Six Word Memoirs on Life Stories

Steve__Anthony says,

Anything goes. - They are YOUR sixes. NO RULES.

illuminatrix says,

Although, I admit it's probably better just to leave that little current of flexible fluidity in there; it's good to have a little wiggle room even under such fantastic constrictions. This website should be called (I'll even accept a mere subtitle) "You can't get blood from a stone, but you can squeeze an assload of zen out of people."

accidentaltourist says,

True...leave a little slack in the silk scarves, and playtime is much more fun. ;)

L2L3 says,

Have not seen a fraudulent hyphen make it into a book. Yeah, you can do as you wish but the name of the game is Six-Word Memoirs, not Seven Words That You Hyphenated Into-Six. If you can't say it, here, in six, what's the point of posting it here?

illuminatrix says,

L2L3, obviously no one's trying to cheat here, it's simply a matter of finding out what's considered legit (I'm very new to this, less than a week in fact). A modifier phrase grammatically functions like a single word. There's something to be said for using a loophole to technically still meet the rules while producing something that contains a neater, clearer meaning (rather than a grammatically butchered caveman fortune cookie) or a Six-word boulevard simply littered with punctuative garbage. But you're right, the name of the game is 'six word memoirs' (although not technically a game....oh I just won't go there), and I did ask (only the gods know why I did, must work on my brain-six filter). It's good to be informed. The next obvious question is, what about contractions? The featured one I saw today sported a contraction of 2 words posing as a single word ('I'm' or similar). What's the stance on those? And what about sixes that have only five words? Is that technically breaking a rule? I was actually trying to avoid this kind of beat-you-unconscious-with-a-dusty-old-Oxford-dictionary analysis, but I dug my grave, so I might as well have a little dirty dance party in it (hopefully mixing metaphors doesn't bring down editorial wrath from on high). Those who said they appreciated a little wiggle-room (or struggle room;^), sorry, looks like I popped the balloon (by squeezing it until it popped and stung my finger) on that one. *strikes self punitively with a lengthy, hyphenated phrase*

illuminatrix says,

One more 'defense'. Which words are compound (unhyphenated) words and which hyphenated phrases are actually not technically compound words probably represents the single greatest source of mistakes by native English speakers (in writing, besides spelling) because it's oftentimes a linguistic transition (evolution?) in progress. The point is those phrases function like words. *continues beating poor, dead horse with lengthy, sharp-'consonanted' phrase still for lack of morning coffee, perhaps only because a phrase like "fraudulent hyphen" can be construed as a chimp-flung turd*

illuminatrix says,

As an exercise, look up 'ball breaker' in a dictionary, and you'll find
1. Ball breaker
2. Ballbreaker
3. Ball-breaker
Since even lexicographers can't definitively draw the final, surgical distinction between when one word ends and the next one begins...

No ironic subtext intended with my choice of examples...I think.

L2L3 says,

As I said, Steve's correct. Hieronimo, relatively new to the site and already having been kcked off the site once by the site's owner, likes to think of himself as holier than every other member here. His disdain for everything and everyone is modulated only by his need for attention. I never said anything about cheating. Being that you can post anything elminates the whole cheating scenario. There are lots of words that fall under the ballbreaker example. I was specifically talking about examples like Christmas tree, which isn't Christmastree or Christmas-tree, but the author uses one of the second two because they can't figure out how to say it in six. When words follow certain punctuation they glue together and the computer picks them up in the count as one word, even though they are clearly a distinct word. I guess, like Hieronimo, you too feel the need to resort to verbal nastiness when you don't get the exact response you desired when you asked the question. Good to know. By the way, of course your presence is welcome here and I said nothing to indicate otherwise. You asked the question and became pointedly defensive in two lengthy responses to my brief, non-accusatory comment. Gotta wonder what that was all about.

illuminatrix says,

Let's just suck and spit the poison out of the wound right now. All sarcasm aside, L2L3, what I said was more self-deprecatory (mocking my own stubbornness at the moment of stubbornness) than nasty. And I truly didn't intend anything to be nasty, but I did intend it to be sarcastic (mainly cuz it's fun) but allow me to identify the trigger, if you are interested. In fact, allow me a brief analysis. Here's your answer (which I never thanked you for, because you were in fact merely trying to answer my question, which of course I appreciate) to my question:

"Have not seen a fraudulent hyphen make it into a book." [indicating -- by the use of the word 'fraudulent' -- for the first time that you were referring to something you perceived as either laziness or lack of ability, fraudulent typically meaning something along the lines of intentionally false. Granted, you might not have meant it like that, but it did come across like that. Trigger number one for majorly sarcastic retort.]
"Yeah, you can do as you wish but the name of the game is Six-Word Memoirs, not Seven Words That You Hyphenated Into-Six." [Absolutely zero vitriol here, but a dictionary-worthy example of sarcasm. *whiff of honest and accidental hypocrisy* Trigger number two.]
"If you can't say it, here, in six, what's the point of posting it here?" [Again, indicating an inability or a lack of expertise (this time using 'you') while simultaneously hinting at an assumed standard or even set of rules, written or un-, and also stating that there would no 'point' to a post that broke one of these value-based rules (thus the sarky 'cheating' implication). This seemed to indicate (to me at that moment, as I said, in the morning pre-coffee, another important factor conveniently ignored) that you felt that following the basic rules rated higher in priority than serving as a jump-off point for people to make creative endeavors and dialogue about things, which I disagreed with, and felt it necessary to debate. Trigger number three.]

So where did it come from (forgetting momentarily the fact that you identified my 'it' as nastiness, which ironically achieves the opposite effect)? To reiterate, (a) the lack of coffee in the morning, and (b) the three triggers identified above. However, I would identify my 'it' ('that', I guess) as (a) sarcastically and logically responding to comments (dialoguing) in a natural way, responding to my own perceived triggers (okay, fair enough, I was 'nuh uh!'-ing a wee bit), and (b) genuinely seeking further clarity and a little bit of anti-hypocritical resolution by bringing up further points (for discussion amongst everyone). I'm sure that this all sounds like further sarcasm, but I assure you it's not. I'm just a slave to logic (willingly, which I guess makes me a 'bottom' to logic, or something).

Allow me to clear the air. If insinuating that your statements were "editorial wrath from on high" seemed offensive or genuinely over-reactively snarky, I apologize. I was being a smartass. If being called a ballbreaker pushed any of your offense buttons, I again apologize. I thought that was a lovely, appropriate and amusing example, considering it's mostly used between good friends flipping shit at each other (another, I thought, harmless but apt metaphor for what everyone does, hello, I'm doing it now without even trying *fling*) and not intending any actual offense. I honestly can't find anything else that fits in the 'nastiness' category better than it fits in the 'attempts at logic' one. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyways, thanks for your two cents, it is what I was asking for. And I've read through a bunch of your stuff and I dig your stuff too. I know you weren't trying to say that my presence was not welcome here. Hopefully, next time I'll tiptoe a little more quietly around your living room, and hopefully, next time, you'll expect a bit more sarcastic attitude to things perceivable as affronts on an internet forum (HELLO! ... *cough* sorry, that slipped out), while realizing that it doesn't amount to nastiness, unless you inject it in there yourself retroactively. Fair? A final request: I won't judge you for anything I perceived in what you said that turned out to be incorrect (not what you intended to say or meant), you do the same for me.

And hieronimo, thanks for the defense. Actually might have laughed out loud a bit when I read it. At the risk of being overly assumptive, it seems like we both are connoisseurs of cynicism and its relationship to wit. You've got a great voice too, and I'll def. read more of your stuff.

L2L3 says,

My initial response was a general answer that had no application for any specific person or memoir. I would have said it in response to anyone. Ballbreaker has no impact on any of my buttons. About the book thing? Most people think it's cool to get published in the books. You, as in the global you, can do all sorts of word count gymnastics here on the site and even get featured, but not so much in the books. I still stand by what I previously said regarding saying it in six. And again, NONE of it was said in response to any of your memoirs. Aside from all that, thanks for the response.