posted
These pick-up lines are why Christians had to make up the whole no sex before marriage thing; to make it seem like not getting laid is by choice.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't think pick up lines work anywhere but the desperate to get married before it's too late crowd.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think pickup lines can work, actually, not so much for the content but because of the form - it's just a way of saying "Hi, you're cute, want to talk?" Or, you know, other four-letter words meaning 'intercourse'. Actually that exact phrase might work even better, but it's hard to be direct about these things, it makes you vulnerable. Being flip in the approach allows you to be flip about rejection, so the downside is lessened even if the risk is increased.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:'I like to arrange the substantial Christian section of my bookshelf into alphabetical order. Coffee?"
This is where you mace them on the spot and run. run for your life. run like everything you know depends on it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: do pick up lines work even outside of christian circles?
Sometimes. Watch the cheese factor. Sincerity really works better than cleverness. And check your message. If you're interested in getting to know someone better, don't make it sound like you're inviting her for a one night stand. You saw her, think she's attractive, and want to talk and see what else is there.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:'I like to arrange the substantial Christian section of my bookshelf into alphabetical order. Coffee?"
This is where you mace them on the spot and run. run for your life. run like everything you know depends on it.
Yeah, really. I mean, who wants to associate someone that has so few books that they'd all fit onto a single shelf.
Mel, I have my fiction alphabetized by author, with the the author's books alphabetized by name (except for series--they're grouped together regardless of title), with a seperate category for collections (again alphabetized by author) and another for anthologies (alphabetized by editor). I've been thinking that it might be fun to rearrange them so that everything is still alphabetized by author (or editor), but within a particular author's (or editor's) work have everything organized by original date of publication. Actually, it would be kind of cool to organize the entire section strictly by original publication date (preserving the novel, collection, and anthology divisions, of course).
Non-fiction I have a harder time shelving in any systematic way.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mine are more organized by gut instinct. For example, we have a bunch of very long (multibook) Chinese classics (Dream of Red Mansions, Three Kingdoms, etc). Next to them is Lord of the Rings because it is packaged so it looks just like those books. Then I have a bunch of Madeleine L'Engle books, agains because of the similar packaging and then Lloyd Alexander because those are in the same age group as L'Engle's book. And what is amazing is I can actually find books this way quickly and efficiently. As far as number of bookshelves, 3 in our room, one in the baby's, one in living room, 6 in game room (but only one has books), plus 3-4 boxes of less popular books, underneath the coffee table full of baby books and several stacks in the closets.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
My girlfriend says that in her last apartment she had her fiction organized according to how well she thought that the protagonists would get along with each other. She says that she was able to find books surprixingly quickly that way.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that any book you read sufficiently seldom that it's worth having an organisational system for it, you don't really own. I pile my books any which way, because they're going to get pulled out of the shelf again pretty shortly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. Even at my age, my collection of books is growing pretty large. My room really can't handle the sheer number of books I have. My bookshelves are stacked double-layered, and it can be hard reaching all my books. I know where they all are, it can just be hard getting to them, ya know? I have books everywhere, it's hard to be more than a foot or two away from books from at least one angle in my room, except for my bed. And there's a couple books on my bed right now!
I cant' wait until I have my own place, so that I can set entire rooms for bookshelves. And then, of course, I'll steadily fulfill the process of filling them up, and then overfilling them until I need to buy yet more. It'll be an endless cycle... but I'm happy with that.
I still need to bring some books back in from my car... I think I have five of them I bought last week in there right now. Where will I put them, though?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think that any book you read sufficiently seldom that it's worth having an organisational system for it, you don't really own. I pile my books any which way, because they're going to get pulled out of the shelf again pretty shortly.
That's interesting. How many books do you consider yourself to own, using that definition of ownership? Do you possess books that don't meet that definition of ownership, or do you purge your collection of books that you haven't consulted for X number of days? If it's the latter, how many days can a book lie idle on your shelves before you dispose of it?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I've been thinking that it might be fun to rearrange them so that everything is still alphabetized by author (or editor), but within a particular author's (or editor's) work have everything organized by original date of publication.
That's how ours are set up (within fiction, anyhow). The authors are in alphabetical order, but only because I made my husband change from his original system. He originally had authors grouped by quantity, with sub-groupings based on shelf length. Basically, whatever author took up the most shelf space was put on the first shelf (and subsequent ones, if necessary). It would make some sense to then have the author with the next most shelf space, but no. Next would come whichever author that would come closest to filling up the unused space on the shelf without overflowing to another shelf. Then, on the next empty shelf, would go the next most numerous author. I couldn't find anything! That was one of the few "systems" that I had to insist that he change when we were married.
We still disagree about the scifi/fantasy sections (I think they should be combined, he insists they remain separate), but at least I can mostly find things now. We have over 1000 books, so ease of finding is important.
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: He originally had authors grouped by quantity, with sub-groupings based on shelf length. Basically, whatever author took up the most shelf space was put on the first shelf (and subsequent ones, if necessary). It would make some sense to then have the author with the next most shelf space, but no. Next would come whichever author that would come closest to filling up the unused space on the shelf without overflowing to another shelf. Then, on the next empty shelf, would go the next most numerous author.
This is eminently logical if your goal is to minimize splitting authors among multiple shelves. Not optimal, but a reasonable heuristic.
I'm with KoM; I don't own enough books anymore to warrant an organizational system. I get everything I read from the library. The books I used to own are all organized by how they best fit in the cardboard box they got packed away in.
Someday if we have more wall space I will reinvest in books. Maybe have a private library, because I love the potential for my kids making serendipitous discoveries. But my previous collection was largely due to inertia and a need to show off, neither of which warrants the amount of space taken up by the books (not to speak of the time spent trying out different organizational techniques).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: He originally had authors grouped by quantity, with sub-groupings based on shelf length. Basically, whatever author took up the most shelf space was put on the first shelf (and subsequent ones, if necessary). It would make some sense to then have the author with the next most shelf space, but no. Next would come whichever author that would come closest to filling up the unused space on the shelf without overflowing to another shelf. Then, on the next empty shelf, would go the next most numerous author.
This is eminently logical if your goal is to minimize splitting authors among multiple shelves. Not optimal, but a reasonable heuristic.
Yes, that was his goal. And it's not too bad if there aren't too many books, you don't frequently buy new books, and only one person is using it. It had to be completely redone anytime an author overflowed the assigned space, and it made it impossible for me to find things. If he had insisted on keeping the system, I would have had to keep my books separated. Actually, I still do that with CDs, but only because I have around 10 while he has hundreds, so I don't want to have to search through everything for mine.
Yes, we are both moderately obsessive and compulsive.
posted
Fiction is by genre (SF/F, Mystery, Other contemporary, Other classic, Children's) and then by author. Hardbacks are separate from paperbacks (for the most part).
Non fiction is by subject, juxtaposing related subjects. For example, Music is next to Opera which is next to Theatre. Shakespeare makes a good transition between Drama and Poetry. Plays are arranged by original language and date except for anthologies.
I have two tall bookshelves in the entry way, two in the living room, two in the living room closet, one tall outside the bedroom, one tall and one short and one "corner" in the bedroom, two short in the bedroom closet, plus one long shelf that goes all the way across the back of the closet, one tall in the kitchen (but it isn't all books). All are full. The ones in the closets are stacked full of paperbacks.
This is, off course, when the books are not in piles all over my living room as they are now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Judaica gets its own bookcase (well, the overflow is currently sharing space, until/unless I figure out a spot for another bookcase). Star Trek gets two shelves; Pern and other McCaffrey gets a shelf; textbooks and other reference works get all the bottom shelves . . . and the rest is sorted minimally, if at all. OSC's stuff is in at least three clumps (on different bookcases), although their neighbors are mostly other spec-fic; the mysteries are on other shelves.
You alphabetical folks bemuse me. In fact, I thought you were kidding at first!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doing a quick count-and-multiply, I appear to own roughly 500 books, although I also have a substantial number back in Norway. I believe I've read all of them within the past two years or so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John and I are still trying to figure out how our shared libraries work. We both brought a LOT of books into our marriage.
I do believe that one of our first non-scrabble conversations WAS about our science fiction book shelves. So as pickup lines go, it seems to have worked pretty well for him. Or for me. Whichever of us brought it up first.
But my entire organizational method is based on when I first read it, which is a bit tough for another, non-telepathic person to use as a finding tool. So I dunno. Right now it's what I might call haphazard.
I could never alphabetize.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Doing a quick count-and-multiply, I appear to own roughly 500 books, although I also have a substantial number back in Norway. I believe I've read all of them within the past two years or so.
For me that is a number of books that would be easily worth organizing in some sort of fashion.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love how this thread about cheesy pick up lines has devolved into a comparison of book arranging systems.
Mine are arranged by the cover color, since I already know what all my books look like, and because they look nice that way on the shelves. I think I have about 1000 books now. I did an estimate count a couple of years ago. I'm totally looking forward to the day when some vastly superior successor to the Amazon kindle will replace them all. Though I love their individual character, their smells and the scribbles and notes inside, I'm tired of having to move into bigger places every few years to make room for them! =)
I've actually begun reading less in the last few years, or reading fewer books, I should say. I think I spend most every night in front of the computer screen reading blogs, fora, and such instead. Probably not an overall improvement in the quality of my life. One reason is probably that my eyes aren't as good as they were, and browsers have that lovely ctrl+ feature to increase the font size. Another reason to look forward to the great-grandchild of the Kindle.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Doing a quick count-and-multiply, I appear to own roughly 500 books, although I also have a substantial number back in Norway. I believe I've read all of them within the past two years or so.
For me that is a number of books that would be easily worth organizing in some sort of fashion.
Clearly, you do not take a sufficiently long view. Why organise something that'll only get disorganised again in a year or so? Wasted effort!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My books are still wedged in boxes and bags. The last place I unpacked, I put them all into library-thing and it said that I had about six hundred (and this is only a few years after dividing my books half-and-half with Mikey). I usually categorize them and then alphabetize the category, but some of the categories were so small-- eight art history books for example. Still, my system worked much better than the Books-A-Million system for shelving books.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just have a bookSHELF. Not because I don't read much, but because I give away my books to friends as soon as I've read them on the condition they do the same.
Well, all except my reference books. Those fill up all four drawers of my dresser, a lot of my closet, and two trunks under my bed.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't alphabetize my books. What do you do about books written by authors you like under pseudonyms?
Michael Crichton and Steven King for example?
There's a shelf dedicated to all my Mad Magazines and Mad Books. All my Dilbert books stay together, my OSC books are also in the same spot, but everything else it's just a function of what books seem to fit best next to each other based on size.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Books written under pseudonyms are shelved under the most commonly known name of the author, in publication date order. So everything Steven King wrote is together, regardless of which name he used.
posted
I have a full bookCASE of Stephen King/Richard Bachman. Those are organized by date of publication, with the exception of the Talisman and Dark Tower sets (what's the plural of series anyway???), which are separated and in order of the series.
My other bookcases are alphabetized by author, then generally chrono within an author, with books in a series grouped together according to the timeline of the overall story (i.e. Anne McCaffrey who didn't write the Pern stories in optimal reading sequence)
And then I have a couple boxes that need to be interfiled but I ran out of room....
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have different organizational systems for the bookshelves in my bedroom vs the shelves in the living room.
In the bedroom, I use a system identical to theCrowsWife's husband, where the goal is to keep the author from spilling onto a different shelf. There is no organization in terms of genre, just quantity and spacial reasoning. I know where things are, and nobody else really needs to know.
In the living room, I keep the books divided by subject, with the thinnest paperbacks on the top, the trade paperbacks in the middle, and the largest hardbacks on bottom. So each set of shelves may contain a section of physics, criminal justice, humor, fantasy, or religious books, according to their merit. Only the good books belong in the living room.
I don't know if this qualifies me as strange or not. My filing systems are always different.
It's a good thing I never took up employment at a library.
quote:Anne McCaffrey who didn't write the Pern stories in optimal reading sequence
Except that I would start with the Harper Hall trilogy, and then the Dragonriders trilogy, I recommend reading them in publication order. It may not be chronological, but chronological would be far too confusing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but I've got Pern books going back to the original colonization. So Harpers and Dragonriders are grouped as their own sets, following First Pass (if I remember my groups right, I'm too lazy to go look LOL)
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My system: By genre (including the genre "rare and valuable collectable"). Within that, alphabetical by author. Within that, grouped by series (if any) and sorted in publication order.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: Ah, but I've got Pern books going back to the original colonization. So Harpers and Dragonriders are grouped as their own sets, following First Pass (if I remember my groups right, I'm too lazy to go look LOL)
I own all the Pern books except the most recent (and I should see what the used price has gotten down to on that one). And I have each of the trilogies as a single omnibus volume.
Dragonsdawn doesn't really make sense if you haven't read the two trilogies. Neither do Moretta & Nerilka's Story, even if a strict chronological would put all three before them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Heh, my Bible is a thinline ESV.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
That's how ours are set up (within fiction, anyhow). The authors are in alphabetical order, but only because I made my husband change from his original system. He originally had authors grouped by quantity, with sub-groupings based on shelf length. Basically, whatever author took up the most shelf space was put on the first shelf (and subsequent ones, if necessary). It would make some sense to then have the author with the next most shelf space, but no. Next would come whichever author that would come closest to filling up the unused space on the shelf without overflowing to another shelf. Then, on the next empty shelf, would go the next most numerous author. I couldn't find anything! That was one of the few "systems" that I had to insist that he change when we were married.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
And it's not too bad if there aren't too many books, you don't frequently buy new books, and only one person is using it. It had to be completely redone anytime an author overflowed the assigned space, and it made it impossible for me to find things. If he had insisted on keeping the system, I would have had to keep my books separated. Actually, I still do that with CDs, but only because I have around 10 while he has hundreds, so I don't want to have to search through everything for mine.
