Looky -

Since I'm 'officially' allowed to post about this now...

This is what I've been spending some time on over the last few months - testing and helping the organization get this all shiny for the general populace:

http://archiveofourown.org

It's the fiction archive for the Organization for Transformative Works - the one that set itself up right about the time that tacky-ass FanLib made it's first appearance on the internet. It's taken nearly a year (I think) to get it all worked out, but the archive is now up for public viewing. Yes, sorry, you can only look at it and read the stories. We're not quite ready for the general public to have a go at posting, but we're getting there!

So - go, have a peek around, send feedback, whatever tickles your fancy.

** Oh - and quick note - it looks best in Firefox, right now, we're still working out the kinks to make it look fab' in other browsers.


No, I don't know what the official public full launch date is, not even a speculative one, beyond 'when we're done making everything gorgeous', but I'll let you know as soon as I have something!

Looky -

Since I'm 'officially' allowed to post about this now...

This is what I've been spending some time on over the last few months - testing and helping the organization get this all shiny for the general populace:

http://archiveofourown.org

It's the fiction archive for the Organization for Transformative Works - the one that set itself up right about the time that tacky-ass FanLib made it's first appearance on the internet. It's taken nearly a year (I think) to get it all worked out, but the archive is now up for public viewing. Yes, sorry, you can only look at it and read the stories. We're not quite ready for the general public to have a go at posting, but we're getting there!

So - go, have a peek around, send feedback, whatever tickles your fancy.


** Oh - and quick note - it looks best in Firefox, right now, we're still working out the kinks to make it look fab' in other browsers.


No, I don't know what the official public full launch date is, not even a speculative one, beyond 'when we're done making everything gorgeous', but I'll let you know as soon as I have something!

Normally, I wouldn't do another meme, but this one just BEGGED for continuation...

thieved from rihani

As was demonstrated in an interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your LJ. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN LJ to spread the fun.

Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court which was argued February 28–March 1, 1966 and decided June 13, 1966. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. - from wikipedia

Normally, I wouldn't do another meme, but this one just BEGGED for continuation...

thieved from rihani

As was demonstrated in an interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your LJ. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN LJ to spread the fun.



Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court which was argued February 28–March 1, 1966 and decided June 13, 1966. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. - from wikipedia

I'm obviously bored out of my skull -

doing this one b/c i like to steal things from katernater =)

Look at your userpics list. If you have fewer than twenty icons, post them all. If you have between twenty and fifty icons, pick every fifth one. If you have between fifty and seventy-five icons, pick every seventh one. If you have over seventy-five icons, pick every tenth one. List them on your journal and tell everyone exactly why you have it, why it's interesting to you, the keywords you use and what significance it has.


(( not sure if I'll do this on IJ or not b/c I has lots o' icons there - did it ))

( my piddly bunch o' icons b/c the monies are gone )

I'm obviously bored out of my skull -

doing this one b/c i like to steal things from katernater =)

Look at your userpics list. If you have fewer than twenty icons, post them all. If you have between twenty and fifty icons, pick every fifth one. If you have between fifty and seventy-five icons, pick every seventh one. If you have over seventy-five icons, pick every tenth one. List them on your journal and tell everyone exactly why you have it, why it's interesting to you, the keywords you use and what significance it has.

( This is the one time the LJ and IJ versions won't match )