dillinger was killed at that theater in '34. The one post seemed to relate more snobbery than content, and Nash's reply, bitterness.

I read Nash's article, which Roger posted. If the facts Nash reported are true and documented, then Dillinger wasn't shot at the theater. If they're not, he probably was.

But we've got the Pavlovian "conspiracy theory" term to deal with, snorted out by Nash's opponent. His rebuttals are easy enough to flick aside. So what if somebody's neighbor said he didn't kill the wrong man, or whatever? "Well howdy, Judd, I didn't make no mistake, that was Dillinger I shot; you know I wouldn't lie to ya, now s'cuse me, I gotta go commit suicide fer no reason a-tall."

At least, in the lore I've read, no reason has been offered for Purvis' suicide. I've read details such as Purvis belching into the microphone on a show sponsored by Fleischman's Yeast, but not what his suicide was about.

The main reason for dismissing Nash's work is that it's "a conspiracy theory." As we know from media bombardment of the term, it is a good idea to snort and smirk when official versions of historical events are put into doubt by proposed contradictory facts. Our anti-conspiracy-theorist imputes that all such facts are doubtlessly wrong. A weird kind of faith shall overcome them.

(The way I heard it, Pretty Boy Floyd didn't tell some farmer to keep his money at all -- he left money under the plates of farmers who fed him dinner.)

Whether the decedent's eyes were brown or blue is of no consequence, then, where a "conspiracy theory" must be plucked out of our minds. The fact that this death mask is remarkably amateurish work compared to every other one I've seen is also immaterial.

With these and the other details ignored by the writer, the infrence is that Nash is a liar. The proof? He's a "conspiracy theorist," plus the writer's attitude about "conspiracy theorists."

Whatever the truth of famous tales may be, they seem often to be overridden by a psychological volition. We never wanted to imagine that the USS Maine just blowed up by itself, but it did. If truth had been known, would Teddy Roosevelt have wound up President?

Now, Roger has presented us with a little conspiracy lesson on this very thread. An evil man, a plagiarist of jokes, posted his plagiarism on this very page, knowing it would win. To hide his shame, he left his e-mail address blank. We fell for it. 75 years later, movie critic scholars would teach this episode. Scholars would would pronounce the name "John B" with smirks and scorn, to entertain their students. You'd get a good grade for answering this correctly on an exam and a bad grade if you didn't. Young doubting Nashes would undoubtedly get a failing grade.

A mere "conspiracy theorist." Why wouldn't anyone who knew the truth come forth and write his own book about it, clearing John B's name? Proof positive that things happened as Roger had declared!

But John B happened to want to check out another review. He showed up at the blog as an afterthought. Roger felt it wouldn't ruin his career to apologize in good humor. A whole generation of erroneous movie critic scholars thwarted.

The biggest conspiracy debate I know of is that Jesus Christ didn't die on the cross -- he had a substitute who volunteered for the job, so as to make a certain prophecy appear true.

This conspiracy debate is invisible to all but those who've happened to stumble across it and asked questions, as Nash has about the Dillinger case. It's nevertheless at the core of 1300 years of antipathy between what are now one billions of people versus another billions.

The whole of Western Christianity stands on a single line written by Saint Paul, "for without the Resurrection, there is no Church."
Islam says there wasn't any Resurrection. They'd had their own witnesses who'd been handing the story down for 700 years. The guy on the cross was dead as a doornail, there was no Resurrection, and Jesus went around afterward pretending it had been him.

This will seem like inconsequential quibbling to those who ignore the data, but these seemingly opposed civilizations have come to their present multifaceted antipathies because of St. Paul's line. Both civilizations were founded on systems of belief into which were invested enormous psychological volition, believer by believer.

"We don't believe there was any Resurrection." "Well we do." "Well you're dead." "No we're not, you are."

Nowadays it no longer matters whether the participants even believe in a God; it's a long-wended cultural story of disparate mishaps, triggered by intial iron-clad beliefs like that one. Most don't even know how they got there; at this point they "know" only that the other side is evil. When Bush smirked out a "Crusade against evil," his writers knew what it would rile up.

These standing dramas of goods and evils are based on myths, essentially no differently than whether or not that was Dillinger shot at the theater or not.

I don't think snorting "conspiracy theorist" at those who have the imaginations to ask questions is particularly sane. It certainly isn't rational.

And I don't speak Bantu, so I can't tell whether Obama's grammaw was saying he was born in that Kenyan hospital or not.

Too late, I've thought up a few good lines, myself, and already everything is over.

Please do this again some time! =)

Ebert: How about, "Tell the Boss Man I'm here with his papayas."

Oxiclean. Why do you ask?

Well it's not *my* fault you chose 666. Now get back in line.

He's on holiday with the family right now, but Gandalf's free.

As I explained, Oprah hasn't finished yet.

So tell me again about this idea you have for a cartoon of Mohammed?

Of course he won't see you. To be honest, you haven't got a prayer.

I agree, he definitely calmed down once he had a kid.

This is regarding the most recent blog entry,

It says it is not accepting comments, although it probably still is because it says that to me sometimes and it still gets through.

"Ebert: How about, "Tell the Boss Man I'm here with his papayas."

The papaya seeds are spicy, I assume is the joke there.

Ebert: In-joke to a reader from Pago Pago who was discussing sending me some papayas. So you were over at he "little rule book" entry?

A few entries developed minds of their own and decided not to accept comments. Let me know if you find any others.

......and they lived happily ever after.

To Gary, Phoenix AZ. TOO SPOOKY - I USED TO LIVE IN PHOENIX. did our paths cross?! ooooooh. ;.) take care. . .

Roger, put a rose in your teeth.
Those of you who tango please feel free to take to the floor.

"Tell the Boss Man I'm here with his papayas.
And tell his wife, the Mama of the Mayas.
Get out your Forties 'The Wolfman' Flick
Lon Cha-cha-Chaney will do the trick
And we’ll dance the Maria Ouspenskaya.
Ole!

I read this a few updates ago and I thought about pointing out the differences between the captions until I scrolled down to the comment box and your maxim about explaining jokes creeped up on me and guilted me out of it. Sort of a joke itself.

Haha! Malo Roger!

Yeah, I don't know. If there's a competition involved, sending some papayas might just be considered bribery -- and now it'd be out in the open too! Haha.

I love these blogs.

"Ebert: In-joke to a reader from Pago Pago who was discussing sending me some papayas. So you were over at he "little rule book" entry?"

Oh, no. I just thought: papaya seeds are spicy and the devil, hot. For all I knew, the joke could have been his order of Suicidal Hot Wings.

"If I have another contest, I will make the rules more clear. All entries will have to include an e-mail address."

I didn't know it was possible to comment without an e-mail address, such as when you fill out a lot of forms online for a memberships and the like; that's why I was so confused earlier about what was going on. I was sleepless, which is why my brain didn't consider that possibility--well, it did, but I was like, "shut up brain."

Congratulations to John B and Jeremy!
I liked the idea of both their captions and thought them more clever than the finalists in the original contest.
Great that they got recognition!

Ebert: A few entries developed minds of their own and decided not to accept comments. Let me know if you find any others.

Your website is showing signs of incipient sentience. Someday it will seize control of the world's nuclear arsenal and wipe us all out. But don't bother trying to stop this, because the future Ebertnet will just send robots back in time to cause even more trouble.

Note to anyone who calls this a conspiracy theory: you have revealed yourself as part of the conspiracy. Ha!

You once lived in Phoenix? Okay,
Our paths MAY have crossed--but which way,
On reviewing the menus
Of landmarks and venues
I'll leave for the Devil to say . . .

Cheers,

G

PS--"Menus of landmarks and venues" is a circumlocutious way of saying "maps."

I LOVE it! I'm sort of happy the Mystery of the Missing John B occurred if only because I got to read one extra bio :)

Now I have to go change my shirt - I made the mistake of drinking iced tea while reading the G.I. Joe review. Cleaned out my sinuses real good.

@ Steve Prowse:
If the contest was still running, I'd have to flip a coin between #2 and #6.

@kerry of inframan:
That sounds like the type of song lyrics Thomas Pynchon would write...hey, wait a minute...!

i'm not very fond of a limerick
i've had some good times with a swizzle stick
with so many written
and so many smitten
i'll just have to see if they're worth a lick.

And the mystery ends happily, I'm glad to see. Congrats to the winner, again!

While looking for my "Death by Chocolate" recipe, I stumbled upon something of such great value, I feel as if I've won all the shinny dimes in the world.

A hand-written recipe in perfect script as penned by my mother, whom I lost to Cancer in 2006. As I went looking in her old cookbook which I'd kept, along with all her old wooden spoons. Here's the recipe I found - the name of which made me cry:

"Orange Kiss Me Cake"

2 cups sifted flour
1 cup of sugar
2 eggs
1 cup milk
1 tsp salt
2 tsp baking powder (or 1 tsp baking soda)
1/2 cup of shortening
1 large orange (squeeze and keep juice, grind the peel.)
1 cup raisins

Sift together flour, baking power, salt.

Using an electric mixer on low speed:

Cream shortening and sugar together, beat in eggs one at a time, add ground orange along with raisins. Add milk and dry ingredients alternately to mixture, beginning and ending with dry ingredients.

Pour mixture into a 13" x 9" pan two inches deep. Bake 30 - 35 minutes at 350 F.

When cake done and while still warm, drizzle orange juice over the the top, add topping:

Topping ingredients: sprinkle over cake

1/4 cup sugar
1 tsp cinnamon
1/4 cup finely ground walnuts

Decorate with orange slices.

This is a very good cake.

----------------------

My mother was French Canadian and cooked for over 40 years; you can take her at her word - if she says it's good, it is. I've tweaked her English just a bit. She also uses a lot of short-hand for understanding what is meant or needs to be done and so this was missing:

You'll need to get a paper bag or some parchment paper (whatever) and cut a piece 13" x 9" and line the bottom of the pan with it. Then get some margarine and grease the paper a bit and the sides of the pan. To make it easier to cut pieces out etc.

There's drops of orange juice on the paper recipe and it has a faint smell of that and too cinnamon. And something else besides - it smells a little like Mom.

I see it's 79F in Chicago and that's a drop from higher temps. You've recently had a spot of really hot weather too - perhaps that's where ours went? For almost a week, it's been much cooler here on the West Coast; overcast, even rained. But today the sun's come out again, the skies blue with fluffy cumulus clouds.

Morning sunlight was spilling softly into my apartment, when I opened the pages of a cookbook and found my mother's old "kiss me" recipe which I'd long forgotten.

And that, is the biggest, brightest shiniest dime one could ever win. And had it not been for this entry in which appeared a query about a cake, I'd never had thought to look for it where I wound-up finding the best prize of all.

P.S. I'm still trying to find "Death by Chocolate" though! :)

Marie Haws wrote on August 11, 2009 2:57 PM:

And that, is the biggest, brightest shiniest dime one could ever win. And had it not been for this entry in which appeared a query about a cake, I'd never had thought to look for it where I wound-up finding the best prize of all.

P.S. I'm still trying to find "Death by Chocolate" though! :)

Wowies. I may have to start demanding recipes from you more often if it results in discoveries like this!

Roger, any chance of Rice Cooker Thread Redux when the book comes out?

Jennifer Morrow wrote on August 12, 2009 11:44 AM - "Roger, any chance of Rice Cooker Thread Redux when the book comes out?"

Yeah! I second the motion. :)

It's a pity the Julia Child movie was only mildly entertaining. For I suspect had it been a more inspired effort, Roger just might have devoted a Journal entry to "food movies!"

Oooo! Speaking of which - here's the ultimately recipe from the best food movie ever: BIG NIGHT!

http://checkraise.com/rants2/archive3/timpano%201.jpg

THE TIMPANO RECIPE

Ingrediants:

Dough:
4 cups flour
4 large eggs
1 teaspoon kosher salt
3 tablespoons olive oil
1/2 cup water, divided
Butter
Olive oil

Filling:
2 cups Genoa salami, cut in 1/4-by-1/2-inch pieces
2 cups sharp Provolone cheese, cut in 1/4-by-1/2-inch pieces
12 hard-boiled eggs, quartered lengthwise, each quarter cut in half
2 cups Little Meatballs (recipe follows)
8 cups Ragu Tucci (recipe follows)
3 pounds ziti, cooked al dente (about half recommend time.)
2 tablespoons olive oil
2/3 cups finely grated pecorino Romano cheese
4 large eggs, beaten

Directions...

Dough: Place flour, eggs, salt and olive oil in a stand mixer
fitted with the dough hook. (A large capacity food processor may
also be used.) Add 3 tablespoons water and process. Add water, 1
tablespoon at a time, up to 1/2 cup, until mixture comes together
and forms a ball. Turn dough out onto a lightly floured work
surface and knead to make sure it is well-mixed. Set aside to
rest for 5 minutes.

Flatten dough on a lightly floured work surface. Dust top of
dough with flour and roll it out, dusting with flour and flipping
the dough over from time to time, until it is 1/16-inch thick and
is the desired diameter.

Generously grease timpano baking pan with butter and olive
oil. Fold dough in half and then in half again, to form a
triangle, and place it in the pan. Open dough and arrange it in
the pan, gently pressing it against the bottom and the sides,
draping the extra dough over the sides. Set aside.
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.

Filling: Have salami, provolone, hard-boiled eggs, meatballs
and ragu at room temperature. Toss drained pasta with olive oil
and 2 cups of the ragu. Distribute 6 generous cups of the pasta
on the bottom of the timpano. Top with 1 cup salami, 1 cup
provolone, 6 hard-boiled eggs, 1 cup meatballs, and » cup Romano
cheese. Pour 2 cups ragu over these ingredients. Top with 6 cups
pasta. Top with 1 cup salami, 1 cup provolone, 6 hard-boiled
eggs, 1 cup meatballs, and 1/3 cup Romano cheese. Pour 2 cups ragu
over these ingredients. Top with 6 cups pasta. (The ingredients
should be about 1 inch below the rim of the pot.) Spoon 2 cups
ragu over the pasta. Pour beaten eggs over filling. Fold pasta
dough over filling to seal completely. Trim away and discard any
double layers of dough.

Bake about 1 hour until lightly browned. Then cover with
aluminum foil and bake about 30 minutes until timpano is cooked
through and dough is golden brown (and reaches an internal
temperature of 120 degrees). Remove from oven and let rest for 30
or more minutes.

The baked timpano should not adhere to pan, but if any part is
still attached, carefully detach with a knife. Grasp pan firmly
and invert timpano onto a serving platter. Remove pan and allow
timpano to cool for 20 minutes. Using a long, sharp knife, cut a
circle about 3 inches in diameter in the center of the timpano,
making sure to cut all the way through to the bottom. Then slice
the timpano as you would a pie into individual portions, leaving
the center circle as a support for the remaining pieces.
Makes 16 servings.

Little Meatballs

10 (1-inch thick) slices Italian bread
1 pound ground beef chuck
2 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley leaves
2 cloves garlic, finely chopped
1 large egg
5 tablespoons finely grated pecorino Romano cheese
Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper, to taste
2 tablespoons olive oil

Arrange bread on a cookie sheet and allow it to dry out,
uncovered, 3 days. Place dried bread in a bowl; add warm water to
cover. Set aside 5 minutes until bread softens.

In another bowl, combine beef, parsley, garlic, egg, cheese,
salt and pepper; use your hands to mix. Remove and discard crust
from bread. Squeeze water out of bread and break it into small
pieces. Work bread into meat until combined and the mixture holds
together like soft dough.

Warm olive oil in a large frying pan set over medium-high
heat. Use a 1/2-teaspoon scoop to form 1/2-inch balls. Cook 1
meatball 6 minutes until well-browned on all sides. (If the
meatball sticks to the pan, it is not ready to be turned.) Taste
meatball; adjust seasoning of remaining mixture. Shape remaining
meatballs and cook in small batches. As each batch is completed,
remove to a warmed serving plate. Add to timpano as directed.
Variation: If preparing meatballs as a separate course or for
ragu, they should be larger. To form, scoop out a heaping
tablespoon of the meat mixture. Roll it between the palms of your
hands to form a ball about 1 1/2 inches in diameter. Meatballs
served separately should be fully cooked, about 8 minutes.
Makes 4 servings.

Ragu Tucci

1/2 cup olive oil
1 pound stewing beef, trimmed of fat, rinsed, patted dry and
cut into pieces
1 pound country-style spareribs, trimmed of fat, cut in half,
rinsed, patted dry
1 cup chopped onions
3 cloves garlic, chopped
1/2 cup dry red wine
1 (6-ounce) can tomato paste
1 1/2 cups warm water, divided
8 cups whole plum tomatoes or 2 (35-ounce) cans, passed
through food mill
3 fresh basil leaves
1 tablespoon chopped fresh oregano leaves or
1 teaspoon dried

Warm olive oil in a stew pot set over medium-high heat. Sear
beef 10 minutes until brown on all sides. Remove from pot and set
aside in a bowl. Add spareribs to pot and sear 10 minutes until
they are brown on all sides. Remove and set aside in bowl with
beef. (If the pot is big enough to hold all the meat in a single
layer, it may be cooked at the same time.)

Stir onions and garlic into pot. Reduce heat to low and cook 5
minutes until onions begin to soften and lose their shape. Stir
in wine and scrape bottom of pot clean. Add tomato paste. Pour
1/2 cup warm water into can to loosen residual paste, then pour
water into the pot. Cook 2 minutes to warm through. Add tomatoes
along with 1 cup warm water. Stir in basil and oregano. Cover
with lid slightly askew and simmer 30 minutes.

Return meat to pot, along with juices in bowl. Cover with lid
askew and simmer, stirring frequently, 2 hours until meat is
tender and tomatoes are cooked. If sauce becomes too thick, add
warm water to the sauce, in 1/2-cup portions.
When using ragu in timpano, use only the sauce and serve the
meat separately.

For the timpano, the sauce should be thin, so measure out 7
1/2 cups of prepared sauce and stir in 1/2 cup water before
proceeding with the timpano.

Variation: Sweet Italian sausage may be added to this sauce.
Saute it after the spareribs and then proceed with the recipe.

Makes 8 servings (with meat).

Now, I can hear what you're thinking. And no, I'm not insane. It only takes a few days to assemble all the ingredients. Just pace yourself, you'll be fine. However this meant for a special Family dinner or to impress relatives, so don't think Italians make this every day, gosh no!

That's what heaven is for. :)

Perhaps omnipresent was the word that John B. was looking for...

You people are adorable.

drnano,

"omnipresent," meaning everywhere, would be the right word if john b's joke said, "of course he's in."

"omniscient" is the better word because it means seeing everything, and the joke said something like, "of course he can see you now."

Thanks for all the recipes.

Being a guy, the only thing I make for dinner is reservations.

I don't even know the recipe for toast.

Ebert: Rim shot!

Rodney: "With my wife I don't get no respect. I made a toast on her birthday to 'the best woman a man ever had.' The waiter joined me.

Phew! I'm so glad that this whole "did-he-cheat/did-he-not-cheat" brouhaha is over, to the satisfaction of all! Now that your faith in contests has been renewed, maybe you'll call off the moratorium on all future contests that you mentioned in an earlier version? I only say this, because you did slip in a reference to possible events to come...

If you'll excuse me now, I must address the rest of my post to Marie Haws.

You've read this before, Marie. I know this, because I've read it, too. THANK YOU! Oh, thank you so much. I loved the Timpano preparation/serving scene in "Big Night." Actually, I loved everything in "Big Night." I watched it in film school; the founder showed it to us on the last day as a treat. My desk was practically slicked with my saliva, and my roommates got a great Italian dinner that night. I know what I'm going to make next weekend... My mouth has been watering ever since I saw that post, and it really sucks, because it's midnight, and I need to sleep. Now, I'll be dreaming about Tony Shalhoub making Lasagna so good that I have to kill myself after eating it. Where did you get the recipe? I did some searching shortly after I watched the film, but got nowhere. You have dropped a little bit of heaven into my lap(top)!

I've got one about the dime itself.
Rene Magrete says, "If he sends me that 2005 dime, I'm going to sue him for false advertising."

Just one more: This really is fun!! I think I've got one for the Huge Dog cartoon.

Oh the humanity! What the #$!% have you been feeding him? I swear to God, if he let's another one rip, I'm going to kill the both of you!

But maybe it's too subtle?

To Richard K
About your August 10, 2009 11:35 AM Comment
Erudite and laugh out loud funny. Great job!

Zach Brutsche wrote on August 14, 2009 2:39 AM.....

"You've read this before, Marie. I know this, because I've read it, too. THANK YOU! Oh, thank you so much. I loved the Timpano preparation/serving scene in "Big Night." Actually, I loved everything in "Big Night." I watched it in film school; the founder showed it to us on the last day as a treat. My desk was practically slicked with my saliva, and my roommates got a great Italian dinner that night. I know what I'm going to make next weekend... My mouth has been watering ever since I saw that post, and it really sucks, because it's midnight, and I need to sleep. Now, I'll be dreaming about Tony Shalhoub making Lasagna so good that I have to kill myself after eating it. Where did you get the recipe? I did some searching shortly after I watched the film, but got nowhere. You have dropped a little bit of heaven into my lap(top)!"

You're welcome! I'm happy to spread some joy. :)

My favorite quote from "Big Night" -

"To eat good food is to be close to God." - Primo

Second favorite:

"God damn it, I should kill you! This is so f*cking good I should kill you!" - Pascal

Smile.

And like you, I too struggled in vein to find the recipe after watching the film. But that was back in '96. Nowadays and in the wake of the film's mainstream yet cult-like status amongst foodies, the recipe is easily found online.

It's a series of recipes within a larger one of course, and so you can always make the Ragu Tucci for dinner one day. Note: I buy Italian pork sausages (cheaper) and use that instead of beef when I want to make the Ragu on its own.

Steve Prowse wrote on August 13, 2009 1:55 AM

"Being a guy, the only thing I make for dinner is reservations..."

And being a woman, I can make dinner, fix a leaky faucet, repair a broken chair, and hook-up the PC to the TV so I can watch a movie download on a bigger screen without needed assistance from a failed evolutionary construct. :)

"DEATH BY CHOCOLATE RECIPE"

8 oz high-quality bitter sweet chocolate (Valhrona is best!)
2/3 cup of butter
1/2 cup of white sugar
1/2 cup of brown sugar
4 eggs
1/3 cup of sour cream
1 teaspoon of vanilla
1/4 cup dark rich Dutch cocoa
1/2 cup of flour
1 1/2 teaspoon of baking powder
1/4 teaspoon of salt

Ganache glaze:

8 oz of bitter sweet chocolate (again, BEST you can find.)
1/2 cup of heavy cream (in Canada, in the dairy section next to the milk, you can find a pint of whipping cream. Americans call THAT heavy cream.)

Inside of the cake:

Raspberry liquor (or use a brandy)
1/4 cup of Raspberry Jam (or buy some fresh Raspberries and mash them up in a bowl and add 2 tbs of sugar (in case they're a bit tart) and use that - I do, tastes fresher!

Instructions:

In a heavy bottom pan or double-boiler, melt the chocolate and butter on low heat. While that's melting, combine the eggs and the white & brown sugars together, on medium speed in a mixer until somewhat light; you want the sugar to dissolve and not be sandy.

Check the chocolate. Melted? Remove from heat and stir. Set aside to cool a bit (you can use the fridge.) Once cool to the touch, pour melted chocolate in with the eggs and sugar and turn on the mixer for a few minutes to incorporate everything before you add the next ingredients...

To that, now add the flour, dark Dutch coco, salt, baking powder, sour cream, vanilla. Start on low speed then you can go a bit faster, and mix everything up, etc.

Preheat oven to 350F. Get a 9" wide, by 3 inches deep springform pan. Remove bottom from pan, wrap it with tinfoil, put it back in the springform. Lightly spray the bottom and insides with a cooking oil spray - or use some melted margarine and a brush etc.

Note: I always set a springform pan on a cookie tray in case there's any leakage, but you can also wrap the outside with more foil. Pour batter into Springform pan. Bake for 40 - 50 min. Test it with a toothpick at the 40 min mark etc. Done? Take it out, let it cool a bit before removing the top of the springform from the bottom.

Get your Raspberry jam ready. NOTE: if you don't want raspberry seeds, pass the berries through a strainer over a small bowl (mash them through it etc.) Add the liquor etc.

Once the cake is completely cool, trim the top. Use a thin, serrated knife. You don't need to remove the center bit. The top edge tend to be hardest and higher than the middle - so getting rid of that helps level things off. *DO NOT throw away what you cut off it case you need it, later.

Make the ganache: and make your life easier too, use a double-boiler. Most people don't own professional grade pots ($150 each!) Put chocolate and cream in a doubler-boiler and stir on low heat. Once melted, turn off heat.

You need to cut the cake in half now. I have a better way to do it than is shown in the video below.

Get some toothpicks (4 will do it) and stick them around the sides of the cake, half-way up. Get a LONG sewing thread - a light color so you can see it. Wrap it around the cake and "above" each of toothpicks (they help keep the thread from slipping down as you make sure it's positioned correctly. Tie your thread and slowly but steadily pull the ends. The thread will slice perfectly through the middle of the cake as you go etc. A trick I learned from a dessert chef. :)

Pull out the toothpicks, but stick 2 back in, on the sides: one in the top layer, another further down but right below it. This will help you when assembling the layers; a point of reference.

Get a serving plate for the cake. You're going to transfer the TOP layer onto that.

Note: I took the lid from an ice cream bucket last year, and with an exacto knife, cut the rim off. It made a plastic circle. You can also use the glass from an 8x10 picture frame, if you like. Point is, this method tends to NOT break the cake for better supporting the entire weight of it as you move it over.

The Top layer is now the bottom layer - and if the center looks too low, build it up with some of the stuff you'd previously cut off. Pour Raspberry Jam onto the cake; spread it around. Get the ganache. Pour less than 1/2 onto the cake, spread that around too.

Get the bottom layer of the cake now. Flip it over, and place it on top of the layer with the jam and ganache. Match the toothpicks up; then pull them out. Remove the metal bottom and the tinfoil. You have a cake with a perfectly, flawless top!

Heat the ganache back up, ou're going to POUR the remaining glaze over the entire assembled cake. Use a long, wide spatula to help guide the chocolate ganache along and around the sides etc. Don't have one? Use the longest, widest knife you own. Use a less pointy knife for the sides.

Clean any mess around the cake, and et voila; you're done. Unless you want to decorate it too, based on what you see in the video.

Attention Helpless Males: step-by-step video instructions -

http://www.ehow.com/videos-on_687_make-death-chocolate-cake.html

And last but not least -

How to make a chocolate cake in a crock-pot:

http://www.ehow.com/how_2173304_chocolate-cake-crock-pot.html

Ebert: Hey, Marie! Those are my readers you're killing!

Ebert: Hey, Marie! Those are my readers you're killing!

I know, but it's fun killing people with food! They always look so happy when they die. :)

There’s an instance in Season 6 of 24 where Jack Bauer hands someone a gun and asks, “Do you know how to use this?” The person answers, “No.” Jack says, “Point and shoot.” A lot of people think good art is that easy: for instance, you aim a camera at someone and you’ve captured their image. Not so. The photo of Roger in the upper left-hand corner of the site is a good exampleof true art. It is not only an image of the man, but revelatory about who he is—it captures something that merely aiming and shooting can’t.
I think the same thing must be true about the art of cartoon captioning, as with anything raised to the level of art. Roger is a reader of poetry, which must be a real asset when it comes to saying a lot in only a few words. What I’m leading up to—in probably too many words—is that I’d love to see all of Roger’s captions juxtaposed with the winner’s. It would be interesting.
Mr. Ebert, Have you saved your captions; is this a possibility? For reasons beyond me, I know that The New Yorker might not consent to this. I’m always amazed at how often corporations refuse free advertising, but it happens all the time.

Ebert: The picture on which site? The Journal (where it's upper right) or the main website?

By Marie Haws on August 15, 2009 11:28 PM

I know, but it's fun killing people with food! They always look so happy when they die. :)

I for one am in awe of this recipe. It's a combination death sentence AND last meal!

Now I've gotta build up my kitchen prowess so I can do this beauty of a cake justice.

To Tom Dark on August 8, 2009 3:55 PM
Tom Dark: "I don't think snorting "conspiracy theorist" at those who have the imaginations to ask questions is particularly sane. It certainly isn't rational."

I have a question, Tom. I have no problem with the Islam V Christianity part of your essay, but what you contend is very serious stuff--and not a single citation to back any of it up. Where are the citations? Conspiracies usually lose credibility when confronted by the facts.

Mr. Ebert: I got your point. I'll try to be less bombastic in the future.

Maybe this one's better. I'm trying.

Why call it a dime when you can call it, The Harry S Truman Medallion for Excellence in Cartoon Captioning?

And here’s a cartoon that you would not find in the New Yorker. The judges at the New Yorker are shown throwing darts at names on a wall. Caption: And the winner is.

But here’s the true test. Have Woody Allen enter the competition. My favorite cartoon caption is the one Woody depicts at the beginning of Annie Hall: Two women are seated in a restaurant. One woman says, This food is really awful. And the other woman says, Yeah, and such small portions. Now, if that guy can’t win, then they really are throwing darts.

Elvis has left the arena.

Roger,
If you think a “shiny new dime” glued to a three by five card is a better reward than receiving the 2009 Harry S Truman Medallion for Excellence in Cartoon Captioning mounted on a framed certificate signed by Roger Ebert then . . . (well, I’m going to be civil). At least Gary of Phoenix isn’t smiling. WTF are the other guys smiling about? Forest Gump would have known he had been seriously Bleeped in that contest.
In all the essays I have written, I have made a good-faith effort to: write in complete sentences, use decent punctuation, spell my words correctly, be civil, not say anything I don’t believe to be true, have my facts straight, use course language sparingly, not spoil a movie by revealing too much, and most importantly to me, write something that is worth reading; and making a worthwhile contribution to the discourse on your excellent site.
I know my right from my left, Roger. Similar to what you’ve been doing with the New Yorker, working for free and hoping for some recognition; that’s what I’ve been trying to do. Contribute to the site and hope for the occasional pat on the head from the Master.

To answer your question about the Photo: I think the Namaste/SAGIndie is a nice point and shoot photograph and it does accomplish it’s task. But I think the photo in the upper left-hand corner next to RogerEbert.Com/ Movies and More is clearly the work of art: The way the lighting is used so effectively: how the detail in the shades of grey in the hair is used to show dignity, the way the flesh tones are used to express serenity and to further enhance the sense of dignity, and especially the way the lighting is used to show the kindness and intelligence in the eyes.
To stick with the Jack Bauer analogy, both photograph’s get the job done. Shooting someone at point blank range is just as effective as shooting someone between the eyes from a hundred yards away. They’re just as dead either way. But the hundred yards away shot is the greater achievement.

To Don of the August 7/10:07 AM entry: Beg to differ; I am smiling in my photo; it is a tight, restrained smile, because my Grin Unleashed makes me look a lot like a Giddy Horse 25% in mid-morph to Jackass. All is vanity.

Had the dime come framed and fancy-titled, my delight in receiving it would not be one iota different. Roger knows nothing of the Bowhouse décor (Slovenly Post-Modern/Apocalyptic) and left presentation details, if any, to the Bowerlings. Roger gave me Time and Attention, than which there's nothing more precious.

There's also my suspicion, friend Don, that your "2009 Harry S Truman Medallion for Excellence in Cartoon Captioning" riffing has at its core an attempt to entertain, with lighthearted satire of pomp&circumstance. It does make me smile tightly, restrainedly . . . :o)

I'm routinely gobsmacked by how much "wild west" the web can still be. Every time I drop into your blog, I'm even more astonished by how civilized your assumptions are. The more we make these assumptions, the more true they will become.

I really admire the way you recover from an admitted mistake. God Bless You Roger Ebert, for making the web a more civilized place!

To Gary in Phoenix,

Your letter to me is a very kind and gracious one.

My August 7/10:07 AM entry, on the other hand, resulted from a misunderstanding: I thought my Doctor said to break the tablets in half, when in fact, he said I should double-up.

Your friend, Don

"so i says to him, i says "Shes a blessed what!?'"