I think we can (and should) dream of more, but it's just that, a dream.
The way we, as humans and society, work just won't let it happen.
I do hope that we "figure it out" and go ahead into a more peacful future, but I think the chances are slim. Evolution has made us aggressive, we are trying to dominate (be it at work, home or sport) and this carries forward into politics and other areas as well.
"Dark" SF is not really a reflect of a dark desire in us, but rather a comment on human nature. We all have the ability to do good and bad.
I always considered SF a comment on todays society, or their dreams. Be it Utopia where everything is perfect, or BSG where the individuals life is not worth much.
To bring it to the point though: In reality none of our lifes really matters in the grande scheme of things, everything and everyone is replaceable(sp?) if we like it or not.
answer me this: The electronic version of this book has to come from somewhere... It should be pretty clear that someone at some point in time has paid for the copy and then digitized it.
So the libarary example still holds true: One copy, many readers.
People like Cory Doctorow give their books away for "free" via the Creative Commons license. Anything I have heard so far from him is that it is apparantly a success.
Though of course he's a cheerleader for the EFF and CC, so maybe it's not true.
I'm trying very hard but can't feel any sympathy for those who complain about this new law.
Simply put: When I buy a CD and I want to listen to it on my iPod, I can't anymore. At least not legally.
That's the crux.
It doesn't change the legal status of downloads, all it does is prevent people who already paid for the music to use it legally in one of their own playback devices.
It's the industries attempt trying to nickle and dime to death.
From a story standpoint? yeah, most likely, as it will allow for more drama.
In Real life? No, but my bet is on human nature, and that will gurantee that we won't have heaven on earth, ever. Unless there is something from the outside that can unite us against it (see "The Watchmen").
I watched some of Enterprise and do have to say I liked it more, exactly because it didn't always feel like "Trek".
Having said that: the core of it is still there. Archer goes and has the guy in the airlock, but essentially is "too good" to just blow him out of it.
[SPOILERS]
Compare that to Galactica where the president (and Starbuck) literally torture a cylone and then blow him out of the airlock, no worries, no regrets.
Yes, Enterprise was a step in the right direction, but there was no "gut" to it to go all the way. I personally won't really miss Enterprise, it was a fun distraction but nothing that particularly would make me miss it.
Actually I have bought quite a few books after starting to read them in an electronic format, simply because I like to hold the thing in my hand.
Likewise, what happens to your book if it hits a library? Suddenly people can actually borrow those books without paying for it!
Note: If people think something is worth money they will pay money for it. If they think it is not, but they could get it "for free" and have a look at it, why not?
Not every download is a lost sale, far from it, chances are that people actually may end up buying MORE because they've seen something they weren't aware of before.
Of course nobody so far has proven this in one way or the other.
the question would be more along the lines of: If she IS a cylone, is she a copy of a real human being or completly artifical?
[SPOILERS HEREIN]
In the final Episode it is quite clear that there are several copies of her on the base star, also when she shoots Adama at the end of the episode it almost looks like she is a cylone.
IF she really is (and it looks that way) it should be interesting to see what consequences this will have because remember:
Balthar tested her and she came back positiv, until he changed her results to "all green."
If she IS a cylon and the other on board Galactica find out, they also will know that the test doesn't seem to work, what will that mean for the paranoia in the fleet? Can they keep something like this under wraps? Or will this cause a wide spread panic under the people in the fleet?
There is definitely a place for this (I own both cuts of Bladerunner), I just don't want to see it eclipse the other stuff. Thats what it seems like is happening though. Isn't sci-fi primarily about what we aspire to be, not what we are?
But what we are is the base on which we build the future.
Sci-fi, IM(unpopular)O should give people something to strive for, not reflect our worst aspects....the world is pretty damn gritty as it is.
Where there is light, there is shadow, so you won't have a "happy" future anyways. To believe that is no more SF, maybe it's Fantasy:)
I agree that there's a difference between "true" science fiction and technology based fantasy (ie Star Wars, Star Trek, both BSGs, B5, etc). However, thanks to marketing and such the lines are pretty much blurred. It's all semantics anyway, since true SF fans can tell the difference.
Actually Sci-Fi was always about transposing current issues into the future. It was used as a vehicle of cultural criticism.
So to blast BSG because it doesn't have any "science" to it is a bit short sighted in my opinion.
Sci-Fi becamse the court jester of the new age, it could say things out very clearly while at the same time claiming (the author anyways) that this had absolutly nothing to do with the current government.
BSG seems to be the same, it raises current issues, but not in a way that I would call "propaganda". If one wants to hack on the 9/11 things it should be pointed out that it seems to turn more and more in a war of religous believes than anything else.... Mankind seems to regress fast into the dark ages, just that this time around we can make it stick for much much longer.
Personally? I am just sick and tired of the "illusion" of a "clean" world.
Life isn't clean and neat it is usually pretty messy.
I never liked Star Trek very much because of this: "Federation good, everybody else bad."
DS9 diverted from this "group think" a bit, I guess mainly because of B5, but it came to an end.
I don't know about you, but I rather have flawed characters, "real life" drama for the characters than the sugar coated "be happy" pill that most of TV is. Stories live from conflict, not agreement.
Also to further my point, from the Blog:
"The standard of the stories are superb and I would have to say it is one of the finest sci fi series I have seen in a long time. BUT IT DOESNT NEED SEX TO GET THE VIEWERS. Call me a little old fashioned but I nor others that I know really appreciate having to endure sex scenes that really do not further the story in any significant way. In fact I think they are rather pointless."
First of all, I'm sorry your friend can't watch the show with his son, but I always intended this series to be for adults. I have two small children, and I wouldn't dream of letting them watch the show -- mostly because of the violent content. Second of all, I disagree that the sexuality is intended to be exploitative or that it's somehow not integral to the story. We're presenting adult human beings as adults, and their sexuality is a key part of their lives. Baltar's sexual weaknesses, Sharon & Tyrol's forbidden love affair, and Starbuck's promiscuity are part of who and what they are. I think the only reason this gets the kind of attention is does is that we're not used to seeing sex treated maturely in science fiction -- nine times out of ten, any sex is either something to snigger at or to make fun of. Somehow it's okay to fetishize sex by putting women in S&M leather "space" outfits or have Carrie Fisher run around in harem clothes (not that there's anything wrong with that), but to portray two mature adults simply having sex is somehow controversial in sci-fi circles.
I'd also point out, as I have many times before, the strange standards of American audiences, who can become red-faced with indignation over nudity, but find no problem with slasher films or chains-saw massacres. I mean, Galactica's premised on a massive genocide, and the pilot deals with violent, shocking deaths over and over again, but people get upset about the sex? Weird....
Again? Sorry -- if you can't pick it up the first two times you forfeit your right to have it re-explained to you (at least as far as my patience is concerned).
Blah blah blah. Good troll... buh buh buh.
When you contradict yourself I'm not ignoring anything you've written, I'm going by the last thing said for want of a more coherent anchor. Also, it is your insistence that you're right on top of the "just plain wrong" situation that I find so unappealing. It's arrogant.
Ah, I am the arrogant one, hold on, let me quote you something:
People too stupid to use pseudonyms get what they deserve.
People who let their employers violate their civil liberties get what they deserve.
People who arrogantly deal out advice for other people get what they deserve.
'nuff said.
Why do you think you're so clever when you fail to parse simple sentences so frequently? Once again, you've missed the point. I'd explain it to you, but my charity quota has been filled for the day. Maybe tomorrow.
Maybe, just maybe, because what you consider a a "faultfree logic" is anything but, not to mention the fact that you seem to be very bad at handeling criticism, as this thread bears testament to.
You, sir, are exactly what makes Slashdot amusing. Good luck in all your future endeavours!
No. Your powers of inferrence are not operating at full capacity. You just make yourself sound silly when you ignore great chunks of the thread.
Maybe you can enlighten me what I omitted.
Indeed -- tell that to the social and political critics who have used pseudonyms over the centuries. "Don't bother, fellas -- MKalus knows better!"
Now you're the one omitting my writing. I made it pretty clear that there are good circumstances where writing a pseudonym makes sense, but for the average person to have to be that paranoid is just plain wrong. If you don't see that I feel sorry for you.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You're basically just admitting that it's taken you more years to gain less wisdom. Good show. Keep acting like a newbie troll -- it's charming, and encourages open and frank discussion.
Ah, and once again only the Burger has a right to put up the bar "I am on the net since 1997" if the other person is doing it better / for longer / has more experience then suddenly it doesn't matter and the other person is instead belittled... You, sir, are a true, shining example of small town Canada and the internet at large.
And because it is that way we all have to live with it. No need (or reason) to change, is that what you are trying to imply with your "advice"?
You can fight a dysfunctional system while at the same time protecting yourself from its worst damages.
How much credibility does my writing have if I don't even stand by it?
I've been on the Internet since 1996, and I still marvel that fools think accusing their interloculators of their own crimes in argument will somehow vindicate them. It's a cute ploy, but it's old and transparent.
Wow, 1996? Impressive, I have only used my computer to connect to the internet since around 1991 (give or take a few months, I am not quite sure when CompuServe actually opened up the gateway), you know, before people spammed Newsgroups and before there was the World Wide Web and all that.... Ahh, the good old times.
Thanks for enlightenm me though about all the things I've missed in the last 14 years of using this communicatino medium.
Now that's simply reduced to the point of the asburd. How many things how you "let" happen today? I've heard there were some deaths your city today -- how DARE you!
I see, generalisation only works for you arguments. How convinient.
Oh, sure. And if drive around with seat-belt on I shouldn't die, because I'm a perfect driver. Do you see the breakdown in logic? Events beyond your control are not your responsibility, but you'd be foolhardy to ignore the potential jeopardy. Similarly, if I advise others to buckle up I am not advocating treating the roads as derby.
The way society treats people (e.g. free speech) are not an "accident" they are a concerted effort.
Comparing using an alias to wearing a seatbelt in the car is a good breakdown of logic. Me writing something on the web in a "free" country (choose any flag you like) should not result in bodily harm. There should be no "accident" either.
Your example would suggest that if I tell people to wear seat-belts I am somehow "letting" car accidents happen, by refusing to accept responsibility personally for stopping car accidents from ever happening.
Accidents by definiton are random, non predetermined acts. The fireing of an employee, the harrassing and sueing of another person (or the beating up of the same) sounds not like an accident to me but rather like a concious act by individuals and organizations.
Your analogy is crocked, and it smells like stale mint.
Must be the peppermint schnapps you've been drinking.
My attitude is, "Well, if you blog about secrets and don't make any attempt to shield yourself from discovery while blogging in a blogger-hostile environment, you're doing yourself a disservice."
True, but this is not even about any secrets. If I breach a contract then I have to deal with the consequences and shouldn't whine. If I write about my life though (and that can include my work for most people) then this is something completly different.
As I wrote there are good reasons for people to use acronyms for example if they blow the whistle on their employer for damaging the environment or selling dangerous products, but beyond that, someone who has a personal blog, should not be required to hide their identity.
That may one of the funniest, most self-aggrandizing notions I've ever read here. Kudos, Arrogor -- Lord of the Fearless Knowers!
Geeze, since you moved in your old schoolhouse it seems you have found the bottle of wisdom. Did it by any chance taste and smell like peppermint schnapps?
Why would I want to know more about you? You sound like a bit of reactionary jackass.
Ah, so you start with the name calling and *I* am the Jackass.... Wow.... It seems to be true that artists easily crack under pressure..... That's sad. I am sure in time you will recover. I am sorry for all the pain you must be feeling while you release all your anger into your keyboard.
I'm sorry I compared you to a teenager -- it's obviously a sensitive point. What I meant to say is, "Your arguments are emotional and fallacious -- kinda like an over-excited, big-headed teenager." So, it really should've been a SIMILE. Apologies.
Either we have a severity one failure to communicate here or you really think your opinion and advice is the only one that counts.
Either way: Good for you!
I know you have the maturity to accept this olive branch with decorum and dignity. No doubt, your response will inspir
Nor as a first, clearly. I'm not sure what you mean here, but I was speaking in response to your using American freedoms as an example. It seemed ethnocentric, but if you're not American I'm at a bit of a loss of why you'd use that as your reference. If you are American and I've misunderstood you altogether, I suggest taking the cotton out of your mouth when you speak.
I see you still haven't taken the Valium.
But to answer the question that was hidden somewhere in your diatribe about my missing ability to communicate with you: The reason I choose america was because this is what this is all about, how american companies treat their employees.
You miss the point. It wasn't prescriptivism, it was a recommendation for common sense. IF someone is not safe to speak their mind, taking measures to avoid harassment is NOT equivalent to condoning that lack of freedom.
Yes it is. If I just let things happen I am as guilty as when I would have done it myself.
You can't tell me that if you see someone drowning in a lake and just let it happen, you did not let him die?
So, because you feel no need to make use of a pseudonym, are you suggesting that others be barred from the same?
No, but I am opposing your attitude of: "Well, if you have a blog, better have it under a pseudonym, because that's the only smart thing to do." It is not. The smart thing to do is to make sure that people actually can say what they want to say (minus certain things like "Fire" in a crowded theater).
Either there is free speech and an open society or there is not. Hiding ones identity to say the things one wants to say is not a solution (yes, yes, there are certain circumstances in which using a Pseudonym should be used, there is ample proof of this in history, but when the majority has to resort to pen names then there is something clearly wrong, and it doesn't matter if it is because of the government or companies).
Your mother may be dead, but the mothers of lots of people are not. You are not married, so you're not really qualified to have any perspective there, fair enough.
Maybe not, but I am do have a pretty good idea how I want to live my life which things I value, and the term "brutally honest" would come to mind.
The point is that whether or not you have sufficient life experience to see the value in obfuscation, you must have enough sense to recognize that your own experiences shouldn't set a universal standard.
Well, if you look at my UID you'll realize that it has been around for a while (~1997 or so), so if you still think I am a teenager then I guess I must have gotten my account when I was at most 11.... So I guess one could argue I have been around the block a bit.
But here's a tip: google for my username, I pretty much use it for 99% of my public postings, and I am sure you can find out more about me, or just visit my website.
If I sound angry to you, I suggest that your reading comprehension skills may be impaired. We're just having a little chat -- nice and friendly-like.
Sure sure, just like you seem to read my age in my posting.
First of all, my country doesn't have a second ammendment. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that isn't how you spell "amendment."
Too bad for your country. Mine, btw, does not have english as an official language.
Also, just for the record, all of the embarrassing crap I've written *is* linked to my proper name. I am shameless, and believe my ranting is defensible.
Good for you, so why are you now all of the sudden tell everybody to hide their identity?
However, it's a bit simplistic to ignore the value of pseudonyms. Haven't you ever wanted to write about/get feedback on something you wouldn't want your mother to read? Or you wife?
- Mother: Dead. - Wife: Have none.
If I had either I still wouldn't care. They either accept me for who I am or they don't. Unlike a Teenager I don't really need someone elses approval to be me.
Are *they* repressing institutions that require being answered with placard-waving, activist mission-statements and shouting? (Divorced and/or Mama's Boys don't bother answering that, you'll dent my theory.)
Who's shouting? What could *I* want to get feedback on that I don't want them to know about? If I HAVE to hide it from them, then I have way bigger problems.
You sound like a teenager, you reactionary dander-pie. Drink a glass of lemonade and take a nap.
And you sound like someone with anger managment issues. Take a Valium and deep breath.
Great going buddy. Use Pseudonyms? Hide behind an "alter ego"? I thought the US got into Iraq so that people there DON'T have to do things like that anymore?
If you can't stand behind what you write with your own name, then maybe you shouldn't have written it in the first place.
IF on the other hand, you can't say anything anymore without fear of repercussion I suggest you call out a revolution and free the people again. Put the Second Ammendment to good use.
Don't you know? It's only guys who want to see girls naked. Nobody wants to see us guys.... Unless they're gay of course, but that's just a "lifestyle choice" as well all know, so no way could that be.
Slashdot Mirror
True,
but that is a technical limitation of the medium.
It still doesn't really change the concept, does it?
Slight problem with this:
1. The W3C Standards were here before IE.
2. MP3 is supported by the iPod
3. Microsoft DRM doesn't run on either my Mac or any of my *nix boxes.
So if anything, it is actually the Napster solution that is non standard.
I think we can (and should) dream of more, but it's just that, a dream.
The way we, as humans and society, work just won't let it happen.
I do hope that we "figure it out" and go ahead into a more peacful future, but I think the chances are slim. Evolution has made us aggressive, we are trying to dominate (be it at work, home or sport) and this carries forward into politics and other areas as well.
"Dark" SF is not really a reflect of a dark desire in us, but rather a comment on human nature. We all have the ability to do good and bad.
I always considered SF a comment on todays society, or their dreams. Be it Utopia where everything is perfect, or BSG where the individuals life is not worth much.
To bring it to the point though: In reality none of our lifes really matters in the grande scheme of things, everything and everyone is replaceable(sp?) if we like it or not.
Well,
answer me this: The electronic version of this book has to come from somewhere... It should be pretty clear that someone at some point in time has paid for the copy and then digitized it.
So the libarary example still holds true: One copy, many readers.
People like Cory Doctorow give their books away for "free" via the Creative Commons license. Anything I have heard so far from him is that it is apparantly a success.
Though of course he's a cheerleader for the EFF and CC, so maybe it's not true.
Simply put: When I buy a CD and I want to listen to it on my iPod, I can't anymore. At least not legally.
That's the crux.
It doesn't change the legal status of downloads, all it does is prevent people who already paid for the music to use it legally in one of their own playback devices.
It's the industries attempt trying to nickle and dime to death.
From a story standpoint? yeah, most likely, as it will allow for more drama.
In Real life? No, but my bet is on human nature, and that will gurantee that we won't have heaven on earth, ever. Unless there is something from the outside that can unite us against it (see "The Watchmen").
I watched some of Enterprise and do have to say I liked it more, exactly because it didn't always feel like "Trek".
Having said that: the core of it is still there. Archer goes and has the guy in the airlock, but essentially is "too good" to just blow him out of it.
[SPOILERS]
Compare that to Galactica where the president (and Starbuck) literally torture a cylone and then blow him out of the airlock, no worries, no regrets.
Yes, Enterprise was a step in the right direction, but there was no "gut" to it to go all the way. I personally won't really miss Enterprise, it was a fun distraction but nothing that particularly would make me miss it.
Actually I have bought quite a few books after starting to read them in an electronic format, simply because I like to hold the thing in my hand.
Likewise, what happens to your book if it hits a library? Suddenly people can actually borrow those books without paying for it!
Note: If people think something is worth money they will pay money for it. If they think it is not, but they could get it "for free" and have a look at it, why not?
Not every download is a lost sale, far from it, chances are that people actually may end up buying MORE because they've seen something they weren't aware of before.
Of course nobody so far has proven this in one way or the other.
Well....
the question would be more along the lines of: If she IS a cylone, is she a copy of a real human being or completly artifical?
[SPOILERS HEREIN]
In the final Episode it is quite clear that there are several copies of her on the base star, also when she shoots Adama at the end of the episode it almost looks like she is a cylone.
IF she really is (and it looks that way) it should be interesting to see what consequences this will have because remember:
Balthar tested her and she came back positiv, until he changed her results to "all green."
If she IS a cylon and the other on board Galactica find out, they also will know that the test doesn't seem to work, what will that mean for the paranoia in the fleet? Can they keep something like this under wraps? Or will this cause a wide spread panic under the people in the fleet?
But what we are is the base on which we build the future.
Where there is light, there is shadow, so you won't have a "happy" future anyways. To believe that is no more SF, maybe it's Fantasy
Actually,
there was a LOT more whitespace between my note and the rest of the text, it seems that Slashdot "cleaned it up".
Also, the "she is a cylon" wasn't posted by me, but rather by the OP.
Ah well, but is she? Sure there are copies of her, the one on Capirca [Spoiler to follow]
is clearly a cyclone, or not? Because she also seems to be pregnan now. So the question is: Which Boomer is real, or is there a real Boomer at all?
Actually Sci-Fi was always about transposing current issues into the future. It was used as a vehicle of cultural criticism.
So to blast BSG because it doesn't have any "science" to it is a bit short sighted in my opinion.
Sci-Fi becamse the court jester of the new age, it could say things out very clearly while at the same time claiming (the author anyways) that this had absolutly nothing to do with the current government.
BSG seems to be the same, it raises current issues, but not in a way that I would call "propaganda". If one wants to hack on the 9/11 things it should be pointed out that it seems to turn more and more in a war of religous believes than anything else.... Mankind seems to regress fast into the dark ages, just that this time around we can make it stick for much much longer.
Life isn't clean and neat it is usually pretty messy.
I never liked Star Trek very much because of this: "Federation good, everybody else bad."
DS9 diverted from this "group think" a bit, I guess mainly because of B5, but it came to an end.
I don't know about you, but I rather have flawed characters, "real life" drama for the characters than the sugar coated "be happy" pill that most of TV is. Stories live from conflict, not agreement.
Also to further my point, from the Blog:
That would "copy" not "steal".
All a matter of personal preferences of course, but I actually like the "documentary" style that the new Galactica has. IMO it puts you "closer".
Now, for the space battle(s) I wish they would do it a bit less, but overall when I have to compare both shows, the new one wins hands down.
Blah blah blah. Good troll... buh buh buh.
Ah, I am the arrogant one, hold on, let me quote you something:
'nuff said.
Maybe, just maybe, because what you consider a a "faultfree logic" is anything but, not to mention the fact that you seem to be very bad at handeling criticism, as this thread bears testament to.
Mirror mirror on the wall......
Maybe you can enlighten me what I omitted.
Now you're the one omitting my writing. I made it pretty clear that there are good circumstances where writing a pseudonym makes sense, but for the average person to have to be that paranoid is just plain wrong. If you don't see that I feel sorry for you.
Ah, and once again only the Burger has a right to put up the bar "I am on the net since 1997" if the other person is doing it better / for longer / has more experience then suddenly it doesn't matter and the other person is instead belittled... You, sir, are a true, shining example of small town Canada and the internet at large.
My heart is bleeding for joy.
And because it is that way we all have to live with it. No need (or reason) to change, is that what you are trying to imply with your "advice"?
How much credibility does my writing have if I don't even stand by it?
Wow, 1996? Impressive, I have only used my computer to connect to the internet since around 1991 (give or take a few months, I am not quite sure when CompuServe actually opened up the gateway), you know, before people spammed Newsgroups and before there was the World Wide Web and all that.... Ahh, the good old times.
Thanks for enlightenm me though about all the things I've missed in the last 14 years of using this communicatino medium.
Obviously you haven't read the FAQ
I see, generalisation only works for you arguments. How convinient.
The way society treats people (e.g. free speech) are not an "accident" they are a concerted effort.
Comparing using an alias to wearing a seatbelt in the car is a good breakdown of logic. Me writing something on the web in a "free" country (choose any flag you like) should not result in bodily harm. There should be no "accident" either.
Accidents by definiton are random, non predetermined acts. The fireing of an employee, the harrassing and sueing of another person (or the beating up of the same) sounds not like an accident to me but rather like a concious act by individuals and organizations.
Must be the peppermint schnapps you've been drinking.
True, but this is not even about any secrets. If I breach a contract then I have to deal with the consequences and shouldn't whine. If I write about my life though (and that can include my work for most people) then this is something completly different.
As I wrote there are good reasons for people to use acronyms for example if they blow the whistle on their employer for damaging the environment or selling dangerous products, but beyond that, someone who has a personal blog, should not be required to hide their identity.
Geeze, since you moved in your old schoolhouse it seems you have found the bottle of wisdom. Did it by any chance taste and smell like peppermint schnapps?
Ah, so you start with the name calling and *I* am the Jackass.... Wow.... It seems to be true that artists easily crack under pressure..... That's sad. I am sure in time you will recover. I am sorry for all the pain you must be feeling while you release all your anger into your keyboard.
Either we have a severity one failure to communicate here or you really think your opinion and advice is the only one that counts.
Either way: Good for you!
I see you still haven't taken the Valium.
But to answer the question that was hidden somewhere in your diatribe about my missing ability to communicate with you: The reason I choose america was because this is what this is all about, how american companies treat their employees.
Yes it is. If I just let things happen I am as guilty as when I would have done it myself.
You can't tell me that if you see someone drowning in a lake and just let it happen, you did not let him die?
No, but I am opposing your attitude of: "Well, if you have a blog, better have it under a pseudonym, because that's the only smart thing to do." It is not. The smart thing to do is to make sure that people actually can say what they want to say (minus certain things like "Fire" in a crowded theater).
Either there is free speech and an open society or there is not. Hiding ones identity to say the things one wants to say is not a solution (yes, yes, there are certain circumstances in which using a Pseudonym should be used, there is ample proof of this in history, but when the majority has to resort to pen names then there is something clearly wrong, and it doesn't matter if it is because of the government or companies).
Maybe not, but I am do have a pretty good idea how I want to live my life which things I value, and the term "brutally honest" would come to mind.
Well, if you look at my UID you'll realize that it has been around for a while (~1997 or so), so if you still think I am a teenager then I guess I must have gotten my account when I was at most 11.... So I guess one could argue I have been around the block a bit.
But here's a tip: google for my username, I pretty much use it for 99% of my public postings, and I am sure you can find out more about me, or just visit my website.
Sure sure, just like you seem to read my age in my posting.
Too bad for your country. Mine, btw, does not have english as an official language.
Good for you, so why are you now all of the sudden tell everybody to hide their identity?
- Mother: Dead.
- Wife: Have none.
If I had either I still wouldn't care. They either accept me for who I am or they don't. Unlike a Teenager I don't really need someone elses approval to be me.
Who's shouting? What could *I* want to get feedback on that I don't want them to know about? If I HAVE to hide it from them, then I have way bigger problems.
And you sound like someone with anger managment issues. Take a Valium and deep breath.
Great going buddy. Use Pseudonyms? Hide behind an "alter ego"? I thought the US got into Iraq so that people there DON'T have to do things like that anymore?
If you can't stand behind what you write with your own name, then maybe you shouldn't have written it in the first place.
IF on the other hand, you can't say anything anymore without fear of repercussion I suggest you call out a revolution and free the people again. Put the Second Ammendment to good use.
Don't you know? It's only guys who want to see girls naked. Nobody wants to see us guys.... Unless they're gay of course, but that's just a "lifestyle choice" as well all know, so no way could that be.
And women by default don't like guys either.
[keep the sarcasm if you find it]
I didn't say it would be fun... I rather think it is like a car crash, one just has to look.