Drabblecast 157 - Brief Candle

Discuss episodes and stories from the Drabblecast Main Feed and from Drabbleclassics
User avatar
Kevin Anderson
Forums Czar
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:06 pm
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Drabblecast 157 - Brief Candle

Post by Kevin Anderson » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:05 pm

Drabble- BDSM Bordello
by A. Bell

Brief Candle
by Ruthanna Emrys

The children washed up early this year; we raced down to the beach as soon as we heard. There was already a traffic jam coming out of the inland cells.
My pockets are always filled with notes, so I left them well-anchored on the beach. Cells may not survive without new children, but without our studies, survival is meaningless...


Narration by Abby Craden
Additional voices by: Julie Hoverson, Liz Mierzejewski, Abbey Hilton, Sarah Tolbert, Monika Vasey, Small Anklevich
Artwork by Jan Dennison
"Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion"

Facebook | Web Site | Night of the Living Trekkies | Book Trailer

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by strawman » Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:14 pm

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. (Jn12:24-25)

A universal truth must by definition apply to both actual and fictional realities, right?

Great story. Outstanding voicing. Just keeps getting better.

Don't worry, son, she's just having contractions? -Like finding a gold doubloon fallen in the sofa cushions. (Where the hell did THAT come from?) Like getting goosed as you leave the party.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
ROU Killing Time
Notorious Forum Hog
Posts: 4253
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by ROU Killing Time » Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:11 pm

Second Strawman's comments. A good story with relevance to the real world. It's true, death is a bitch, and no one likes it. Still, without the reaper threshing the fields there would be no room for future generations to arise.

Consider the lillies (now he's having a go at the flowers.) They are most beautiful when they come into bloom, yet that same blooming signals that the end of their life is near.

I used to fear death when I was young ("If I should die before I wake!!! WTF dude?") and that was solidified when I nearly drowned at 15. My last thoughts when I was sure I was soggy toast were of my mother standing by my grave in tears. I prayed/begged/vowed I'd do anything if she could be spared that (there are no atheists in foxholes or 10 feet below the surface.)

Now that I have grown older and my mother nears her end, I'll be sad when she passes, but grateful that she was spared the loss of another child.

I think that things are the way they are because they are the way they should be, even if reality seems harsh sometimes, there is compassion hidden in the natural order.

Wonderful cast. Small Anklevich was awesome and kind of stole the show. They say you should never go on stage with children or animals... ;-)
"Never fuck with The Culture"
Sublime In Peace Iain M. Banks.

User avatar
moonowl
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:33 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by moonowl » Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:38 am

I love the cover art. I love the guest voice actors. I love the twabble.

The story? Not for me. I feel so awful criticizing our authors, but to be totally honest the writing dragged along like a particularly dull science lecture.

Also, I sense a criticism of intellectuals and professionals who decide not to procreate. You must have heard people say 'dumb people' will mess up the gene pool because they reproduce more and smarties reproduce less. I'm not stupid and I came from salt of the earth, so it really that idea makes me mad enough to poop skittles.
("If I should die before I wake!!! WTF dude?")
:lol: I always that that was a pretty sadistic pre-bedtime prayer too!
You can't keep a soul in a box. You gotta wear it proud. It's gotta be yours, not someone else's. -Sing

User avatar
bell
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:42 pm
Location: New York

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by bell » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:37 am

Kind of agree and kind of disagree with Moonowl. Yes, there was a science lecture; no, it did not drag. Like most good stories, it worked on a whole bunch of levels, and like most good writers, Ms Emrys probably didn't think of most of them as she wrote the story. It could easily have been preachy, in any number of directions; instead, it was a good story about a difficult dilemma facing sympathetic, if amphibian, characters. Amphibian AND ambivalent. Possibly ambidextrous, too.

The production was, of course, flawless. Let us have More women! More aliens! Please!
http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What would have been written.
Spoiler:
If they hadn't died first.

User avatar
ROU Killing Time
Notorious Forum Hog
Posts: 4253
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by ROU Killing Time » Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:09 am

Hmmm, I didn't get "The Marching Morons" subtext from the story myself. I saw it more as an allegory for humanities efforts to extend the human life span. Maybe it was in there and I just missed it. I still think that the most important point the story was making is that if immortality were attainable, what would that mean for future generations? If everyone had the choice to live forever, or nearly so, that would leave no room for the children to occupy. It's all well and good to not go gently into that dark night, but at the end of the day we all have to realize that there's a time for every season and passing away is a natural part of life, something that we ultimately should not fear when the time comes. At least, that's what I got out of the story.

(Also, Moonowl, uneducated does not equate to unintelligent necessarily, and I know lots of highly educated people that are pretty darn stupid. You certainly seem bright enough to me.)
"Never fuck with The Culture"
Sublime In Peace Iain M. Banks.

User avatar
alhilton
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by alhilton » Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:41 am

I thought this was a brilliant piece of work and summarizes many people (particularly women)'s fears of having children. You lose your name. Women of my parents' generation were especially prone to this. They were taught to give of themselves to their families until nothing was left, and they will still tell you that this is the only right way to raise children. Even mothers who maintain a strong sense of self often sacrifice their own artistic or professional potential to an extent that fathers are not often asked to match.

Population growth falls in first world countries because when women get a choice, many of them choose not to have kids or not to have so many. How do you reconcile that with hope for the next generation?

I don't think there are any "should's" here. The story has nothing to preach. It merely presents a heartbreaking conundrum of the human condition.
http://cowrycatchers.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false
http://panamindorah.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

User avatar
dreamrock
Member
Posts: 1058
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by dreamrock » Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:03 am

I didn't interpret it as a 'smart people should breed more and dumb people should breed less' story. Though there was a line in the story which clearly expressed that idea, I didn't take that to be the opinion of the author, but really just the kind of thing that people say.

I took it to be more about the ecological effects of immortality or vastly expanded life spans. That might have been my own 'reading too deep' though.

The story seemed like a very poignant tragedy to me. I could easily see their breeding pool being drastically decreased by the short sighted desire to hold onto sentience for a longer period of time. I was left wondering if the land-dwelling phase merely assumed that they actually lost sapience when they grew old enough to need to go back under, or whether they merely had a brain restructuring that cost them the ability to speak.

Also, they assume that intelligence and maintaining their intelligence will make them happy. Is that necessarily the case? All of the topside people seemed really depressed to me. Desperate might be a better word, but I sensed an underlying depression. Maybe I'm just seeing myself in the story, but if that's the case, kudos to Ruthanna for making it relatable on that level.

I had a problem with the main premise. There didn't seem to be an evolutionary advantage to the females of their species going topside. Their underwater lives weren't improved by anything that happened above water. Surviving long enough to lose speech topside doesn't seem to prove a particular fitness for breeding or survival under the surface. I have a hard time buying the 'it's safer for nearly-breeding-age females to be on the land than in the see' hypothesis. If that was the case, why not the men as well?

The story gave me a lot to think about which is definitely one of my top criteria with stories. It just left me sad though. Not sad at the quality of the story, just generally sad. It's not necessarily a bad story, but I didn't enjoy it beyond the basic pondering it inspired.
Dribblecast: A Community-Driven Podcast | Troll Jammies

"There's no such thing as enough Tequila."

G. E. Lee
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:13 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by G. E. Lee » Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:45 pm

Outstanding story, and very though provoking. It's tempting to me to start engineering a solution to their problem, but I also think the main thrust of the story was to get the reader thinking about the idea of older generations making way for the new. I didn't see any advocacy for eugenics, though one of the characters in the story seemed to invent it in a throw-away remark.
As to the advantages of adolescence on dry land: It could be that the enviroment underwater is safer, since that's where the young are actually born (hatched?), but that food resources are more plentiful on land. So, females are born in the deep, grow to sexual maturity on dry land, but return to the sea to reproduce. That would keep competition for food resources in the sea to a minimum, and would build in a screening mechanism for "fitness," of a sort, for breeding females returning to the water. As to the males, well, as any farmer can tell you, you just don't need very many of them around. A birth rate skewed hard towards females would ensure that there were enough males to procreate and gaurd the nest, but not enough to put a strain on available resources. A relatively high death rate among males just isn't that big a deal.
As to intelligence leading to happiness: I'll take miserable sapience over blissful oblivion.
Anyway, I think that's all window dressing anyone. ahilton and ROU hit the nail on the head, I think. Good stuff.
mogera robusta

User avatar
tbaker2500
Site Admin
Posts: 3612
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: West Lafayette, IN
Contact:

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by tbaker2500 » Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:48 pm

That was one hell of a Good Story. If this story was written just for the drabblecast, then Norm, you're moving up in the world.

One of the best non-humorous stories in a long time.
You're my quasi-ichthian angel, you're my half-amphibian queen...

The Dribblecast, we don't care if you sound like an idiot.

User avatar
alhilton
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by alhilton » Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:05 pm

At the risk of making people angry - This story touches on something I was talking about to friends the other day. The question was: is misogyny adaptive? When given access to education and birth control, women do not have nearly as many kids. Throughout history in most cultures, women have been denied access to education and good birth control, even when it existed. Women were taught that they needed to make the physical, mental, educational sacrifices to breed until their bodies gave out. The second they got a choice, they said, "Hell, no." This process is still ongoing, particularly in the third world. The changes sweeping India, for instance, are fascinating.

Now, for the first time in history, we've gotten to a point where it is perhaps not best for the species that populations keep expanding. And lo! Women suddenly get rights! In just a few generations, we've come to the point where it no longer sucks to be a girl. Now that it's convenient for the species, we get to have careers and not babies. Along the same lines, it no longer sucks (quite so much) to be gay. The penalty for not breeding has plummeted. Coincidence?
http://cowrycatchers.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false
http://panamindorah.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

User avatar
moonowl
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:33 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by moonowl » Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:07 pm

alhilton wrote:I thought this was a brilliant piece of work and summarizes many people (particularly women)'s fears of having children.
And this is why I'm 38 and have no kids. Thanks for pointing that side of it out. It seems like many of us got a lot of different things out of this story.

Was anyone a bit set back by the 'picking the fittest child' part of the story? What happened to the kids who they didn't pick? I know there was one 'slower' child but I wonder if they all came home...
You can't keep a soul in a box. You gotta wear it proud. It's gotta be yours, not someone else's. -Sing

User avatar
moonowl
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:33 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by moonowl » Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:11 pm

alhilton wrote: Now, for the first time in history, we've gotten to a point where it is perhaps not best for the species that populations keep expanding. And lo! Women suddenly get rights! In just a few generations, we've come to the point where it no longer sucks to be a girl. Now that it's convenient for the species, we get to have careers and not babies. Along the same lines, it no longer sucks (quite so much) to be gay. The penalty for not breeding has plummeted. Coincidence?
Oooh, Interesting. I know gay families who still made babies though. It's easier when you are female of course to get a sperm donation, but I know of men who arranged a surrogate.

Remember with a lower mortality rate and less need for hard labor, we need fewer kids too. Maybe we'll be like the Elves and live a few hundred years, and one child lifetime is lucky.
You can't keep a soul in a box. You gotta wear it proud. It's gotta be yours, not someone else's. -Sing

User avatar
normsherman
Site Admin
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:58 am

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by normsherman » Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:30 pm

G. E. Lee wrote:Outstanding story, and very though provoking. It's tempting to me to start engineering a solution to their problem, but I also think the main thrust of the story was to get the reader thinking about the idea of older generations making way for the new. I didn't see any advocacy for eugenics, though one of the characters in the story seemed to invent it in a throw-away remark.
As to the advantages of adolescence on dry land: It could be that the enviroment underwater is safer, since that's where the young are actually born (hatched?), but that food resources are more plentiful on land. So, females are born in the deep, grow to sexual maturity on dry land, but return to the sea to reproduce. That would keep competition for food resources in the sea to a minimum, and would build in a screening mechanism for "fitness," of a sort, for breeding females returning to the water. As to the males, well, as any farmer can tell you, you just don't need very many of them around. A birth rate skewed hard towards females would ensure that there were enough males to procreate and gaurd the nest, but not enough to put a strain on available resources. A relatively high death rate among males just isn't that big a deal.
As to intelligence leading to happiness: I'll take miserable sapience over blissful oblivion.
Anyway, I think that's all window dressing anyone. ahilton and ROU hit the nail on the head, I think. Good stuff.
The mole is back!
"Give us all some Jelly"

G. E. Lee
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:13 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by G. E. Lee » Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:32 pm

alhilton wrote:The penalty for not breeding has plummeted. Coincidence?
Good point. I've wondered the same thing myself, at least the homosexual population, though it honestly never occurred to me that the same thing might be happening to women.
I'd be hard pressed to find references at this point, but I remember reading about a study in which someone found a statistical relationship between the likelyhood of a given male being gay and the number of older male siblings he had. It seemed that the more boys Mom had, the more likely the next one would be gay. Seems like a simple way to reduce competition for available female mates.
Anyway, I think the advent of oral contraception would have had a similiar effect, no matter when it was introduced, so long as women aren't denied access to it. There are plenty of places where that is still a problem.
So, I don't think population is a driver in the case of oral contraception, but the link is probably in medical technology, which would boost the population and allow the creation of the pill in the first place. A healthy state for women's rights would have to be in place to make it effective, but that probably slows population growth all on it's own.
mogera robusta

User avatar
dreamrock
Member
Posts: 1058
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by dreamrock » Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:39 pm

G. E. Lee wrote:As to the advantages of adolescence on dry land: It could be that the environment underwater is safer, since that's where the young are actually born (hatched?), but that food resources are more plentiful on land.
Possibly. It still seems a really far-fetched adaptation to me though. Something I should probably mention is that I'm perfectly capable of dealing with abjectly stupid conceptions of evolution (this isn't stupid, just a bit of a stretch) if those conceptions work for me in the context of the story. I don't blink at the evolution in Pokemon or anti-matter warp drives in Star Trek. :lol: If something is a bit more serious and formalized in its treatment of science, though, I'm probably going to get picky about the parts of science I know a little bit about.
alhilton wrote:At the risk of making people angry - This story touches on something I was talking about to friends the other day. The question was: is misogyny adaptive?
:lol: I'm not sure you're going to find too many people here who will get angry over contemplating the possibility. For my money, it's hard to say 'this morally repugnant social construct was once useful' without examining other social constructs the same way. Female infanticide ... can it ever have been useful to any population? That's not proof that your theory is incorrect by any stretch of the imagination, it just gives me a lot to think about. Which is my favorite thing ever.
moonowl wrote:Was anyone a bit set back by the 'picking the fittest child' part of the story? What happened to the kids who they didn't pick? I know there was one 'slower' child but I wonder if they all came home...
I was too caught up in struggling over which of the "moms" I thought should get the fittest child so I didn't really get the implication that the less fit children wouldn't be picked up at all. :oops:
Dribblecast: A Community-Driven Podcast | Troll Jammies

"There's no such thing as enough Tequila."

User avatar
Talia
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:01 pm
Location: Right behind you

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by Talia » Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:40 pm

Beautiful story. Fascinating worldbuilding, just a really snapshot of a race who've made a discovery that will change everything about how they think about the world and their role in it.

This race seems very young to me (how could they know so little of half their life cycle?). It makes me wonder if they're in the middle stages of evolving or something.

RE: why the waterbabies came to land - the main narrator herself posed that same question. Her colleague speculated that perhaps the dangers on land weeded out the weakest ones. Its left ambivalent, but I believe that was done on purpose. These are people, for all their science, who know very little about how their own species works. Sure it seems .. unlikely, but then we only know about these people what they know themselves.. which isn't much!

I'm not sure how I felt about the ending. Ambivalent endings tend to drive me nuts, but this was lovely. Anxious, I think. The ending made me anxious. I want to know what befalls these people. Argh (that's not a bad argh, just a.. slightly frustrated argh).

User avatar
ROU Killing Time
Notorious Forum Hog
Posts: 4253
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by ROU Killing Time » Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:13 pm

alhilton wrote:At the risk of making people angry - This story touches on something I was talking about to friends the other day. The question was: is misogyny adaptive? When given access to education and birth control, women do not have nearly as many kids. Throughout history in most cultures, women have been denied access to education and good birth control, even when it existed. Women were taught that they needed to make the physical, mental, educational sacrifices to breed until their bodies gave out. The second they got a choice, they said, "Hell, no." This process is still ongoing, particularly in the third world. The changes sweeping India, for instance, are fascinating.

Now, for the first time in history, we've gotten to a point where it is perhaps not best for the species that populations keep expanding. And lo! Women suddenly get rights! In just a few generations, we've come to the point where it no longer sucks to be a girl. Now that it's convenient for the species, we get to have careers and not babies. Along the same lines, it no longer sucks (quite so much) to be gay. The penalty for not breeding has plummeted. Coincidence?
I think it's pretty clearly an adaptive process. Consider the frontier days. Having as large o family as possible to work the farm was a necessity for long-term survival. Today, having a large family is a downright economic burden. Of course, the era of choice over reproductive issues is a good thing for women. There are lots of women who don't want children, and there shouldn't be any stigma there. There are still more than enough women who feel a biological imperative to reproduce, regardless of the economic fallout to keep the species going.
"Never fuck with The Culture"
Sublime In Peace Iain M. Banks.

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by strawman » Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:33 pm

Just finished a book on Texas history that was fascinating. One of the earliest explorers, Cabeza de Vaca, lived with several Texas Indian tribes, and wrote of one tribe in which female babies were fed to the dogs, otherwise they might grow up to bear the children of their enemies. The tribe instead purchased their wives from their enemies. Their greatest fear was that one might be killed by ones own grandchildren. Killing the baby girls prevented this from happening. Purchasing wives from ones enemies assured that only ones enemies would be killed by their grandchildren.

To my mind, this is an effective counter to reasoning purely from population, gender, or sexual identity, the popular cultural lenses of today.

It is also useful, I think, to consider what Charles Lyell, the foremost geologist of the 19th century, and Charles Darwin's mentor, had to say. (http://books.google.com/books?id=hZocAAAAMAAJ&oe=UTF-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) This is a section of his 1848 "A Second Visit to the United States."

The top theorist of his time, Charles' discussion of race was the "enlightened", Abolitionist view. But if he said these things today, he would be villified as the worst kind of racist.

It is equally plausible as I see it that contraception and abortion, those pillars of women's "liberation", are actually the ultimate example of male paternalism and domination. Like B'rer Rabbit and Wiley Fox, "I don't care what you do to me, so long as you don't throw me in the briar patch. Men wanted sex without consequences. Women wanted to trade sexuality for power, so they each gave what the other wanted. But one result is that women are more "objects" than they have ever been, and men are more selfish than ever before, and the cultural ideal is now about achieving "sexual fulfillment" from adolescence through senescence.

This story doesn't make me think about any of that. The dilemma that is presented is an example of how the vine of intelligent self-awareness naturally produces flowers of morality. These flowers almost always involve the blooming consciousness of what happens when one's own goals conflict with the common good. We are tempted by self-interest to rationalize continuing to pursue what we want. And at some point the personal goal in conflict with the common good leads to a crisis of conscience which must be resolved one way or the other.

Sci Fi is a good way to explore such issues. But I think being reminded of how wrong and stupid the brilliant Lyell was serves as a caution for the arrogant assumptions of "modern culture". 160 years from now, people are liable to look back and shake their heads in wonder at those of our assumptions that resemble the advanced scientific discussions of comparable brain weights of Africans and gorillas.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
bell
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:42 pm
Location: New York

Re: Drabblecast 157- Brief Candle by Ruthanna Emrys

Post by bell » Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:10 pm

Women were taught that they needed to make the physical, mental, educational sacrifices to breed until their bodies gave out. The second they got a choice, they said, "Hell, no." This process is still ongoing, particularly in the third world. The changes sweeping India, for instance, are fascinating.

Now, for the first time in history, we've gotten to a point where it is perhaps not best for the species that populations keep expanding. And lo! Women suddenly get rights! In just a few generations, we've come to the point where it no longer sucks to be a girl. Now that it's convenient for the species, we get to have careers and not babies.
Actually, this is one of the first times in history that the population CAN expand. For most cultures up to WW I, keeping women barefoot, pregnant, and out of harm's way just about kept them from dying off (Shakespeare's London had about a 70% infant mortality).

So, yes, one type of misogyny is adaptive, for primitive cultures.
http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What would have been written.
Spoiler:
If they hadn't died first.

Post Reply