The Place For My Writers Notes

Original posting Mon, 22 Aug 1994 18:35:02 JST

deviled eggs...ham...and a soda...beside the jalopy...
ah, green grass for a picnic site!

[from the American Rubiyat by Omor Satire]

probably upsetting... punish, at least...

tink
----------------------------------------------
The Anti's
Copyright 1994 Mike Barker

[who cares?]

One of the problems in the virtual picniclands along the information highway is the anti's.

They are everywhere.

You may have noticed them around the networks. The somewhat noisy small life buzzing around and wasting bandwidth? The denizens of killfiles and other wastelands?

Occasionally annoying and irritating in minor ways, they are likely to appear at any of the virtual picnics, begging for crumbs. Sometimes it seems as if they are trying to be swatted as they crawl around, waving their legs and trying to spoil the feast.

Anti's are fairly easy to recognize. They like to sneer about how successful they are at insulting, provoking, threatening, challenging, offending, and undermining (among other attacks and tantrums). The goal may not be worth the effort, and is more often missed than attained, but they do claim it, apparently never having considered what success at brutalizing other humans means...

Anti's often seem to delight in attempted personal attacks, namecalling, smearing, and other pitiful pleas for attention. All too often poorly written, without much understanding of the tactics and forms of the verbal violence they are trying to use, their ill-considered chattering is usually easy to identify.

I know, ignore them and in time they do go away. Swatting them isn't worth wasting bandwidth, and often encourages more childish outbursts from them.

But I have a question for the anti's. Not that I expect them to answer, as it requires thought, but...

Why?

Are anti's really so insecure in self, so undecided and fearful of their own thoughts, that the only way to reassure themself that they are alive is to be a noisy nuisance, trying to strike out at others without thinking of their hurt? Is tearing down others the only way they have ever learned to make themself look fractionally larger?

I've heard anti's make claims of being offensive. True offense requires depth, so the claim is prima facie implausible.

I can believe that they are lacking in self-assurance, without the confidence and pride in self needed to try to explain and help, and too impatient to try to understand another person--leaping to conclusions is so much easier and the intuitive results, while disastrously wrong, can be rationalized quite easily.

But while the anti's are undermining whatever poor sense of self they have left in pursuit of the faint feeling of relief incurred when someone strikes back, the slight sense of self that such agony may temporarily imbue them with, doesn't it hurt?

I wonder if they have ever thought about what their writing reveals about themself--their fears, their insecurities, their personal agonies?

I know that building is hard--but it is the only worthwhile challenge.

Working with people, helping them to understand and grow, increasing the possibilities and alternatives for human success, oiling the machinery of human and small group interaction, making friends and influencing strangers...no matter what terms you cast it in, doing something positive is much more difficult than tearing things down, but also much more satisfying. Dare to excel, little anti's, and learn your own strength.

Are the anti's up to facing that challenge? Or would they prefer to continue at their present level of minor irritant, buzzing and fussing without effect?

So, anti's, let me ask it simply--did you ever think about turning pro?

[oh. I do.]
----------------------------------------------

Original posting Sun, 14 Nov 1993 10:33:28 JST

>>> Item number 20844 from WRITERS LOG9311B --- (298 records) ---- <<<
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 10:33:28 JST
Reply-To: WRITERS <WRITERS@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Sender: WRITERS <WRITERS@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
From: Mike Barker <barker@AEGIS.OR.JP>
Subject: TECH: Re: critiquing

First, hi Tim. Glad you've joined us. as a side issue, you need to send jobs to LISTSERV, not the writers list. You may also want to use narrower margins to allow comments on future writing. This is discussed in my draft FAQ on submitting and critiquing.

You'll see my note about getting a copy of the overall FAQ. If you get that and read it, there are directions about getting the FAQ about sub and crit. I'm also going to resend that FAQ in two parts, so everyone can see it without having to pull up a copy. I'll be very interested in your comments on that FAQ.

I do have some comments on your essay...

- As writers, we all want to constantly improve our craft, to get better and
- better. Having been a member of a local writing and critique group in
- Sacramento for two years now, I have found that the most valuable critiques
- tell you very specifically

- 1) what's wrong with the story, and WHY
- 2) what's right with the story, and WHY

good points. I also like to provide some suggestions about how to fix the things that I think are wrong, or at least less effective than they might be.

I think it can be a very helpful part of a critique to let the writer know what you "saw" in the story and what affect it had on you, too. This helps the writer to see if they have managed to convey the message they intended.

For example, while I think you were trying to provide some guidance in how to critique, I was somewhat offended and put off by the tone of your piece. I don't think that was what you intended, but that is what I felt on reading it. I think the main reasons were the insistence on there being only one right way to critique, only one right reason to write, and the implicit demand that I set aside whatever I may be doing and dedicate more time to doing things according to the one great church of tim. Can you understand why this might not be the best way to convert, unless you prefer a small band of "one way" believers?

- The recent critiques I have read of "Tongue in Cheek" did neither, and I
- suggest to the authors of those critiques and to others that you are doing the
- author of the story no favors. If all we ever do is pat ourselves and each
- other on the back, then we will never grow as writers, never polish our craft,
- and almost certainly never get published.

close, but.. psych 101 teaches us that REWARDS (such as pats on the back) ARE the most effective way of encouraging desired behavior. As whatever I am, I really want people to write. Therefore, I prefer not to take actions that discourage writing, even when that writing isn't quite along the lines I prefer.

I do agree that we need to push our craft, to move onward - but there is a very fine line between encouragement (which most of us need from time to time) and political "glad-handing" which I try to keep in mind. I think part of the "trick" is to pat each other on the back while also pointing forward to paths yet untrod.

- (I don't know about you, but to me
- that is the acid test: if you're not already published, then you should be
- working your ass off to get published; if you aren't then you're not a writer,
- you're a dabbler, a diletante, a wanna-be. This includes those too lazy to do
- market research.)

I assume you think that offending people is a good rhetorical move? someday someone will explain this to me, perhaps.

sorry, tim, but what you are doing is trying to discourage competition, to close off other paths than the one you have chosen, and I find that to be a very poor approach.

Let me toss you a statement that we've heard here from the "other side" - artists come in many flavors, in their own ways, and never worry about minor commercial matters - and automatically tromp all over the commercial ass buster. If you are trying to get published, you can only generate trash. (roughly paraphrased by me)

Before you explode - I don't buy either approach to writing as absolute categories. I'm sorry, but writers come in too many different packages to fasten down in these narrow ruts. I also see your "acid test" as one of the best damn ways I know to get myself into a solid, ugly "writers block." I've been there, didn't like it, and don't really want to try it again.

why is it so important to smash those who aren't following your path? I mean, you are trying very hard to discourage anyone who isn't ready for your "crusade," - basting them with "you're not a writer, you're a dabbler, a diletante, a wanna-be." what if someone said "you're not a writer, you're a hack, a plot-boiler, a sweaty grunt?" I mean, if we are writers, we should be careful with our language, and perhaps consider the impact on the reader, don't you think?

Incidentally, I believe diletante is misspelled. Don't be too lazy to use a dictionary in checking your work - the word is dilettante.

too lazy to do market research? ah, me, you do have a way of pre-judging, do you not? It is rather frustrating to be so lightly judged and cast aside, isn't it?

- With that in mind, and having roused the ire of, I'm sure,
- more than a few on this list,

does a good writer, a real writer, deliberately try to "rouse the ire"? for no better reason than to coddle his own egotism? I think there are other ways to present your points that would make people accept them and try to follow without having to descend to aggression and abuse. That old mule fights the whip, but pulls all day for one carrot.

May I suggest that you might want to think about why having everyone fall into lockstep with your program is so important to you? Honestly, I don't believe writing is a competition - there is plenty of space for all kinds of writing, all kinds of writers, and many different approaches. The only person you really need to please is yourself.

- here is the critique of "Tongue in Cheek" that I
- sent to the author by private email, with (very) slight modification:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
- First, what's wrong:

according to sales principles (yes, they can teach too), management training, rules of human interaction, and quite a few years of personal experience, this is the wrong beginning. As I recollect, the most effective approach is to start with positive, in particular affirming the person. Then present the problem. Then provide suggestions for improvement. End with positive affirmation of the person, and (if possible) of some aspect of their work.

So, for example, you might have started by admitting that you are new to the list, and thought enough of this piece to want to critique it, since the writer is obviously quite good. You might also provide a bit of your "philosophy of critiquing" just to let the writer know what is coming. Obviously you care about your writing, so you may want to add this kind of approach to your already careful critical "bag of tricks."

- Cute at first, but it fizzles from the middle on. By the time you got
- halfway through the court scene I'm asking myself, "So what?". I think it's

this is very good, providing him with fairly clear indications of the effect on you as a reader.

- because the story doesn't really deliver on the moral. For us to feel like

since I don't think he provides a moral, it might be good to describe the moral you drew from the story.

- Randy has been had, we need to know what a great thing his tongue is (was).
- You need to *show* us, not simply tell us. A single line like "his tongue was
- a thing to be worshipped" is not enough. Who worshipped it? Randy? or the
- women in his life? And if so, how did they express their admiration? (Let's
- see some examples. Did women fight for dates with him? Was he asked to a lot
- of parties because he could do marvelous party tricks with his tongue?) The
- only reactions you show us from coworkers are negative (disgust, etc), so that
- only makes Randy look like an insensitive jerk.

I tend to end up quoting parts, and providing my own rewrites. While the questions you provide are good ones, and should help the writer think about the piece, I find it helpful myself to be shown what to do, instead of simply asked and told. You do a little of this with your hints that perhaps women fight for dates, or he does party tricks. Still, I end up "interlining" my comments into the text.

- In other words, you have not shown us any basis for the claim that his tongue
- was marvelous; the only person who seems to think so is Randy. It would be
- funnier (and a much better comment on these politically-correct times) if he
- had been admired all his life by others because of his tongue, if it had gotten
- him lovers, gotten him promoted, made him popular, etc. Then when Delores wins
- her suit, poor Randy is to be pitied, not jeered. It would heighten the effect
- even more if thereafter Randy developed a phobia about his tongue and could no
- longer satisfy his lover(s) with it, nobody in the office wants to see him do
- party tricks with it, etc. In short, his life becomes *very* sad, and not just
- because of a failed movie-of-the-week.

This seems to me to be describing a very different story from the one you are critiquing. Admittedly, it can be effective to provide a different plot and recommend places to expand or shrink, but I'm not sure if I agree that this would be a funnier piece. As you say, you have turned it into a tragedy, with a rather predictable outcome.

- Boiled down, it comes to this: we don't care about Randy because he looks
- like a jerk. Even in a short, humorous piece we *must* care about the
- characters or there is no story, and no point in relating it. For this piece
- to work, we must like Randy and sympathize with him, so that his descent into
- disfavor seems unjust.

descent into disfavor? he became supreme court aardvark, didn't he?incidentally, are you pregnant or just suffering from tapeworm?

I think it is good that you have pointed out some "keys to writing" to back up your specific comments. I think I would be a bit less dogmatic about the results of not following them, but that is partly a stylistic choice.

- Second, what's right:
- It's a very cute and funny premise. This story could be really good. Keep
- working on it. I've had some stories go through 3 or 4 critique cycles before
- they really flowed.

Ok, you've got the positive. Of course, I'd like some particulars - line-by-line comments make it very easy to say "this phrasing is good" or "I laughed at this point."

- --------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Now if it seems I've been tough on the author, I have, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY

well, from your example, I'm tempted to let this slide, but... I think you misstated the point.

You have been tough on the piece (not quite the way I would be, but that's unimportant). However, you have done a good job in NOT BEING TOUGH ON THE AUTHOR! And I think that is critical. Smash, burn and destroy the piece - fine. But take care not to bash the person. That is one of the keys I see to doing a good critique, and too many people make the same mistake you did, of saying they are being tough on the author.

I have to admit, I have trouble getting it right, but I consider this one of the most important parts of my writing critiques. I do consider critiques to be a specialized and interesting exercise in writing. I consider one of the hard parts of doing them to be encouraging and supporting the writer at the same time that I provide detailed dismemberment of their offspring. It's a bit like trying to perform surgery on a wide-awake patient - you have to get the local anaesthetic or nerve block in the middle first and then keep telling that head that what you are doing down here in the bowels really doesn't hurt.

- WAY TO HELP HIM (or any writer, myself included). Polite, congratulatory

maybe it is my age, but I rarely am this certain that I know "THE ONLY WAY" to do anything, let alone help people. Sometimes I have some suggestions about ways that seem to work for me, but that's about as far as I go.

- critiques serve little purpose, except to make the recipient feel good, but

and keep them writing and help promote group membership and keep YOU writing and help avoid the feelings of "no one is reading my stuff" when you don't hear from anyone for weeks and ... there are a few other reasons and purposes that these can meet.

Frankly, while I prefer detailed critiques and prefer doing that kind myself (mostly because I learn a lot when I do that), I am also happy to hear even one word from anyone on the list. A polite, congratulatory critique may be the first step for someone on this list, and I certainly love to see someone making that step, because once they do that, we can talk about how to do more effective critiques, and start playing pattycake reward and strokes to keep them growing.

Or we could just smash everyone who hasn't had the experience, is short on time, or otherwise has difficulty being able to do the one and only, blessed in bond and ruined by time, hardcore real professionals' kind of presentation. probably certified by the professional writers institute, to boot.

- good feelings will not help you get published. And THAT should be the aim of
- us all.

Good feelings do help people get published, Tim. They help them continue in the face of discouragement, unbelieveable turnaround times, personal difficulties and all the other idiocy that makes up the normal publication routes. They even help them decide which of the many aims in a writing life they will dedicate their time and efforts to, whether that is the simple one of being published, the more subtle one of writing well, or even the social one of being part of the writers group that hangs out at this saloon for a while.

By the way - I appreciate the fire and drive I see in your piece, but think you would catch more flies with a little honey and some consideration for the wide varieties of writing and life that I am sure you have experienced. Tell me, did your group in Sacramento use some of the popular checklists for critiquing, or some books on writing? Which ones (there is a list in one of our FAQS)? Would you like to prepare a TECH piece summarizing either the checklists or some favorite books? How did you handle limiting submissions and spreading out the task of critiquing? I really think this is an area that could use some organization and information. Perhaps you could help us with it, after you take a look at some of the thoughts on the subject that we have.

Thank you for commenting - and I look forward to your participating on the list. If you have a chance, I would be very pleased to hear from you about my little pieces on how to submit and critique. I am also interested in hearing your reactions to this critique.

Original Posting: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:07:01 EDT

[during an attempt to break the WRITERS list]

Ah, me oh my...

I've been given to understand that there may be some confusion about just who's running things around here, and what the difference is between tink removing privileges to post or read and jester (or others) deciding not to read things, and what is this list for, anyway, and why don't people just delete stuff if they don't want to read it, and so on...

Let me try to clear up some of the confusion. What else would a listowner be doing at midnight on a Friday night, right?

1. Who's the listowner?

First of all, in case it isn't clear, Mike Barker (aka tink) is the listowner. If you'd like to verify that, you can send mail to writers-request@[old address] (the listowners' address for EVERY listserv list--take the name of the list, add -request to it, send mail to it, and you are in touch with the owners). I'll try to answer you fairly soon (don't forget, I'm a volunteer who does this in my "spare" time).

If by any chance you kept the original documents that were sent to you when you joined, you'll find the information about writers-request in there, I believe.

You can also ask the members of the list who have been around a while. Heck, you could even watch to see who spends their time cleaning up, posting FAQs and so forth, and who takes care of disruption and other problems on the list. I think in a short time you'll be able to figure out what I do.

Or you can check out [collection of writers postings] and look at the pages and pages of writers postings that I have archived there. Even the most prolific might find it difficult to throw together such a collection overnight (although they might organize their's better, I will grant you).

Oh, and there are some parts which you really should just take on faith...for example, if you insist on personal attacks, harassment, or other disruption, I'll be the one who removes your privileges.

In short, I'm the listowner.

2. tink said he was removing privileges, then jester said he was going to kill all the newbies--so we've all been kicked off the list, right?

Well, no...some people refuse to play by the fairly lenient rules that we have developed for this workshop of writers. I remove their privileges to participate and let the list know what has happened. That's one level.

On the other hand, someone like Jester cannot remove your membership.

What he can do (as can any of you--and as several recent posters have strongly urged that we all do) is to choose not to read postings from some addresses, certain types of postings, etc. He (or anyone else) can use the topic filtering of listserv to pick between (properly labelled) SUB:, CRIT:, TECH:, EXER:, WOW:, FILL:, or INT: postings. In most modern mailers, he (and you) also has various kinds of filtering abilities. For example, you can choose to put all postings from mbarker into a separate folder, into the trashcan, or whatever. You can also choose to route postings with [WRITERS] in the subject line to a specific folder.

(I believe jester has chosen to have "known" and "unknown" folders, with authors that he knows going into the "known" stack while all others go into the slushpile...er, ah, "unknown" folder. And like most editors, he reads from the known stack first, and looks at the slushpile if he has time. This kind of prioritization, whether deliberate and automated or unconscious and sloppy, is pretty old, really.)

Or, of course, you can do the old manual trick of looking at the subject lines and from fields (usually available in some kind of an index in your mailer) and deciding which pieces of mail to open first (or which to delete first) from that index.

So--when people say they aren't reading you, that means just that--they are ignoring you. It doesn't stop your posting and participation in the list, although you may want to consider what lead to them taking that radical stance. It's especially surprising given that most of the members here are the kind of people who read the ingredients on boxes while standing in lines rather than just stand there with their mouths open--i.e., they tend to read EVERYTHING if they possibly can.

When tink says you can't post to the list, you'll know it. You'll also know what you can do to rejoin, because I tell every person who loses the privileges of membership what they need to do to rejoin the list.

Okay? Let's see if I can come up with an analogy...well, suppose WRITERS is a newspaper, with each person who posts being a reporter (of sorts).

One level--jester deciding not to read some people's postings--is just someone deciding not to read the sports section of the newspaper. That's their choice, and doesn't directly impact your ability to post and participate (although if you get enough people ignoring you, it'll be kind of boring, but nobody promised you readers...you've got to provide enough reason for them to start reading and keep reading).

The other level--tink removing privileges--is the editor-in-chief deciding that there isn't going to be sports section any more (and you, unfortunately, are the sports writer). Specifically, it's the listowner making sure that individuals are not misusing the privileges of list membership.

3. Isn't this list just for interesting or entertaining writing? Can't people just post anything that they like?

No, not exactly. This list is a workshop for writing, not simply a place for anyone to post whatever they like. For example, original writing (fiction, poetry, the occasional essay or non-fiction piece) is sent to the list as a SUBmission (with SUB: in the subject line). Other members then CRITique or comment on the writing (with CRIT: in the subject line). We also exchange TECHnique pieces (with TECH: in the subject line) discussing aspects of the techniques or technical side of writing. We sometimes post EXERcise (with EXER: in the subject line) pieces, written to provide others with a chance to exercise their writing. We post World Of Writing (WOW:) pieces sharing information about the world of writing "out there" beyond the workshop. We also exchange some FILLer pieces, usually focusing on experiences, ideas, or other background to writing which doesn't fit so easily into the other topic areas. Finally, we sometimes have INTeractive (guess where to put the INT: ) series, either the standard kind of round robbin stories with multiple authors adding new segments or other multiple member participatory threads. Shared worlds, etc.

In other words, while it is true that we do share interesting or entertaining writing, there is an etiquette or protocol for doing so. The BIO or INTRO pieces are intended to be autobiographical, not fiction. (And yes, I am well aware that there is some fiction in all writing--but let's not attempt to get bogged down in minor points, let's work together to understand, all right?)

4. What does it matter whether the life stories and experiences are true or not? Who knows what is real on the computer, anyway? If we tell a good story, and people enjoy what they are reading, where's the problem?

Ah, me. And all life is but a tale told by a madman, hovering in the mists of memory...and if the butterfly sneezes, who will dream us again?

There is, of course, at least one person who always knows whether you are telling the truth or not.

And that person is your judge, jury, and possibly executioner...or at least warden of the prison.

That person is yourself.

If you tell a story well enough--and people know it is a story, and enjoy it in the reading--indeed, there is no problem. This is working within the social framework that supports writing and fiction.

If you insist on telling stories when those about you are expecting truth, and from time to time pull the rug out from under them and laugh at their discomfort--no, that really isn't acceptable. This is using the social interactions as a way to trap and hurt people.

5. Look, just don't believe everything you read, and enjoy life. If you don`t want to read it, use delete.

Excellent advice. And, oddly, exactly what Jester proposed to do, which upset several people very much...

Of course, there is also the point that this list is NOT available for anyone to post anything that they like. In fact, members of this list should not have to use delete very much to avoid things they don't want to read. That's really the point in having a list--to try to make sure that most of the postings ARE "on topic."

What this advice to use delete and let people do whatever they want actually suggests is that after spending five years or more working on this list, collecting the members and getting a level of communication built up, I (as list owner) must allow anyone to use that membership collection in any way that they like?

I'm sorry to be the one to burst the bubble, but that isn't the way this works.

Feel free to start another list. But on this list, there are some rules, some guidelines, some ways of doing things which we all obey. They aren't as onerous as you might expect--mostly, they amount to common sense and a bit of respect for the other members.

I will point out that deliberately deceiving your readers when they are expecting truth or fact (and on this list, the members are also readers) seems...well, pitiful, to be honest.

If you want help learning how to work with this list, just ask.

You might be surprised at how much fun it can be.

tink

Original posting: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 11:45:26 JST

FAQ: Assorted Rules! (was: Re: Practice Safe Postings)

[with apologies in advance to those I have quoted without permission, paraphrased wildly, or otherwise cribbaged. I been a bad boy...]

and with thanks to Erik for suggesting it.

assorted rules for the ruleless, by the ruler's edge, and off the listless: (Rule De Writers, De Writers rule de list...)

0. Consider your readers. Do unto them at least as well as you would like to be done to, and consider giving better than you get.

1. 50/50 rule - try to post at least one writing-related, semi-serious post for each chatter, joke, short, meaningless, post. Balance your postings! (attributable to jc, if you're keeping score)

2. Rubber Band Limit - congratulate yourself when you only post one or two in a day. Feel the rubber band pinch as you post more. Feel it snap and hit your nose when you get into double-digits.

3. Positive charge - if you can't say something positive, don't say anything. Try to make sure each posting has at least one positive contribution - for everyone on the list.

4. Don't get personal, asshole. Nobody likes to be called stupid, idiot. And similar redundancies...

5. Think about your presentation. The best points in the world, the most wonderful intentions, are worthless if you make the reader so angry they never even notice what you were saying in between the insults, implied putdowns, and other verbal abuse.

6. Start by assuming that the other person was making a reasonable statement from their understanding. Figure out what understanding would make what they said reasonable. Then try to figure out how to say what you want to so that someone with that understanding will see what you are pointing to. It isn't as easy as saying they are idiots and lighting up the flamethrowers to crisp them, but it can be more satisfying.

7. You don't have to respond to everything. If someone seems to be upset, give them a break. That means resting, not hitting them again and again.

8. Avoid trying to "beat" the other person, "win" the argument, or otherwise end the discussion. In most cases, differences of opinion are not solved by debating, no matter how heated - but anger, frustration, and other emotional irritants are racked up to dump later.

9. Read the FAQ on Sparks and Irritations

10. MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction. It's the exact same thing whether the weapons are the wild words of verbal abuse or the final solution of strategic nuclear armaments.

Randy's short takes:

First (a face to face method), let the other person have his/her say before you explain why he/she is wrong, always has been, always will be.

Second (a generally applicable tactic), if you have something to say that a group of, oh, say about 200, 300 might like to hear, say it. If not, don't say it.

Third (specific to WRITERS), try to keep your postings to subjects at least peripherally about writing.

Fourth (applicable to all listservs), remember that some members have to pay more than others to be connected and try to economize as a courtesy to them--gather your thoughts for a few posts; think about what you want to say; say it as well as you can. If nothing else, it promotes conciseness and may even make the REVISION monster less dreadful to contemplate.

From Bill Siers:

Play nice or I'll yank you out of the sandbox and separate you! KIDS!

From Eliz:

Try common sense and respect for the other person. A little bit goes a long way.

From MJI (MOMMIE!):

Do a beagle dance, wail at the moon, and it'll be all right now!

From Bruce:

try to make the message content more than a header and signature. everyone likes some meat in their sandwiches.

From Erik:

Behind even the shortest message or most confused writing, there is a person. They may be calling for help, or just having a bad day.

From Drex:

When you walk in the door, being called names and hearing insults passed around like toys isn't real nice. Give the new kids on the block a chance to find out what kind of gang you are before you string them up.

From Mary Poppins:

Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down...

And from tink:

If you can't come up with something concise, make 'em laugh. Happy people want to be more happy, so they keep reading. Angry, bored, and otherwise upsot folks just want to wipe, flush, and go - and that's when the **** hits the bucket, if you'll pardon me putting my asterisks out in public.

<push the little lever on the back there, and let's all watch the swirling to see which way it goes... down, huh?>