Excellent post... pretty much sums up my thoughts on the legal side of things.
What troubles me just as much about this whole thing is the fact that Rowling, et al., think it is so bloody important to protect the content of these books in this manner. I mean, really, these are, for all intents and purposes, just children's books (which happen to appeal to some adults, as well). Why are they being safeguarded like classified information?
Someone might say that, in today's book market, there is a lot of money riding on these books and there can be significant financial consequences if certain details come to light before everyone has bought in, yada yada yada. Okay, this may be true, given the way things are these days. But, really, how much money does she really need at this point? Don't other factors come into play at some point? I think it's pretty sad when lawyers, courts, and "good faith" customers are all getting wadded up like this.
In my opinion, whether or not the books make money should be based on whether or not they are any good, which will be determined in due time after folks read them (as is the case with 99% of all other books on the market), not by hype and secrecy and being the first on the block to get the book. Oh, well.
Personally, I think J.K Rowling should rethink her priorities and be ashamed to be associated with this debacle.
You'll get no argument from me re: Michael Bay, but re: Paul W.S. Anderson, I'd just like to say that I thought both Resident Evil and Event Horizon were pretty good movies. And Mortal Kombat was decent, if you're into that sort of thing. Now, Resident Evil: Apocalypse is a whole different story, and I couldn't even bring myself to consider seeing AVP: Alien vs. Predator.
Great inside the actors studio this month with the Simpsons cast.
I, too, enjoyed that show. Of course, it's fun to watch the actors voice our favorite characters (I got a similar jolt from seeing Mike Judge do Beavis and Butthead on Letterman years ago), but it was also enjoyable to learn a little about the people behind the voices. I thought Nancy Cartwright and Harry Shearer were the most interesting.
On an off-topic note, it is good to hear from someone else who appreciates Ronin; it has the best car chase sequence I've seen, with The Bourne Identity coming in second. I think Frankenheimer did a great job with Ronin overall. Although it is about much more than just a car chase, I usually say that I think it is to the car chase what Heat and The Way of the Gun are to gunfights.
I'm glad you posted this, because I was thinking some things generally along the same lines as you. You are quite right that it all depends on your goals; writing non-fiction to a deadline requires a different sort of discipline than exploratory fiction. Given that I prefer the latter, I tend to be more free-form in my approach.
Also, regarding the editor thing, I weigh in on the side of no editor (or, at least, as little editor as is possible under the circumstances). Some might say that such an attitude is self-limiting. In some situations, it might be. But given my preference for deeply personal, exploratory fiction with very specific narrative and style goals, the idea of someone else's modulation does not appeal to me. In fact, I can't accept it at all. In many endeavors, e.g., group endeavors such as movie making, such an attitude would be problematic. But with a novel one can indulge oneself, if you will (while, hopefully, avoiding self-indulgent writing).
As Mr. Wheaton discussed in his response, self-publishing allows one to avoid mainstream modulation, if one chooses, and this appeals to me, too. For those who would write exactly and only what they would write, with imperfections and all included, it is difficult to see any other way. Of course, commercial success might not come. For that matter, literary (i.e., critical) success might not come either, if you fail to capture something worth it. But whatever does come will come to you on your terms.
I wonder (because I do not know) what effect, if any, editors have had (or been permitted to have) on the great works of literature, in terms of altering the works against the author's intents? To what extent did Hemingway allow his writing to be edited? Melville? Poe?
In the end, I think it might come down to this: does one have something very specific and personal to say, with an equally specific and personal way to say it, or is one aiming for, among other things, a measure of acceptance?
Thanks for your candor; I work in engineering and don't get much exposure to marketing/PR viewpoints (from the people themselves), so I found this interesting.
Okay... how did you respond? And what do you think was their goal in asking the question? In other words, do you think they believed themselves to be a "big evil company," or, assuming they didn't, what sort of response do you think they were looking for?
Finally, did you get a job offer? Did you accept? Why or why not? Just curious, since you brought this up.
You know, while I liked Episode III much better than Episode II (that didn't take too much), I cringed when I heard this particular line. It's a perfect example of the lack of dialog QA in the latter movies. (Yes, the OT had its fair share of hokey lines, too, but the latter movies were far worse, IMNSHO.) And, of course, it's indicative of the general flaws in the pre-story. Oh, well, I suppose we don't need to go there....
Thanks for confirming my thoughts on that, though.... I really haven't talked with many people about Ep. III. What time I spend thinking about SW these days is spent on the OT (in particular, my Laserdisc-to-high-def video transfer project.) Gotta love SW, TESB, and the last forty-five minutes or so (minus the end party) of ROTJ.:-)
Perhaps now is the time to hit them with a first strike!
I'm "six nines" sure this was meant as a joke, and I like jokes as much as the next guy, but I find this to be one of the most appalling things I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've read a lot of appalling shit.
I wonder how a resident of Russia reacts to this sort of stupidity? I can only hope he or she realizes this is nothing but a pathetic attempt at humor by a person either too young or too ignorant to know the seriousness of the subject of which he speaks.
Let me say just one more thing. Given where you're at socialization-wise, it may not be obvious to you but most people, even those that are fairly skilled socially, still have situations that present problems to them. In other words, as far as I know, everyone has good days and bad days, good experiences and bad experiences. In short, getting along with all of the people we encounter in our lives can be difficult, even for the practiced. I really don't think one can expect to ever avoid all problems. What we can strive for is a comfortable ratio of good days to bad, good experiences to bad. I think that, with practice, this goal is within most people's grasp. I think it is within your grasp, too.
Again, good luck. I hope that some of what I have said in all these posts has been or will be of some value and/or help to you. If not, well, then I hope you are able to find what you need somewhere else.
Okay, here is my response. First, regardless of whether or not it would solve what you perceive as your problems, I would strongly encourage you to adjust your ways regarding how you interact with people in an online forum to bring them more into line with how you deal with people in person. Not only does the online community deserve whatever courtesies you grant people in person, you will probably find that the increased use of your interpersonal skills will improve your performance in areas that matter most to you.
Second, I would suggest you try to develop your skills at interacting with strangers in non-threatening environments/situations. Make a habit of smiling to others when you encounter them in public. Say "hello" or "how's it going?" to people you come into contact with, even if you have absolutely no business with them whatsoever. You may ask "what's the point of doing that?" if you have no business with them. The points are (1) you are being a friendly person, which most people appreciate; and (2) you are practicing at overcoming your introvertedness. And, yes, do this with attractive women, too. The fact that it is difficult is largely irrelevant. I know of very little in life that is worthwhile that doesn't involve learning and/or practice to overcome initial difficulty. If you truly desire improved social interaction, you're going to have to work at developing your skills... there's no shortcut.
You say that you have not as yet identified a place you enjoy going where you can meet people. This sounds to me like the major hurdle you will have to overcome. If the only places you enjoy going are solitary in nature, then maybe you are true hermit material. If you believe this is your lot in life then okay, but don't then complain about being alone. If you don't want to be alone, which is the sense I have gotten, then you must place yourself among people. You must go where they go, be functional where they are functional, meet them, and talk with them, chore or not. Be a man. Do what you have to do. I think that, eventually, you will find yourself enjoying those places as you become more comfortable interacting with the people in them.
As I've said before, you are likely up against a life-long struggle with socialization... join the club. Take your best shots, review your performance, learn from your mistakes, revise your technique, and try some more. I truly believe that if you listen to the feedback that people give you, accept it, and change your behaviour in accordance with it, your situation will improve. But you have to be willing to change. You have to be willing to accept others's advice and follow it. Your remark that you've heard advice "a dozen times before" strikes me as a tell that you're either not listening or not accepting. If you think you always know better than those with third-person perspective you're often wrong, at least when it comes to socialization issues. I'm not saying do whatever anyone tells you without consideration. I'm just saying that when a lot of people tell you the same sort of things, there's probably something to it.
I am rather amazed that this is the sort of take-away view that people might have of the series overall. To me, this is missing the entire point Lucas is making.
Look, I'm not saying that all members of the Galactic Empire's fighting forces were evil; in fact, I'm of the opinion that many thought they were on the side of right, attempting to restore order, etc. That does not mean, however, that the Empire is the side to side with.
I also do not believe it is correct to brand the Jedi, or other members of the Republic, as inept. Yes, the Jedi were blind to the manipulations going on around them due, supposedly, to their arrogance and, yes, supporters of the Republic way of doing things put too much faith in democracy. These sorts of weaknesses are time-honored in storytelling of this type.
That said, I hardly consider the Emperor's assumption of power to be a move in the forward direction. That would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was a good step forward because the trains ran on time. Remember, we are led to believe in Ep. 4, 5, and 6 that the Empire is pretty naughty in implementing it's plans--one need look no further than the destruction of Alderaan for evidence of this. Not the sort of environment I'd look forward to living in.
Yes, the prequels, especially Ep. 3, do a decent job of filling in the backstory, but I think the real lessons of the series come from 4, 5, and 6: fighting oppression, facing your enemy, and redemption.
All right, I'm not giving up, yet. For some reason, I get the impression you may have tempered your output just a little, so, assuming that, I thank you. That said, let's go over a few things and see what we see....
Wow, so many wrong assumptions. Where to start...
This is off-putting right off the bat. Rather than thanking me at all for the time and effort I have put into communicating with you, you immediately want to tell me about the many ways I am wrong. Why do you think I am writing you like this? Because I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time? No. It is because I see an opportunity to help someone who seems to want help, at least on some level, and I think I have something to offer. One would think you would be at least a little appreciative of this, but no sense of that comes across at all. Please consider this.
Worst advice you could give me. I almost never talk to anyone I don't already know. Almost never. Talking less would do a lot of harm to my chances.
You have misinterpreted what I was suggesting and, as a result, completely bypassed the value in what I was saying. I admit I might not have painted the context enough, but if there was any uncertainty, you would have done better to ask for clarification than issue a knee-jerk dismissal of my point.
What I was referring to was your conduct in a social setting, i.e., when you're out in a group and trying to "fit in." Obviously, this doesn't apply when you're faced with the challenge of meeting someone in the first place--one has to say some things to get it going. But even there, keeping your output controlled may help you avoid inadvertently putting your foot in your mouth. My point was focus on answering other people's questions of you in polite, interesting ways that aim to further the conversation, rather than caustic, conversation-terminating maxims.
This one's an understandable mistake. I don't pick fights with people in person. I definitely won't talk politics with people who hold opposing views outside a political function.
Again, right off the bat you're telling me I'm wrong, that I've made another mistake. You seem to focus on some particular interpretation of what I'm saying that you have an issue with rather than looking for the greater meaning that was intended. Being polite is not reserved for in-person communication; Mr. Caution deserved your politeness, too. So do I, for that matter. And it's not solely about not picking fights... it's about creating a conversational environment that encourages people to talk with you rather than look for the exit. And regarding your politics comment, even politics-related discussion during a political event should be handled politely. It's all about showing basic respect for the other person.
I'm baffled as to how you came to the conclusion that I think psychology is stupid. I've studied it a fair deal. I've read Dale Carnegie's book, a few books on body language, on how to determine if someone is lying, etc.
I'm baffled as to how you came to that conclusion, as well, since I didn't. Notice how I said "If you would condemn psychology..."? That's subjunctive speak... I'm not saying you do, I'm saying if you did. I'm not familiar with the book to which you refer so it may be good, but I'll say that I'm not referring to books on body language or how to determine if someone is lying when I suggest study of psychology. Those sorts of subjects might have their use and interest, but I am referring to basic social behavioural norms of individuals and groups. Maybe you should even consider seeing a psychologist. It might help, you never know.
Here, Caution is telling me that I should abandon my pursuit of any sort of relationship with a woman, because they might get their feelings hurt. I'm not going to do that, and no one will convince me to do so.
I'm not going to try to defend Mr. Caution's words, per se, but I will say that I think you are taking a biased, over
As a follow-up to my previous post, I offer the following re: your most-recent remarks to Mr. Caution, who was trying to offer help.
I'm not in any way obligated to sacrifice myself so that other people won't get their feelings hurt. That you would demand that I do just means you're selfish and cruel.
Your use of certain language here is a dead giveaway of a wide variety of issues. For instance, no one is suggesting you "sacrifice" yourself in any way. Your use of this word implies that you think the world is requiring you to be something you don't want to be, to somehow be untrue to yourself. This is a reactionary, defensive attitude that misses the point. The point is: the world doesn't deserve to have you thrust your assholeishness on it, nor will it, in general, tolerate this. The world's reaction to you doing so is to isolate you where the harm you can do is minimized.
You are, in fact, obligated to act certain ways IF YOU WISH TO BE A FUNCTIONAL PART OF SOCIETY. If you simply want to live out in the boondocks by yourself as some sort of hermit, then these rules don't apply. However, if you wish to take advantage of human contact, and society in general, then you must learn the rules and play by them. That's the game. If you don't like the game, don't play it, but don't then complain that you don't like how it's going for you.
There are many philosophies regarding one's responsibility to others vs. one's responsibility to one's self. Of course, to maintain some form of personal identity, one must stand up for what one believes in, for what makes one one's self. That, however, is distinct from simply imposing whatever you are on whoever is near you regardless of their feelings. Doing that will most likely brand you an asshole. Face up to that.
Your use of the word "demand" in conjunction with Mr. Caution's commentary is also over the top. It is argumentative language, absolutist in it's meaning. Life is not black and white. Use of black-and-white language is risky, because it shuts most conversations down. When that happens, you're through... no more opportunities there.
Calling Mr. Caution "selfish and cruel" is insulting, argumentative, and generally laughable to an outside observer, since it is you who comes off as arrogant and dismissive. Again, cause for cessation of the conversation.
In line with what I talked about in my earlier post, I think you really need to examine your viewpoints and the language you use to convey them if you want to see any change in the reactions you get. You come off as a very harsh person with almost no accommodation of others's views. I think you need to open your eyes to the world and realize that for every one of the billions of people on this Earth, there is a distinct set of life experiences, a distinct point of view, and a distinct set of thoughts and feelings that stem from that. Your ability to accommodate and relate to these things, or your lack thereof, will determine your fate in this world.
I will assume for the moment that this sub-thread reflects genuine beliefs and is not just some elaborate troll. Assuming this, I will offer up a few observations that might (or might not) be useful to you.
I believe that the responses to your posts have been aimed at offering you constructive viewpoints and/or advice. Your responses can generally be categorized as reactionary and argumentative. While there is no doubt that intelligent conversation usually involves a certain amount of questioning of ideas, etc., your original post seemed to be a call for help. When people offer something back that they think may be helpful, you should generally shut up and listen. If you don't, you run the very real risk that they will decide that helping you is not worth it and you will be denied their help. In this sometimes harsh world we live in, I don't think you should ever turn away help, no matter what form it takes.
I think a lot of people who have problems getting along with others would benefit from shutting up now and then and just listening. And by listening I mean listening with comprehension and reflection, not just "in one ear out the other" hearing. Obviously, you have some issues with socialization, as evidenced by your original post and your subsequent handling of others's responses. People will, in general, be willing to try to help you solve, or at least improve on, these problems, but you have to be receptive. If your reaction is along the lines of "fuck you and your obviously stupid ideas" then don't expect much improvement.
Your path through life so far has led you to the place you are. Apparently, you are not entirely satisfied with that place; it would seem that you would really like to be socially connected to others in a meaningful way. You must see that to achieve this will require changing the path you're on... essentially changing your ways. The degree of change required is probably wide and deep. By wide, I mean that you must rethink almost every aspect of how you interrelate with others; in fact, you may need to rethink how you view life, in general. By deep, I mean that there are things you say and do that you probably don't even realize are off-putting to others.
Unfortunately, for someone in your situation, almost nothing can be assumed to be okay. I advise you to consider the following techniques:
1. Shut up. By this, I mean when you are in a situation where speaking up is optional, don't. The harsh fact of life is that other people really don't need to hear what you have to say. Silence really can be golden, especially in your case, where it can avoid drawing negative attention to yourself.
2. Learn to be polite. When a response is appropriate, learn more tactful ways to get your ideas across. If there is something in what the other person has said that you can agree with, build on that and then offer whatever additional ideas you wish, but make sure you've set the person up to be receptive to your idea. It's all about communicating effectively. If you just blast them with your opposing viewpoint, an immune reaction will most likely occur, and you will be branded an asshole. The fact is, other people want to believe that their thoughts and ideas have some merit, even if they are incomplete or mis-informed, or whatever. Conversation has many purposes, only one of which (and I might point a minor one) is "setting people straight." In my opinion, it is, first and foremost, about bonding and only after that about the exchange of ideas. Clearly, you have ideas to exchange, but you must first establish some form of bond to enable the exchange of critical ideas; without that bond there is no channel for communication. The bond comes from essentially saying to the other person "hey, I know what you're saying and I agree with you." This is basic psychology. Now, if you cannot find any basis at all for bonding, i.e., you cannot find anything upon which to agree, then either this person is not for you or, again, you have to rethink your humanity.
I like a lot of the advice you're giving this guy... good going. In particular, I agree with your points on small talk. Small talk is a valuable skill in life, in general, and even with the ladies. But at the end of the day, it doesn't convey much that is meaningful and, ultimately, social relationships need meaningful exchange.
I have no real experience picking up superficial chicks... and I have had a lot of opportunity to try to develop it, living in L.A. It just doesn't appeal to me. To me, the goal is a nice-looking girl, yes, but one who has a lot to offer as a person, as well. Someone who I can be truly comfortable with AS MYSELF. Finding this person can be a life-long journey, I think, so don't be too put off that it seems to be taking a while.
That said, I think one can increase their chances by simply treating their prospective mate as though they were a real live person, complete with feelings, dreams, issues, a sense of humor, etc. Because, after all, that person is a real person, just like you.
Maybe their educational background is different than yours. Maybe their chosen field of study or work is different, too. That's okay... it takes all kinds to make the world work and it takes all kinds to make relationships work. Personally, I don't think I'm a very good match with women with engineering backgrounds; I prefer ladies with perspectives different from my own, that complement mine. Of course, this can give rise to differences of opinion, but that's a fact of life you're going to have to learn to accept and deal with no matter who you hook up with.
The more you see life as NOT black and white, the better off you'll be. The more you understand that you're view of life is not the only view, the better off you'll be. The more that you are interested in someone else's views, the more opportunity you'll have to learn and grow. If they're good people, they'll let you share your views, too, and they'll learn and grow. When the match is right, it comes together pretty nicely.
But, it all starts with giving them the right to be who they are and, more importantly, paying attention to what they're about. If you fake it, sooner or later, it'll catch up with you and you'll be discovered to be a fake and it'll be over. If your interest in her is genuine and you really care about her AS A PERSON, it'll show through. Then, it's up to her to be a good person back and for you to decide if she's right for you.
A few posts further down in the thread I wrote a little about admitting some of one's weaknesses as a strategy for covering the case where one's socialization is sub-par. Admitting you're a real person, with real-life issues, is a part of being a human being and relating to another human being. If they're good people, they'll respond.
Finally, try treating a girl the way you'd treat your best (presumably male) friend. I don't mean talking with her about the size of other chicks's boobs, etc. I mean treat her with the kind of respect and courtesy that your best friend gets because his friendship means so much to you. You may say, "Well, she hasn't earned that yet!" True, but by treating her with respect up front, you pave the way for the bond that may follow.
In practical terms, this is pretty good advice. That said, I'd like to suggest an additional idea: be interested. After all, something must have drawn you to this person... and I'm hoping it was a little more than just her sex appeal. If you think she's a nice girl, in some way, then what she has to say should interest you. If it genuinely does not, then that is a sign that the matchup isn't quite right.
Now, you might say, "But I don't seem to be interested in anything anyone says, or at least not the bimbo girls I go out with!" Well, if that's truly the case, I would make a few observations.
First, even fairly well-socialized people encounter others who just aren't their type. If that's what the problem is, then move on and find another.
If you have enough data points to conclude that the problem with a particular girl might be you, then you probably ought to stick around a little, if only for some practice. Believe me, she'll let you know when she's given you enough time. At least it shouldn't hurt so much if you recognize that you have some social issues. Maybe, if you stick around a little rather than just giving up right away, you'll learn a thing or two.
Finally, if you have some balls, try admitting to your new-found friend that, quite frankly, you know you have some socalization problems and you'd like her to give you a little wiggle room, if she can. Now, of course, you have to put it the right way... after all, you don't want her thinking you're a psycho or she'll head for the hills. Instead, you can try something like:
"You know, I'm really glad we have this opportunity to get to know each other a little better. You know, the way I was brought up, I feel like I don't have much in the way of social skills, so if I say some stupid stuff, just let me know... I really don't always know how I come across."
By admitting your weaknesses, you show sensitivity and communicativeness, both qualities that most women appreciate. You also give her an ideal opportunity to say something like: "Oh, I don't know, you seem okay to me...." And, you condition her to not be so put off if you do mis-step somewhere along the way. Instead of writing you off as an asshole, she might say "Whoa, partner, back up...." and give you a chance to fix things. This can help a lot.
Look, I'm not advocating being a pussy and gushing all over her on the first date. All I'm saying is be a real human being with her, and allow her to be human back, and you might have a chance. And, if you do get a good vibe going, you never know... she just might be a keeper.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent post... pretty much sums up my thoughts on the legal side of things.
What troubles me just as much about this whole thing is the fact that Rowling, et al., think it is so bloody important to protect the content of these books in this manner. I mean, really, these are, for all intents and purposes, just children's books (which happen to appeal to some adults, as well). Why are they being safeguarded like classified information?
Someone might say that, in today's book market, there is a lot of money riding on these books and there can be significant financial consequences if certain details come to light before everyone has bought in, yada yada yada. Okay, this may be true, given the way things are these days. But, really, how much money does she really need at this point? Don't other factors come into play at some point? I think it's pretty sad when lawyers, courts, and "good faith" customers are all getting wadded up like this.
In my opinion, whether or not the books make money should be based on whether or not they are any good, which will be determined in due time after folks read them (as is the case with 99% of all other books on the market), not by hype and secrecy and being the first on the block to get the book. Oh, well.
Personally, I think J.K Rowling should rethink her priorities and be ashamed to be associated with this debacle.
Dude, it's British Columbia.
You'll get no argument from me re: Michael Bay, but re: Paul W.S. Anderson, I'd just like to say that I thought both Resident Evil and Event Horizon were pretty good movies. And Mortal Kombat was decent, if you're into that sort of thing. Now, Resident Evil: Apocalypse is a whole different story, and I couldn't even bring myself to consider seeing AVP: Alien vs. Predator.
Great inside the actors studio this month with the Simpsons cast.
I, too, enjoyed that show. Of course, it's fun to watch the actors voice our favorite characters (I got a similar jolt from seeing Mike Judge do Beavis and Butthead on Letterman years ago), but it was also enjoyable to learn a little about the people behind the voices. I thought Nancy Cartwright and Harry Shearer were the most interesting.
On an off-topic note, it is good to hear from someone else who appreciates Ronin; it has the best car chase sequence I've seen, with The Bourne Identity coming in second. I think Frankenheimer did a great job with Ronin overall. Although it is about much more than just a car chase, I usually say that I think it is to the car chase what Heat and The Way of the Gun are to gunfights.
I'm glad you posted this, because I was thinking some things generally along the same lines as you. You are quite right that it all depends on your goals; writing non-fiction to a deadline requires a different sort of discipline than exploratory fiction. Given that I prefer the latter, I tend to be more free-form in my approach.
Also, regarding the editor thing, I weigh in on the side of no editor (or, at least, as little editor as is possible under the circumstances). Some might say that such an attitude is self-limiting. In some situations, it might be. But given my preference for deeply personal, exploratory fiction with very specific narrative and style goals, the idea of someone else's modulation does not appeal to me. In fact, I can't accept it at all. In many endeavors, e.g., group endeavors such as movie making, such an attitude would be problematic. But with a novel one can indulge oneself, if you will (while, hopefully, avoiding self-indulgent writing).
As Mr. Wheaton discussed in his response, self-publishing allows one to avoid mainstream modulation, if one chooses, and this appeals to me, too. For those who would write exactly and only what they would write, with imperfections and all included, it is difficult to see any other way. Of course, commercial success might not come. For that matter, literary (i.e., critical) success might not come either, if you fail to capture something worth it. But whatever does come will come to you on your terms.
I wonder (because I do not know) what effect, if any, editors have had (or been permitted to have) on the great works of literature, in terms of altering the works against the author's intents? To what extent did Hemingway allow his writing to be edited? Melville? Poe?
In the end, I think it might come down to this: does one have something very specific and personal to say, with an equally specific and personal way to say it, or is one aiming for, among other things, a measure of acceptance?
Just out of curiosity... have you considered writing a book for your ex, now that she is your ex? It might be interesting territory to explore.
... and, interestingly enough, that will allow the joke to get through. :-)
I, for one, say keep on expressing how you really feel. Hopefully, Mr. Wheaton saw your comments; if he did, I think he'd appreciate them.
In my opinion, participating on Slashdot is a love/hate proposition. Don't let the fucktards get you down.
Yes, I think you did hit a nerve. A collective one. I believe you took careful aim and hit it exactly as planned, with precision and accuracy.
I'm sure many of us at Slashdot hope you are proud of yourself.
Perhaps you misplaced your post, but, if not, I believe Moofie was objecting to MightyMartian's post, not yours.
Thanks for your candor; I work in engineering and don't get much exposure to marketing/PR viewpoints (from the people themselves), so I found this interesting.
I hope things have worked out well for you.
Okay... how did you respond? And what do you think was their goal in asking the question? In other words, do you think they believed themselves to be a "big evil company," or, assuming they didn't, what sort of response do you think they were looking for?
Finally, did you get a job offer? Did you accept? Why or why not? Just curious, since you brought this up.
You know, while I liked Episode III much better than Episode II (that didn't take too much), I cringed when I heard this particular line. It's a perfect example of the lack of dialog QA in the latter movies. (Yes, the OT had its fair share of hokey lines, too, but the latter movies were far worse, IMNSHO.) And, of course, it's indicative of the general flaws in the pre-story. Oh, well, I suppose we don't need to go there....
:-)
Thanks for confirming my thoughts on that, though.... I really haven't talked with many people about Ep. III. What time I spend thinking about SW these days is spent on the OT (in particular, my Laserdisc-to-high-def video transfer project.) Gotta love SW, TESB, and the last forty-five minutes or so (minus the end party) of ROTJ.
Perhaps now is the time to hit them with a first strike!
I'm "six nines" sure this was meant as a joke, and I like jokes as much as the next guy, but I find this to be one of the most appalling things I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've read a lot of appalling shit.
I wonder how a resident of Russia reacts to this sort of stupidity? I can only hope he or she realizes this is nothing but a pathetic attempt at humor by a person either too young or too ignorant to know the seriousness of the subject of which he speaks.
Let me say just one more thing. Given where you're at socialization-wise, it may not be obvious to you but most people, even those that are fairly skilled socially, still have situations that present problems to them. In other words, as far as I know, everyone has good days and bad days, good experiences and bad experiences. In short, getting along with all of the people we encounter in our lives can be difficult, even for the practiced. I really don't think one can expect to ever avoid all problems. What we can strive for is a comfortable ratio of good days to bad, good experiences to bad. I think that, with practice, this goal is within most people's grasp. I think it is within your grasp, too.
Again, good luck. I hope that some of what I have said in all these posts has been or will be of some value and/or help to you. If not, well, then I hope you are able to find what you need somewhere else.
Okay, here is my response. First, regardless of whether or not it would solve what you perceive as your problems, I would strongly encourage you to adjust your ways regarding how you interact with people in an online forum to bring them more into line with how you deal with people in person. Not only does the online community deserve whatever courtesies you grant people in person, you will probably find that the increased use of your interpersonal skills will improve your performance in areas that matter most to you.
Second, I would suggest you try to develop your skills at interacting with strangers in non-threatening environments/situations. Make a habit of smiling to others when you encounter them in public. Say "hello" or "how's it going?" to people you come into contact with, even if you have absolutely no business with them whatsoever. You may ask "what's the point of doing that?" if you have no business with them. The points are (1) you are being a friendly person, which most people appreciate; and (2) you are practicing at overcoming your introvertedness. And, yes, do this with attractive women, too. The fact that it is difficult is largely irrelevant. I know of very little in life that is worthwhile that doesn't involve learning and/or practice to overcome initial difficulty. If you truly desire improved social interaction, you're going to have to work at developing your skills... there's no shortcut.
You say that you have not as yet identified a place you enjoy going where you can meet people. This sounds to me like the major hurdle you will have to overcome. If the only places you enjoy going are solitary in nature, then maybe you are true hermit material. If you believe this is your lot in life then okay, but don't then complain about being alone. If you don't want to be alone, which is the sense I have gotten, then you must place yourself among people. You must go where they go, be functional where they are functional, meet them, and talk with them, chore or not. Be a man. Do what you have to do. I think that, eventually, you will find yourself enjoying those places as you become more comfortable interacting with the people in them.
As I've said before, you are likely up against a life-long struggle with socialization... join the club. Take your best shots, review your performance, learn from your mistakes, revise your technique, and try some more. I truly believe that if you listen to the feedback that people give you, accept it, and change your behaviour in accordance with it, your situation will improve. But you have to be willing to change. You have to be willing to accept others's advice and follow it. Your remark that you've heard advice "a dozen times before" strikes me as a tell that you're either not listening or not accepting. If you think you always know better than those with third-person perspective you're often wrong, at least when it comes to socialization issues. I'm not saying do whatever anyone tells you without consideration. I'm just saying that when a lot of people tell you the same sort of things, there's probably something to it.
I wish you good luck.
Thank you for this clarification. I had the right idea, I guess... just the wrong dictator. :-)
One can learn something new every day.
I am rather amazed that this is the sort of take-away view that people might have of the series overall. To me, this is missing the entire point Lucas is making.
Look, I'm not saying that all members of the Galactic Empire's fighting forces were evil; in fact, I'm of the opinion that many thought they were on the side of right, attempting to restore order, etc. That does not mean, however, that the Empire is the side to side with.
I also do not believe it is correct to brand the Jedi, or other members of the Republic, as inept. Yes, the Jedi were blind to the manipulations going on around them due, supposedly, to their arrogance and, yes, supporters of the Republic way of doing things put too much faith in democracy. These sorts of weaknesses are time-honored in storytelling of this type.
That said, I hardly consider the Emperor's assumption of power to be a move in the forward direction. That would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was a good step forward because the trains ran on time. Remember, we are led to believe in Ep. 4, 5, and 6 that the Empire is pretty naughty in implementing it's plans--one need look no further than the destruction of Alderaan for evidence of this. Not the sort of environment I'd look forward to living in.
Yes, the prequels, especially Ep. 3, do a decent job of filling in the backstory, but I think the real lessons of the series come from 4, 5, and 6: fighting oppression, facing your enemy, and redemption.
Anyway, that's my view.
All right, I'm not giving up, yet. For some reason, I get the impression you may have tempered your output just a little, so, assuming that, I thank you. That said, let's go over a few things and see what we see....
Wow, so many wrong assumptions. Where to start...
This is off-putting right off the bat. Rather than thanking me at all for the time and effort I have put into communicating with you, you immediately want to tell me about the many ways I am wrong. Why do you think I am writing you like this? Because I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time? No. It is because I see an opportunity to help someone who seems to want help, at least on some level, and I think I have something to offer. One would think you would be at least a little appreciative of this, but no sense of that comes across at all. Please consider this.
Worst advice you could give me. I almost never talk to anyone I don't already know. Almost never. Talking less would do a lot of harm to my chances.
You have misinterpreted what I was suggesting and, as a result, completely bypassed the value in what I was saying. I admit I might not have painted the context enough, but if there was any uncertainty, you would have done better to ask for clarification than issue a knee-jerk dismissal of my point.
What I was referring to was your conduct in a social setting, i.e., when you're out in a group and trying to "fit in." Obviously, this doesn't apply when you're faced with the challenge of meeting someone in the first place--one has to say some things to get it going. But even there, keeping your output controlled may help you avoid inadvertently putting your foot in your mouth. My point was focus on answering other people's questions of you in polite, interesting ways that aim to further the conversation, rather than caustic, conversation-terminating maxims.
This one's an understandable mistake. I don't pick fights with people in person. I definitely won't talk politics with people who hold opposing views outside a political function.
Again, right off the bat you're telling me I'm wrong, that I've made another mistake. You seem to focus on some particular interpretation of what I'm saying that you have an issue with rather than looking for the greater meaning that was intended. Being polite is not reserved for in-person communication; Mr. Caution deserved your politeness, too. So do I, for that matter. And it's not solely about not picking fights... it's about creating a conversational environment that encourages people to talk with you rather than look for the exit. And regarding your politics comment, even politics-related discussion during a political event should be handled politely. It's all about showing basic respect for the other person.
I'm baffled as to how you came to the conclusion that I think psychology is stupid. I've studied it a fair deal. I've read Dale Carnegie's book, a few books on body language, on how to determine if someone is lying, etc.
I'm baffled as to how you came to that conclusion, as well, since I didn't. Notice how I said "If you would condemn psychology..."? That's subjunctive speak... I'm not saying you do, I'm saying if you did. I'm not familiar with the book to which you refer so it may be good, but I'll say that I'm not referring to books on body language or how to determine if someone is lying when I suggest study of psychology. Those sorts of subjects might have their use and interest, but I am referring to basic social behavioural norms of individuals and groups. Maybe you should even consider seeing a psychologist. It might help, you never know.
Here, Caution is telling me that I should abandon my pursuit of any sort of relationship with a woman, because they might get their feelings hurt. I'm not going to do that, and no one will convince me to do so.
I'm not going to try to defend Mr. Caution's words, per se, but I will say that I think you are taking a biased, over
As a follow-up to my previous post, I offer the following re: your most-recent remarks to Mr. Caution, who was trying to offer help.
I'm not in any way obligated to sacrifice myself so that other people won't get their feelings hurt. That you would demand that I do just means you're selfish and cruel.
Your use of certain language here is a dead giveaway of a wide variety of issues. For instance, no one is suggesting you "sacrifice" yourself in any way. Your use of this word implies that you think the world is requiring you to be something you don't want to be, to somehow be untrue to yourself. This is a reactionary, defensive attitude that misses the point. The point is: the world doesn't deserve to have you thrust your assholeishness on it, nor will it, in general, tolerate this. The world's reaction to you doing so is to isolate you where the harm you can do is minimized.
You are, in fact, obligated to act certain ways IF YOU WISH TO BE A FUNCTIONAL PART OF SOCIETY. If you simply want to live out in the boondocks by yourself as some sort of hermit, then these rules don't apply. However, if you wish to take advantage of human contact, and society in general, then you must learn the rules and play by them. That's the game. If you don't like the game, don't play it, but don't then complain that you don't like how it's going for you.
There are many philosophies regarding one's responsibility to others vs. one's responsibility to one's self. Of course, to maintain some form of personal identity, one must stand up for what one believes in, for what makes one one's self. That, however, is distinct from simply imposing whatever you are on whoever is near you regardless of their feelings. Doing that will most likely brand you an asshole. Face up to that.
Your use of the word "demand" in conjunction with Mr. Caution's commentary is also over the top. It is argumentative language, absolutist in it's meaning. Life is not black and white. Use of black-and-white language is risky, because it shuts most conversations down. When that happens, you're through... no more opportunities there.
Calling Mr. Caution "selfish and cruel" is insulting, argumentative, and generally laughable to an outside observer, since it is you who comes off as arrogant and dismissive. Again, cause for cessation of the conversation.
In line with what I talked about in my earlier post, I think you really need to examine your viewpoints and the language you use to convey them if you want to see any change in the reactions you get. You come off as a very harsh person with almost no accommodation of others's views. I think you need to open your eyes to the world and realize that for every one of the billions of people on this Earth, there is a distinct set of life experiences, a distinct point of view, and a distinct set of thoughts and feelings that stem from that. Your ability to accommodate and relate to these things, or your lack thereof, will determine your fate in this world.
I will assume for the moment that this sub-thread reflects genuine beliefs and is not just some elaborate troll. Assuming this, I will offer up a few observations that might (or might not) be useful to you.
I believe that the responses to your posts have been aimed at offering you constructive viewpoints and/or advice. Your responses can generally be categorized as reactionary and argumentative. While there is no doubt that intelligent conversation usually involves a certain amount of questioning of ideas, etc., your original post seemed to be a call for help. When people offer something back that they think may be helpful, you should generally shut up and listen. If you don't, you run the very real risk that they will decide that helping you is not worth it and you will be denied their help. In this sometimes harsh world we live in, I don't think you should ever turn away help, no matter what form it takes.
I think a lot of people who have problems getting along with others would benefit from shutting up now and then and just listening. And by listening I mean listening with comprehension and reflection, not just "in one ear out the other" hearing. Obviously, you have some issues with socialization, as evidenced by your original post and your subsequent handling of others's responses. People will, in general, be willing to try to help you solve, or at least improve on, these problems, but you have to be receptive. If your reaction is along the lines of "fuck you and your obviously stupid ideas" then don't expect much improvement.
Your path through life so far has led you to the place you are. Apparently, you are not entirely satisfied with that place; it would seem that you would really like to be socially connected to others in a meaningful way. You must see that to achieve this will require changing the path you're on... essentially changing your ways. The degree of change required is probably wide and deep. By wide, I mean that you must rethink almost every aspect of how you interrelate with others; in fact, you may need to rethink how you view life, in general. By deep, I mean that there are things you say and do that you probably don't even realize are off-putting to others.
Unfortunately, for someone in your situation, almost nothing can be assumed to be okay. I advise you to consider the following techniques:
1. Shut up. By this, I mean when you are in a situation where speaking up is optional, don't. The harsh fact of life is that other people really don't need to hear what you have to say. Silence really can be golden, especially in your case, where it can avoid drawing negative attention to yourself.
2. Learn to be polite. When a response is appropriate, learn more tactful ways to get your ideas across. If there is something in what the other person has said that you can agree with, build on that and then offer whatever additional ideas you wish, but make sure you've set the person up to be receptive to your idea. It's all about communicating effectively. If you just blast them with your opposing viewpoint, an immune reaction will most likely occur, and you will be branded an asshole. The fact is, other people want to believe that their thoughts and ideas have some merit, even if they are incomplete or mis-informed, or whatever. Conversation has many purposes, only one of which (and I might point a minor one) is "setting people straight." In my opinion, it is, first and foremost, about bonding and only after that about the exchange of ideas. Clearly, you have ideas to exchange, but you must first establish some form of bond to enable the exchange of critical ideas; without that bond there is no channel for communication. The bond comes from essentially saying to the other person "hey, I know what you're saying and I agree with you." This is basic psychology. Now, if you cannot find any basis at all for bonding, i.e., you cannot find anything upon which to agree, then either this person is not for you or, again, you have to rethink your humanity.
3. Don't
I like a lot of the advice you're giving this guy... good going. In particular, I agree with your points on small talk. Small talk is a valuable skill in life, in general, and even with the ladies. But at the end of the day, it doesn't convey much that is meaningful and, ultimately, social relationships need meaningful exchange.
I have no real experience picking up superficial chicks... and I have had a lot of opportunity to try to develop it, living in L.A. It just doesn't appeal to me. To me, the goal is a nice-looking girl, yes, but one who has a lot to offer as a person, as well. Someone who I can be truly comfortable with AS MYSELF. Finding this person can be a life-long journey, I think, so don't be too put off that it seems to be taking a while.
That said, I think one can increase their chances by simply treating their prospective mate as though they were a real live person, complete with feelings, dreams, issues, a sense of humor, etc. Because, after all, that person is a real person, just like you.
Maybe their educational background is different than yours. Maybe their chosen field of study or work is different, too. That's okay... it takes all kinds to make the world work and it takes all kinds to make relationships work. Personally, I don't think I'm a very good match with women with engineering backgrounds; I prefer ladies with perspectives different from my own, that complement mine. Of course, this can give rise to differences of opinion, but that's a fact of life you're going to have to learn to accept and deal with no matter who you hook up with.
The more you see life as NOT black and white, the better off you'll be. The more you understand that you're view of life is not the only view, the better off you'll be. The more that you are interested in someone else's views, the more opportunity you'll have to learn and grow. If they're good people, they'll let you share your views, too, and they'll learn and grow. When the match is right, it comes together pretty nicely.
But, it all starts with giving them the right to be who they are and, more importantly, paying attention to what they're about. If you fake it, sooner or later, it'll catch up with you and you'll be discovered to be a fake and it'll be over. If your interest in her is genuine and you really care about her AS A PERSON, it'll show through. Then, it's up to her to be a good person back and for you to decide if she's right for you.
A few posts further down in the thread I wrote a little about admitting some of one's weaknesses as a strategy for covering the case where one's socialization is sub-par. Admitting you're a real person, with real-life issues, is a part of being a human being and relating to another human being. If they're good people, they'll respond.
Finally, try treating a girl the way you'd treat your best (presumably male) friend. I don't mean talking with her about the size of other chicks's boobs, etc. I mean treat her with the kind of respect and courtesy that your best friend gets because his friendship means so much to you. You may say, "Well, she hasn't earned that yet!" True, but by treating her with respect up front, you pave the way for the bond that may follow.
In practical terms, this is pretty good advice. That said, I'd like to suggest an additional idea: be interested. After all, something must have drawn you to this person... and I'm hoping it was a little more than just her sex appeal. If you think she's a nice girl, in some way, then what she has to say should interest you. If it genuinely does not, then that is a sign that the matchup isn't quite right.
Now, you might say, "But I don't seem to be interested in anything anyone says, or at least not the bimbo girls I go out with!" Well, if that's truly the case, I would make a few observations.
First, even fairly well-socialized people encounter others who just aren't their type. If that's what the problem is, then move on and find another.
If you have enough data points to conclude that the problem with a particular girl might be you, then you probably ought to stick around a little, if only for some practice. Believe me, she'll let you know when she's given you enough time. At least it shouldn't hurt so much if you recognize that you have some social issues. Maybe, if you stick around a little rather than just giving up right away, you'll learn a thing or two.
Finally, if you have some balls, try admitting to your new-found friend that, quite frankly, you know you have some socalization problems and you'd like her to give you a little wiggle room, if she can. Now, of course, you have to put it the right way... after all, you don't want her thinking you're a psycho or she'll head for the hills. Instead, you can try something like:
"You know, I'm really glad we have this opportunity to get to know each other a little better. You know, the way I was brought up, I feel like I don't have much in the way of social skills, so if I say some stupid stuff, just let me know... I really don't always know how I come across."
By admitting your weaknesses, you show sensitivity and communicativeness, both qualities that most women appreciate. You also give her an ideal opportunity to say something like: "Oh, I don't know, you seem okay to me...." And, you condition her to not be so put off if you do mis-step somewhere along the way. Instead of writing you off as an asshole, she might say "Whoa, partner, back up...." and give you a chance to fix things. This can help a lot.
Look, I'm not advocating being a pussy and gushing all over her on the first date. All I'm saying is be a real human being with her, and allow her to be human back, and you might have a chance. And, if you do get a good vibe going, you never know... she just might be a keeper.
Okay, I'll play amateur psychologist for a bit... I've got karma to burn with all the OT moderation I might get.
Why do you believe that socializing with others is a chore?