Hah! You guys are all nuttier than I am.
Addledhorski,
I'm not even qualified to be on a jury.
It was a drunk driving case. There was to be testimony from a blood analyst and two cops. The judge's instructions were that a cop was equal to any other witness, no more no less. I told the court that imho, cops are generally better witnesses for the same reason blood scientists are: they're expert witnesses. (Please, folks, I don't need to be told that there are bad cops. I've already lost one friend over this topic. But I am, indeed, more sympathetic to cops than are most people I know.)
He asked me why I was qualified to say that cops were better witnesses. I told him I'd seen it dozens of times when I was driving semis across America and gave him examples. First of all, it's been shown that cops are surprisingly accurate at estimating your speed; they're usually within 10% of what radar shows. For another example I'm sure he didn't want to hear, cops don't trust the stoplights to see if somebody just tried to slow down, because some people will use the emergency brake, or downshift, or not even have stop lights. So you judge by whether or not the car tilts forward. Trucks will puff smoke out the exhaust if you let off the fuel pedal or pull on the "Jake" brake.
The judge read the instructions to me again, as if to say, "Here, smartass. This is the law." So I analyzed the ambiguity, confusion, and inconsistency in the language, logic, and assumptions of what he read to me.
He asked me where I got off questioning the expertise of the way the law was written. I told him the law was written by politicians, who specialize not in clarification but obfuscation. He told me obfuscation was a fancy word (as if to say HF spent his life in salons). I asked him if he could think of a clearer noun that was an antonym for "clarification." (That's an old rhetorical trick; ask what you know he can't answer.)
He tried to change the subject, but I pulled him back by referring him to an article about the muddle of legalese--which appeared in the Journal Of Legal Education, co-authored by the esteemed Darryl Hattenhauer. He dropkicked me over the scales of justice.
Gentleman Jim,
After telling people that I was found unfit for jury duty, somebody told me a sure fire way to be excused: carry a Bible. It reminds me of an old Johnny Carson joke. A teacher catches her students gambling, and she says, "That's okay. Just don't let me catch you praying."
icky blues p,
As you say, I use 13's to get the vol and tone, whether electrocuted or a coup stick,
And as for reducing strain on the neck, I keep it detuned when I'm not playing it. And I use E and A tuning but step them down a whole tone so they're really D and G, which also reduces spring breakage.
I rarely try the weird opens tunings of Havens and Stills. That weird E tuning Stills uses would require a whole different arrangement of gauges, which I guess I'd do if I were really a legitimate guitarist (but enough about the circumstances of my birth).
A pro would probably use nickel, but I can't hear the difference, so I go with stainless. They're cheaper, last longer, and more closely match the color of my fillings.
I also use plain old slides of glass and steel. None of the Peruvian ceramics, corrugated cobalt, or $100 Coricidin bottles. I've seen guys spend a lot of time and money trying out different slides, and in the end they still can't decide. All they have is have a thousand-dollar slide collection.
So the question is, what brands should I use given the fact that I stay in E and A, buy stainless strings, and use cheap-ass slides?
ava,
Hey, one of those Phx housewives is Stevie Nicks.
