Obviously Mitch wasn't in Cedar Grove, TN for the 'Great Frog Attack of '76'.

You need something more Florida-specific; it doesn't necessarily have to be where you were. "Volusia" is that empty stretch south of Daytona. Or "Lakeland" on I-4. Or "Oceola" on 192 between Melbourne and Orlando. If you asked me, I'd say "Everglades Parkway," whether it happened there or not.

"Melbourne to Brunswick" perhaps? Great Idea. I looked at the map. Lousy names.

Thanks for all the comments, everyone. This new job is so weird. Today I stocked all the new lawn gnomes. BTW, any suggestions for titles?

okay

You still need commas or periods at the end of each line.

that would be "upholsterer's" Which Russian poet did you have in mind?

My intent however was a sprung rhythm where just the accented syllables are counted, not a syllabo-tonic one where they're all counted

I've tried justifying (the printer's term might be more fitting than the uphulsterer's) the lines that way above. Russian's one of the three languages I was born into (the others are french and english)

My serious cheat suggestion: Just give it the name of a small Florida-sounding town or county just off the interstate -"Ocalacala" or something, but not made-up.

What you're saying isn't relevant. The question isn't, and has never been, whether something "really, really" can be verified to be true. It's obvious and uninteresting that most things can't. The point about verification and falsification is the unwillingness of soul-believers to name verification and falsification conditions. If you'd taken any time at all to read the discussion before leaping in with your dreamy proclamations, you'd have seen that. The question is: Are soul believers prepared to give observable conditions C such that if C obtain they will stop believing in souls; if so, what are they, and if not, why not? That's not a question to you, by the way. It's a question to the soul-believers, e.g. Joe-Joe. Who probably won't even read this.

If reading further was likely to lead me to an end, we would all own the book and would probably read the last page first.

Its hardly rocket science: 1) the relevance of verifiability is that it makes a comment on the verifiability of things, nothing more. to suggest that verifiability has relevance on the thing itself is an article of belief. 2) There is no base unit in science, no truth. Take the smallest particle in the universe, every time one takes a more detailed look the picture becomes more blurred. There is never a point at which the smallest particle changes from something to nothing. The idea of a particle as infinitely small.

Here's one Fraser Allonby Board (of) Innumerable Offenses The F.A.B.I.O.

I'm sorry it wasn't you who wrote the frog thing. Just the name alone puts my asthma into overtime.