Jonadab's Comp04 Playnotes

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

> I'm guessing your real objection is that I either severely downgraded a
game
> that you liked, or scored a game that you hated rather higher than you
think
> it deserves.

You did both, multiple times. But that is not my real objection. As I noted
before, my main complaint is that your reviews made judging the games seem
like such a chore. If you can't dedicate sufficient time, then why not judge
fewer games or just wait until the comp is over and play the ones you think
you'll like. If you find a well-written game where you are not the target
audience (e.g. All Things Devours), why not skip it rather than giving it a
bad score.

My second complaint is that your judging system seemed to boil down to how
long you played the game, which a) is mostly based on personal taste, and b)
seems to be fairly dependant on random factors, such as your mood on that
day. If you want to bail on Ninja or PTBAD3 after 15 minutes then I can't
say I blame you, but you also gave up on some technically very competant
games without giving them a fair chance. Sure first impressions/personal
taste matter, but should that be the difference between a 3 and an 8?

My third complaint is that you always seemed to quit the games without
looking at the hints or the walkthrough. Your criticism of Blue Chairs was
based solely on the first scene (maybe 15% of the game). When I played it, I
wasn't going to give it an 8 based on the first scene, but it certainly
wouldn't be an 2 either. My final assessment of an 8 was based on the game
as a whole. BTW, the game you reviewed the most unfairly IMHO was Sting of
the Wasp.


> Granted, this was my first time judging, and I've already worked out a
> refinement to my process if I judge again: rather than starting out each
> game at zero and raising it, in the future I would start each game out at
> four and then add from there (or subtract for annoyances). (Then I would

FWIW, your proposal for a revised scoring system seems at least better than
your previous one, although it still seems designed to save you the chore of
actually having to play all the games you judge/review.


> If I read your objection right, you are suggesting that the comp judges
> should be expected to play each game that they rate to completion or to
the
> end of the two-hour limit. However, I didn't see anything about that in
the

It's not a rule, but it is common courtesy.

Andrew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

> Well, you said "some people just shouldn't be judges", which kind of
> implies that their uninformed opinions should not be accepted in the
> comp. (What else could it mean?) You later said you thought "informed"
> opinions were more valid. So I don't think Zarf was misrepresenting your
> words.

To clarify this again (in case it's not completely obvious by now), I meant
that judges who do not make an adequate effort to play games ought not to
vote on them. "Adequate" is a fairly subjective criterion, but if you bail
out on several games after 15 minutes because "they are hopeless" and those
games end up finishing in the top 10 of the comp, then it is time to
reevaluate your judging method.


> Is this what they're doing in English Lit these days? I think I
> prefer pomo.

Pomo as in post-modern? To be honest, I had to read that 3 times before I
realized that it didn't say porno (with bad kerning).

Andrew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

First, let me say that I am doing my best to try to reply to everyone's
comments without being overly repetitive (although I'm sure that is being
called into question). For the record, I agree with almost everything Eric
said earlier in this thread, and overall it's a pretty good summary of what
I was saying.


> (We have this argument every year, just so you know. So far, the

So I am told... although I can't say that I remember it the last 2 years.


> > It was observed
>
> (That is, you observed -- I'm not sure why you switched to passive
> voice here)

I was writing "in the academic sense," and in the persona of a stats major
(not English lit). Apparently at least 2 of the 3 people who replied didn't
pick up on that.


> You can always declare a factor to be "random noise" if you assume
> that it's meaningless.

True. But any judging session will have some random elements...

1. The mood of the player on that day.
2. The exact commands that the player types.
3. Whether the player misreads or misunderstands some aspect of the game.
4. Whether the player gets stuck on a particular puzzle.

Any of these factors could vary randomly on a day-to-day basis. My
conclusion is that a hurried evaluation (because the player is impatient,
unreceptive, etc.) will tend to magnify these effects. Should getting stuck
on one minor puzzle really make the difference between a 3 and an 8? If the
player makes an attempt to play the whole game (at least falling back to the
hints/walkthrough when he is stuck), then the random factor will probably be
decreased.


> However, if you release a game outside of the competition, and many
> people can't or won't finish it based on the first scene (and lack of
> walkthrough/hints/etc), that certainly will affect how people look at

Well, for one thing, I have consistently made a distinction between games
with hints/walkthrough and those without.

> Do you believe the IFComp should fail to correlate with those
> outcomes?

No, but:

1. A game outside the comp will be judged/played mainly by players who enjoy
that particular genre.
2. A game outside the comp will be judged by players who are actively
seeking out a game, not players who suffer from "comp fatigue".

Andrew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

dbs@cs.wisc.edu (Dan Shiovitz) wrote in message news:<cnr51s$8ju$1@drizzle.com>...
>
> (some Blue Chairs spoilers)
>
> It sounds like you didn't get out of the house.

I didn't get further out of the house than the front porch. After thirty
minutes of play or so. Maybe I'm just dumb, but the house was the game's
setting, or so it seemed. Yeah, there _was_ the phone call, which seemed
to indicate I should be getting a ride someplace else, but it was a call
from someone that it seemed I hadn't seen in aeons (i.e., someone not
important in the PC's life), and the PC was badly stoned at the time, so
for a while I discounted it as unimportant. The game did reinforce its
importance later: "Lest We Not Forget Our Purpose...", but by then I was
quite thoroughly disgusted with the game already.

> The whole puzzle involving finding the ride out of there is pretty
> bad; it'd be fine in a puzzle game but this isn't one, and
[snip details]

The difficulty of the puzzle isn't the whole deal here, though. The game's
whole style just didn't connect with me. The game didn't pull me into its
world, didn't appear to even care if I played any further, and didn't do a
very good job of motivating me to explore its world -- and if it motivated
me to get out of the house, it was only because everything in the house
(i.e., in the game's whole world up to that point) was boring. The writing
is actively annoying (to me anyway) in pretty much every paragraph. Just
for one example, the line I quoted above doesn't make sense; I don't think
the author knows what the word "lest" means. If I listed every individual
thing like this that I didn't like about the game, I'd draw down flamewars
upon myself as surely as if I said I was going to write my own parser in
three days in BASIC.

> if you've done something else first you've made the game unwinnable.

Ugh. Was there at least a reasonable in-the-game way to get a clear
warning that that was the problem?

> But what I liked about the game more than made up for the flaws. I
> liked the writing (there were at least a half-dozen great lines),

For me, five times that number of great lines would not make up for the
writing in this game. I commented in my playnotes (based on about eight
minutes of play) that one line in particular sounded like something out
of the BLFC. After the game got second place, I started wondering if I
missed something, and went back and played another thirty minutes -- when
I did so, I found several additional examples of writing that actively
reminded me of specific prize-winning BLFC entries. The worst was the
mashed comparison with the fruit salad -- not the kind with the mandarin
oranges, the other kind, the kind with apple slices -- immediately followed
by a tangential-but-irrelevant sentence fragment. Maybe I'm missing some
great insight that makes this funny rather than annoyingly bad, but the
problem is, I appear to be missing it rather consistently...

> I'm also interested in the big question the game is kicking around --
> something like "Man, how did I get here in my life? What happened? Why
> did some relationships break down, and why did I end up in this dead-end
> job and dead-end life and -- didn't it use to be better? Where did I go
> off-track?"

*lightbulb*

Oh. There people who really struggle with those questions. You know,
that makes sense now that you point it out. I probably should have thought
of that. I think I mistook it for aimless writing, and here the author was
probably aiming to portray aimlessness -- and hitting it right on the head,
I'd say. Maybe he portrayed it *too* well, because I thought it was real.

That helps a little, and starts to explain to me why the game was rated
so highly by so many judges. I still don't like it, but if I'd understood
that the aimlessness was deliberate, I'd have been a bit more forgiving.

This doesn't make me want to go and play it some more though. Quite the
contrary: I'm now pretty sure I wouldn't like the rest of it either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Andrew Krywaniuk" <askrywan@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<DZ9od.293044$Pl.203264@pd7tw1no>...
> My second complaint is that your judging system seemed to boil down to how
> long you played the game, which a) is mostly based on personal taste, and b)
> seems to be fairly dependant on random factors, such as your mood on that
> day. If you want to bail on Ninja or PTBAD3 after 15 minutes then I can't
> say I blame you, but you also gave up on some technically very competant
> games without giving them a fair chance.

Would it be better if I just gave NR to all the games I don't want to play
past fifteen minutes?

If I did that, I'd want to grade the rest on the kind of curve that raises
them all by N points so that the best ones get a 10 -- to avoid penalizing
the games that I played and rated since I tend to rate more harshly than
average.

> Sure first impressions/personal
> taste matter, but should that be the difference between a 3 and an 8?

In static fiction, authors know they have to grab you in the first paragraph.
That's one of the trademarks of good writing -- so much so that they teach
it in junior high English classes, and give it a name: Narrative Hook. I
don't think it's unfair to expect that same thing in IF.

> BTW, the game you reviewed the most unfairly IMHO was Sting of the Wasp.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that one. (On purpose, I think.) Sure, it had
significant technical quality, but it was also actively unpleasant. Should
I have just given it an NR?

> > Granted, this was my first time judging, and I've already worked out a
> > refinement to my process if I judge again: rather than starting out each
> > game at zero and raising it, in the future I would start each game out at
> > four and then add from there (or subtract for annoyances). (Then I would
>
> FWIW, your proposal for a revised scoring system seems at least better than
> your previous one, although it still seems designed to save you the chore of
> actually having to play all the games you judge/review.

I thought I wanted to play all the games. Then I saw how bad so many of
them were, and I didn't want to play the really bad ones.

Maybe the problem is that I'm picky.

> It's not a rule, but it is common courtesy.

I was not aware that it was even a _guideline_ (along the lines of, "judges
should try to play as many games as possible"). And so far, you're the only
person I've seen arguing for it. If the comp organizers endorsed this view,
or if I gained the impression that a lot of people felt this way and it was
a consensus, that would make a significant difference.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

half <half@nospam.fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> One trick I used during development was to turn recording on and make a
> transcript. Then I could just add in an earlier action or something
> easily and get back up to the current spot. This is not exactly
> flavoursome and I wouldn't recommend it, but it is a trick worth knowing
> if your patience ends up running thin with a game like this.

I wound up having to do a slight variation on that in order to beat
Varicella. And it's *way* longer than ATD.

--Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:

> Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>>(That is, you observed -- I'm not sure why you switched to passive
>>voice here)
>
>
> I was writing "in the academic sense," and in the persona of a stats major
> (not English lit). Apparently at least 2 of the 3 people who replied didn't
> pick up on that.

I picked up on it. My point was that analysing critical reviews from
the point of view of a stats major is ridiculous.

One's appreciation of a game is not a quantifiable entity. In the
comp, it *looks* quantifiable, because people are asked to translate
their appreciation into a number between 1 and 10 -- but the precepts
people use to do this are arbitrary or indefinable, and vary from
voter to voter, from game to game, and from day to day. My vote of
7 does not mean the same as your vote of 7. My vote of 7 for game X
does not mean the same as my vote of 7 for game Y. Sure, in the
end you get a bunch of numerical data on which you can perform
statistical analyses -- but most conclusions you draw from such
analyses will be meaningless.

(Which is not to say that such abuses of statistics don't turn up
regularly in marketing, "management science", journalism and other
spurious disciplines.)

Stephen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:

> My second complaint is that your judging system seemed to boil down to how
> long you played the game, which a) is mostly based on personal taste,

How are people meant to judge on anything other than personal taste?
Am I meant to judge based on someone else's personal taste?

> and b)
> seems to be fairly dependant on random factors,

Personal taste is based on fairly random factors, such as place of
birth, upbringing, genetics, brain chemistry etc. You can't eliminate
"random factors" from the voting.

Stephen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:

> To clarify this again (in case it's not completely obvious by now), I meant
> that judges who do not make an adequate effort to play games ought not to
> vote on them. "Adequate" is a fairly subjective criterion,

True.

> but if you bail
> out on several games after 15 minutes because "they are hopeless" and those
> games end up finishing in the top 10 of the comp, then it is time to
> reevaluate your judging method.

Why? It could simply be my opinion that said games are hopeless.

>>Is this what they're doing in English Lit these days? I think I
>>prefer pomo.
>
>
> Pomo as in post-modern? To be honest, I had to read that 3 times before I
> realized that it didn't say porno (with bad kerning).

Depends on how you train the nets, I suppose.

Stephen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
>It was observed that some judges submitted scores whose variance from
>the mean exceeded the standard deviation in multiple cases.

Of course they do. If they didn't, the standard deviation would be
narrower. This is a bit like observing that 50% of all games are
better than average.

I agree with you that games should be given a fair chance, but you
sounded a bit too harsh. It sounded like you meant that people not
giving your definition of a fair chance should not vote. This kind of
meta-judging is a slippery slope.

The original poster recognised that his votes tend to be lower than
average, and he tried to play as many games as possible to avoid
tipping the voting balance. Fair enough for me.

Marshall T. Vandegrift wrote:
> Only one of my scores ("Gamlet"'s 10) is outside of the standard
> deviation, but otherwise my rankings are well within statistical
> bounds

This thread seems to be haunted by the assumption that being in a
minority is something that calls for excuses. (I know that you
probably weren't justifying yourself - I quoted out of context to make
a point).

Nusco

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
> [...] From this, it is concluded that judges who submit scores
> based on a short time of evaluation add a random noise component to the
> final scores, and this factor is expected to be significant enough to affect
> the placement of the top 10 finishers.

As far as I can tell the placement of the top 10 finishers is pretty much
meaningless in any case. If you're investigating the mean height of males in
Duluth, there is a right answer and there's a clear sense in which error
bounds on your approximation of it make sense. If you're trying to predict
how people will vote in an upcoming election, there at least *will* be an
answer, and error bounds still make some sense, though not as much.

In the case of comp game rankings there just isn't a right answer, because
it's just not the case that one of the 36 games is better than all the
others, another is worse than that one but better than the 34 others, and so
on. You're never going to get a reasonable approximation to an answer that
isn't there. It may make sense to say that there's a partial order on the
games; for example, you could give each mean score a fuzziness equal to,
say, half of a standard deviation on each side, and then declare two games
incomparable when their fuzzy ranges overlap. If you do that, the top 10
games in the official ranking are mutually incomparable, which makes sense
to me.

But it would be a bad idea to publish a partial order on the games as the
official result. Not because it's less accurate, but because it's
unsatisfying. People like having winners; they like being able to take any
two games and say that one beat the other. And in particular *entrants* to
the contest are motivated by a desire to take first place, and the real goal
of the IFComp is to encourage people to write good games, not to figure out
which ones are best. Random noise from rogue judges may affect the rankings,
but I don't think it affects the quality of the entries.

-- Ben

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Stephen Bond" <stephen@NOSPAMkuleuven.ac.be> wrote in message
news:1101120343.788568@seven.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be...
> Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
>
> > My second complaint is that your judging system seemed to boil down to
how
> > long you played the game, which a) is mostly based on personal taste,
>
> How are people meant to judge on anything other than personal taste?
> Am I meant to judge based on someone else's personal taste?

Well, you might consider making personal taste just one factor in your
voting. You can also judge based on commonly accepted standards of
bugginess, implementation detail, spelling/grammar, perceived effort, etc.

> > and b)
> > seems to be fairly dependant on random factors,
>
> Personal taste is based on fairly random factors, such as place of
> birth, upbringing, genetics, brain chemistry etc. You can't eliminate
> "random factors" from the voting.

I believe you're taking my comments out of context. As I explained in a
different message, "random factors" refers to potential variations in the
score of *a particular judge* due to such factors as mood, luck, timing,
whether they played the game early or late in the comp, whether the phone
rang while they were playing, whether there happened to be something good on
tv...

> Look, to describe someone as "well-informed" has no objective meaning,
....
> Similarly, I might decide that the comments of someone who quit a game
> after ten minutes contain a great deal more insight than the
> exhaustive review of someone who played all the way to the end. I often

Again, it's not a comparison of two different people. It's a comparison of
the same person under two different at two different levels of
'informedness'. Any given judge will be better qualified to judge a game if
they play it for longer than 10 minutes. Even if they do decide to quit,
they will still be semi-qualified to judge if they at least read the
hints/walkthough.

> > other reviewer for doing so? I merely said that it seemed inappropriate
to
> > put too much emphasis on any one factor.
>
> I can't find where you said that, but fair enough. You must realise this
> is a less sweeping statement than "some people just shouldn't be judges".

Well, nothing like a little hyperbole to drive home a point. But anyway,
I did say that it was inappropriate to put excessive emphasis on genre
and/or personal taste. And I still believe that judges who are unwilling to
make a substantial effort to play a game ought to voluntarily refrain from
scoring it.

Andrew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Nusco" <nan0744@iperbole.bologna.it> wrote in message
news:c2799cc5.0411221524.16518ed7@posting.google.com...
> Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
> >It was observed that some judges submitted scores whose variance from
> >the mean exceeded the standard deviation in multiple cases.
>
> Of course they do. If they didn't, the standard deviation would be
> narrower. This is a bit like observing that 50% of all games are
> better than average.

Okay, but you're taking that statement out of context. I said that the
judges(*) with a high variance from the mean correlated with the ones whose
reviews indicated that they gave up easily. (at least the ones who posted
their scores)

Marshall later posted his scores as a counter-example to this. I think what
he did differently was that he quickly eliminated the bottom ~30% of games
based on objective criteria, whereas Stephen and Nathan used more subjective
criteria.

Andrew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:32:28 +0000 (UTC), dbs@cs.wisc.edu (Dan Shiovitz)
wrote:

>In article <42dae7fc.0411211228.1b61d97d@posting.google.com>,
>Nathan Eady <jonadab@bright.net> wrote:
>[..]
>>
>>If you want to argue that I made a mistake jumping to that conclusion in a
>>particular case (e.g., I suspect you're really talking about Blue Chairs,
>>since that's the one where a large number of voters significantly disagreed
>>with my assessment), I'm interested in discussing it. In particular, I've
>>seen a number of reviewers say things to the effect that they forgave the
>>weak beginning in Blue Chairs due to its merits, but the details about said
>>merits are thin on the ground. After the game got such good reviews, I went
>>back to see if I could find what I missed, but maybe someone could clue me
>>in, because I spent another thirty minutes or so and still didn't find it.
>
>(some Blue Chairs spoilers)
>
>The whole puzzle involving finding the ride out of there is pretty
>bad; it'd be fine in a puzzle game but this isn't one, and requiring
>people go rummaging through the attic for no apparent reason (worse
>yet -- after being actively dissuaded from doing so unless they have
>the right item) is a lousy puzzle.

Actually, the hints provide information on an alternate method on how to
get into the dance. If you don't feel like drinking that toxic substance,
you could raid the fridge instead and drink some beer. You don't exactly
have a great dancing experience, but it can work.

>Oh, yeah, and then even when you
>find the thing in the attic, if you've done something else first
>you've made the game unwinnable. Whee.

Really? Can I see?

I've relied on the hints to get through the game, and missed out on how to
mess up the game mechanics. I suspect it might have to do with an attempt
to drive your car prevents you from using it in the epilogue...

The only major problem with the game is that it globally alternates "Alice"
and "Alicia" every three commands. This can be a bit of a problem in some
cases, such as the conversation with the party girl....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

In article <zgUnd.291695$%k.80143@pd7tw2no>,
Andrew Krywaniuk <askrywan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If we did it for IF reviewers, maybe
>Paul O'Brien could be Roger Ebert and this guy could be Mr. Cranky.

Dibs on the Filthy Critic.

Adam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
> "Stephen Bond" <stephen@NOSPAMkuleuven.ac.be> wrote in message
> news:1101120343.788568@seven.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be...

>>How are people meant to judge on anything other than personal taste?
>>Am I meant to judge based on someone else's personal taste?
>
> Well, you might consider making personal taste just one factor in your
> voting. You can also judge based on commonly accepted standards of
> bugginess, implementation detail, spelling/grammar, perceived effort, etc.

But there aren't many "commonly accepted standards" in the areas you
mention. The standards people have in different areas, and the weights
they attach to them, are matters of personal taste.

> I believe you're taking my comments out of context. As I explained in a
> different message, "random factors" refers to potential variations in the
> score of *a particular judge* due to such factors as mood, luck, timing,
> whether they played the game early or late in the comp, whether the phone
> rang while they were playing, whether there happened to be something good on
> tv...

Yeah, but people have lives. Whenever they vote, there will be "random
factors" affecting the score. Even if it was necessary or desirable
(and it isn't), you couldn't get rid of them.

>>Similarly, I might decide that the comments of someone who quit a game
>>after ten minutes contain a great deal more insight than the
>>exhaustive review of someone who played all the way to the end. I often
>
> Again, it's not a comparison of two different people. It's a comparison of
> the same person under two different at two different levels of
> 'informedness'.

Similarly, a judge might place no value on the information to be gained
in finishing a game he doesn't like, and thus not finish the game. You
might consider him less "well-informed" for that, but he would disagree.

>>>it seemed inappropriate to put too much emphasis on any one factor.
>>
>>I can't find where you said that, but fair enough. You must realise this
>>is a less sweeping statement than "some people just shouldn't be judges".
>
> Well, nothing like a little hyperbole to drive home a point.

We've been through this before on r*if, but hyperbole comes across
very poorly on Usenet. Failed or misunderstood attempts at irony and
hyperbole have led to a lot of bad feeling in the past. On Usenet,
it's best to assume people will take your statements at face value.

Stephen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On 19 Nov 2004 08:32:49 -0800, Nathan Eady <jonadab@bright.net> wrote:
> 4. Orion Agenda:
> "reading what looks to be an Orionion bible" is awkward. I think
> it's the word "Orionion" that's awkward. Orionite or Orionese or
> even Orioner would be less awkward, IMHO.

Isn't Orionion the Orion Steakhouse's name for their
onion-ring-appetiser variant?
--
Matthew Miller <mwmiller@columbus.rr.com>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

In article <chq6q01t6q8idrvrtbiapr12pnmc89a6e0@4ax.com>,
Raymond Martineau <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:32:28 +0000 (UTC), dbs@cs.wisc.edu (Dan Shiovitz)
>wrote:
>>(some Blue Chairs spoilers)

>Actually, the hints provide information on an alternate method on how to
>get into the dance. If you don't feel like drinking that toxic substance,
>you could raid the fridge instead and drink some beer. You don't exactly
>have a great dancing experience, but it can work.
>
>>Oh, yeah, and then even when you
>>find the thing in the attic, if you've done something else first
>>you've made the game unwinnable. Whee.

Whoops, looks like you're right. When I drank the beer originally it
seemed like I didn't have enough time to make it to the center of the
dance, and the message made it seem like this was intentional, but
sure enough, it is possible to make it through the dance just with the
beer. That makes me feel a lot better about this puzzle.

--
Dan Shiovitz :: dbs@cs.wisc.edu :: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans
"He settled down to dictate a letter to the Consolidated Nailfile and
Eyebrow Tweezer Corporation of Scranton, Pa., which would make them
realize that life is stern and earnest and Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer
Corporations are not put in this world for pleasure alone." -PGW