Friday, April 24, 2015
Dating famous dead men (or: who could ask for anything more?)
 Margaret Gunning and George Gershwin Numerological Compatibility Compatibility level: 25% - A relationship that presents frequent challenges and requires much compromise. This match combination is particularly interesting. The different natures of Margaret Gunning's Life Path number 3 and George's 7 make for a relationship that either lasts for about two weeks before going up in flames, or remains exciting and powerful for a lifetime. If their relationship has existed for quite some time and can be considered stable, Margaret Gunning and George Gershwin may well be soul mates for life. If the relationship started recently and has already experienced considerable ups and downs, they should be prepared to let go. It is also quite common for this combination to turn from romance into deep friendship immediately after a romantic fall-out. Margaret Gunning has a restless, energetic, unconventional mind that happily explores the boundaries of creativity and originality. Like a kaleidoscope, Margaret Gunning's mind changes colors and shapes and enchants those around it. George has a much more serious, but no less unconventional way of looking at life. George is an untiring seeker of truth and understanding. George gets great satisfaction out of quiet moments of contemplation and soul searching. In fact, George thrives on the clarity and realizations that come from such moments and from moments of spiritual enlightenment. Margaret Gunning and George have very different approaches in the way they think. But, on the other hand, they have in common the fact that they both are unconventional and not afraid to wander off the beaten path. Although they have different needs and they find their happiness in very different ways, such ways are not incompatible. It is precisely their uniquely different intellects that make this relationship lively and interesting. Margaret Gunning and George complement each other. They give each other something they would not be able to give themselves. Margaret Gunning brings sunshine and an intuitive faith to George, while George offers margaret gunning a taste of the beauty found in exploring the depths of life itself. Like the sun and the moon, they supply light and comfort. Although on opposite ends of the spectrum in some ways, Margaret Gunning and George bring light and comfort to each other’s life and, as long as they do not compete for each other’s space, they can live in great harmony. You Your Friend Name for the report Gender Date of birth Contact Us About Us Privacy Policy Terms of Use Numerology Compatibility | Margaret Gunning and George Gershwin © Copyright 2009-2015 Celebrities Galore Female Celebs # A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Male Celebs # A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 
Visit Margaret's Amazon Author Page!
|
Knit one, squirrel fail
This is one of those examples of false advertising in knitting patterns. Knitting a squirrel has become an obsession for me ever since I found out I can't freaking DO it. I must have tried out seven different patterns, all of which looked fairly easy. The above pattern, NOT knitted by me, is an illustration of a famous pattern called Knit One, Squirrel Two. Looks very squirrel-esque, doesn't it? But it's knitted in the round, a technique I can only partially do. I can knit in the round on two needles (a technique called Magic Loop), but I can't work with three or four. This thing had SO many twists and turns, backing up and re-knitting various rows and picking up stitches where there are none, etc., that the squirrel's head ended up on backwards.
I didn't keep my results but gutted it in dismay, disappointing a little girl who wanted a squirrel for her birthday.
Then I find this in Google Images, and the last thing I want to do is to criticize someone else's knitting, but this is what Knit One, Squirrel Two looks like, knitted up by an experienced knitter. This is the actual result from someone who actually GOT a result and didn't need to gut the little bugger. You tell me. How much of a resemblance do you see ?
There are various other examples of false advertising in knitting patterns, in which even if you do it right, it just looks wrong, or, worse, plug-ugly.
This is the adorable little rackety-coon from Kath Dalmeny's World of Knitted Toys, a rather basic pattern book which generally speaking yields poor results.
This is the rackety-coon as knitted, and not by me. You can see how out-of-proportion it is, though it's obviously neatly-knitted and nicely stuffed and sewn together. In fact, this photo was actually displayed as an example on an Etsy ad for buying the pattern. You tell me: does this look like a raccoon, or a paraplegic anteater?
This is the one that all the kids wanted, an adorable panda that looks much more naturalistic than the teddy pandas of most patterns. This is another Kath Dalmeny optical illusion.
And again, let me reassure you that this is a well-knitted piece (though not by me). I'm not criticizing anyone's knitting. But this is not a panda. The legs are like stilts. The nose is far too pointed, and the shape of the body is more piglike than pandalike.
This was the pattern I used for the poor panda that I stabbed to death with scissors before gutting it so I could recycle its stuffing.
And I could go on, but I'm giving the squirrel another try, using elements from three different patterns: the arms and legs from Knit One, Squirrel Two; the feet from a pattern called Tweed Toads (which worked out for me: I have a Tweed Toad sitting on a knitted lily pad on my printer); and the body from a nice little Santa Squirrel thing, minus the red outfit. I don't yet know how I am going to make the tail.
The ghost in the workroom: George appears to Ira
Quite a long time ago I wrote in my diary, “George is a spook”. I wasn’t
quite sure what I meant by that. Then, in one of the better GG bios, I read
this:
“As Ira grew older, he became not less but more obsessed with George. When
he was in his eighties, Michael Feinstein, who had become something of a
surrogate son to him, heard him talking to George in his sleep. These were,
according to Feinstein, “lengthy conversations” that were “often filled with
anger, centering around Ira’s desire not to stay here on earth and George’s
insistence that he stay”. Just before Ira’s death in 1983, he revealed to
Feinstein in a hushed voice something he had never told anyone else. Shortly
after George’s passing, he had looked into his brother’s workroom upstairs at
1019 North Roxbury and seen him “sitting on the sofa, smiling and nodding to me.
It terrified me. I wasn’t drinking. I wasn’t drunk. But I saw him.”
This may have started the whole thing for me, because I had consciously
forgotten it. George died in 1937, Ira in 1983. It looks like maybe the one who
was “stuck” was Ira, and George was trying to help him get unstuck. Ironic,
since GG went far too soon, and because of the horrific manner of his dying,
didn’t really know what was happening to him. Ira was a very practical,
down-to-earth businessman who just happened to be a genius lyricist, and this
wasn’t some wraithlike, ghostly apparition, but GG sitting happily in his
workroom, his sanctuary and favorite place, smiling and nodding: “see, I’m OK,
don’t worry about me.” Ira unfortunately had the same reaction to “ghosts” that
most people do: terror, and thinking “I’m going crazy”. It’s interesting this
wasn’t just an impression but a real 3D, solid appearance of someone who was
dead. I also had the thought, though, that GG always kept his wounded side
turned away from view, and it could be that he was appearing to be happy for
Ira’s sake. Understandable, if Ira wanted to die. They protected each other to
an extraordinary degree.