lurker

"You're hitting the Y tonight again, aren't you?" my friend interrupted my dinner to ask. "Come on! I want to go with you!" So much for ignoring him. At least my folks weren't around. They never would have approved of him, and he wouldn't have known just when to keep his mouth shut around them. The easiest way to deal with them was to say as little as possible. When we were eating together, I had two types of answers for them: one-word answers or shoving food in my mouth. How was sch

2006 Anthology

I've been busy with life stuff too. I don't have time to keep up with everything on the forums. But I've stopped in chat every now and then and there is usually no one around. So I often don't even think of looking anymore even when I could.

I've told this to you before, but I will repeat it again: You need to lower your expectations from this friendship and decide whether/how much to include Justin in your life. Yes, it sucks when your best friend ditches you for a boyfriend/girlfriend. It's a lousy thing to do to a friend, though nearly everyone is guilty of doing it, to some degree, at some point in life (especially as teenagers). But you can't make Justin dump his girlfriend and the more you try to harp on how manipulative and evil she is, the worse YOU look, and you help her build a dichotomy where it is the two of them versus the rest of the world. The situation sucks. You can't keep him from acting like an ass of a friend. But you CAN control how disappointed/hurt you are when the predictable continuation of the saga happens...

Just want to second the thoughts above suggesting disbelief that you're finding Rory to be a pain after, you know, Quinn.

The FAQ to another message board (one that is deliberately far more snarky than this place) posts the following guidelines: "Don't post to say you are leaving the board forever. That way you won't look like the tool that you are when you inevitably come back. We delete all goodbye posts, and to spare them the temptation to return, we delete the poster's account as well. Just shut up and leave, you self-pitying drip. Don't post to say only, "Hi! I'm back!" Most of us didn't notice you were gone or don't care that you are back." While there are circumstances that warrant such declarations and announcements, typically, I think these are good guidelines to follow.

I always liked Wheels better than Joey. Snake too. Joey was such a dumbass. Hehehe. Not only is Pat still featured on Degrassi: The Next Generation (which centers around kids who are roughly the same age as Spike's daughter, Emma), but the cable channel that airs Degrassi: TNG in the states just started showing Degrassi "old school" episodes. Of course, tuning in reminds me that I'm...old.

You may be dealing with a jerk. But maybe not. Some people are not very good at handling multiple IM conversations or IM while doing other things online. They get distracted and wind up ignoring a window, without realizing how long it has been since they last responded. Beyond that, sometimes people assume that because someone is logged in, they have an unlimited time to chat. If you're really trying to talk to someone about things, it's appropriate to ask if they have a moment to talk rather than saying "hi" and launching into something because it's a good time for you. Plus, there are plenty of IM 'non-conversations' that don't really require additional responses. They naturally fade away. Some people don't like spending time on the phone chatting about nothing - if there is no point, they say goodbye and hang up. Others have the same attitude about IMing. Just because you've said the last comment doesn't mean that it requires/invites the person to say something back. We have no way of knowing what the real deal is with this guy. If you don't enjoy chatting with him, then block him. Or at least be realistic in your expectations about how the correspondence will be. But I think you're getting angry and assuming this is a personal thing when there are any number of other reasons fr his behavior.

This may or may not help Val in her decision, but I don't entirely agree with the information you have provided, Michael, so I feel compelled to chime in. 1) The first year curriculum DOES vary to some extent, though not by much. For example, some schools require a year of Constitutional Law. Some schools don't allow it at all until after first year. The biggest real difference I've noticed across first year courses is that some schools allow/require 1Ls to take an elective course or two (or to take an upper level/mixed class of their choosing) while others dictate the entire first year. For someone heading into law school with a very specific career path in mind (which applies to a small minority), this can be an important part of the decision. 2) Very true, but the method in which the school schedules the classes (sequencing) and allows registration may dictate what you actually get to take when. Some students are very disappointed as 2Ls when they realize that they can't get into the most popular/on demand seminars, courses, etc. until they are 3Ls, and they spend the entire year taking only "bar courses" like evidence with 150 other people. It's an important point to ask at ANY school what courses students really do take and when to get an idea if the model is right for you. 3) The workload is pretty much the same in 2d and 3d year - you're taking mixed upper level classes. It is far more than the 1L workload, but that to some degree is because takes less time to do the same amount/more. 2Ls and 3Ls wind up busy because of non-coursework stuff: clinics, moot courts, journals, and very often, outside jobs. I would be happy to see at least the last semester - if not the entire 3rd year - turned into an apprenticeship instead of course work. But I'm not making the rules. 4) As far as I'm concerned, the bar exam should be changed to reflect the actual skills and knowledge required of lawyers. Memorization of blanket legal principles (like the multistate requires) is not of great value and should be ditched in lieu of an open book/open computer legal research and writing test. I agree with Michael that you should mind the costs of the education. It's an investment in your future - so 'cheaper' is not necessarily always better (e.g., if you really want to practice on the west coast, don't go to a midwestern public school that has more of a local/regional reputation than a national one). All in all, though, there are some good quality public law schools out there, so I think that's worth taking an extra look at. And last, I'd be very careful about choosing a school based on one specific specialization program they have unless you have actual experience in that field before law school indicating that this is truly your calling. A JD opens many doors for the future, and it's very hard to know which ones you would even be interested knocking on until you get more exposure to the law and what the options are.

Always good to focus on the positive. I'd make some witty retort about how that wouldn't have happened if the Bears PLAYED the Packers, but the Packers are pretty pitiful too, so it's not clear what happens with that train wreck.

I haven't read your stories, Madbomber, so I'm speaking from a more general sense here. I suspect that the gay online fiction world is full of unfinished stories somewhat like yours - you started at one point in your life due to some inspiration and after some time, you didn't have the time and/or inspiration to keep the story going. Here is my controversial proposition: Maybe the problem is that your story IS finished, to some extent. Having not read it, I don't know if that's true or not. What defines where a story ends? There are stories where the author slaps on "The End" or the barely less subtle paragraph at the end explaining "And then they were together for another 20 years and had blah blah blah, but they never forgot this story." Does an official ending really work for the reader? To be honest, if an author has to TELL me that the story is over, then there has been something missing in the story telling/crafting. Not every story ends with complete resolution, but as a reader, I should KNOW that the story is ending. This should not be a shock. A well-crafted story is built upon a certain amount of conflict and when that conflict is played out, then the story is over. I know that writing styles vary widely. Some people like to have every detail plotted out in advance and others prefer to be more flexible to follow where a storyline may go. But there is such a thing as too much free-form. There are a great number of aspiring authors who are inspired to write - they come up with a character, a scenario, etc. - and just start writing. I would posit that while many people can be writers, not nearly as many are focused on being story-tellers. The talented authors are the ones who have honed the craft of storytelling. Writer's block often happens when there is a disconnect with the writing (or writing process) and with the story that the writer is trying to tell. Sometimes, the problem is that the writer may not KNOW what story he is trying to tell. Or his writing may have deviated from the story he is telling enough that he now feels trapped and unable to continue in the path he feels that the story needs to go. Or the story he was trying to tell is ALREADY TOLD and the writer is stuck trying to continue when the true underlying story is finished. If you are simply more interested in working on ANOTHER story, that doesn't really seem like writer's block to me. It just suggests that your muse is lit in a different direction. Go with where your creative energy takes you! But for anyone who has systematic problems 'finishing' stories - and always is more inspired to start something new - then that indicates a problem with crafting a story so that it has a natural beginning, middle, and end. There are questions you can use to focus your writing on this core story-telling point, such as: What is this story about? What does this chapter do? What conflicts must be resolved before this story can end? etc. Happy Writing!

After the performance of the Chicago Bears against the Redskins yesterday, there are a lot of players I'd be hatin' - not just the game...

Happy Birthday, Zot! Do you bake your own cake or do you let someone else do it? Hehehe...

I'm a little late to the party, but HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! Hope your day's been a good one.

Happy Birthday Trebs! Enjoy your special day. P.S. You're old.

Ah, the dreaded school uniforum issue. The local school here just voted in favor of uniforms and it's been a popular topic of conversation among my friends. Here's my take: There is no reason you can't have a dress code rather than a uniform. A dress code would be something like: no shorts, no jeans, no tank tops, etc. Dress codes establish that whole "we're dressed respectably and must act accordingly" advantage just the same as school uniforms do. More concerte dress codes are a good idea if there is a problem with kids wearing 'inappropriate attire' that would be difficult to police in an objective way. I'm talking about micro-mini skirts and tube tops - the types of things that junior high students should NOT be wearing, but you can't realistically enforce a 'don't dress like a ho' policy (and who wants to be the teacher checking out if 13 year old girls are too scantily clad). I don't buy the whole "rich kids can dress in label clothing and it makes poor kids feel bad" reason for school uniforms. There are ALWAYS ways that rich kids will be able to make poor kids feel bad if they are so inclined. If it isn't a shirt or a pair of pants, then it'll be a pair of shoes, a bookbag or handbag, or even the car their parents drive or vacation or house, etc. Requiring school uniforms is a throw-away effort that many school boards resort to rather than figuring out better ways to deter bullying and other crappy behavior that you see in junior high. As far as I can tell, it's a red herring. And allowing SOME parents to waive their kids out of uniforms defeats the whole UNIFORM thing. It just creates hierarchies between kids who get the waiver and those that don't.

Damnit. Not sure if you were still in chat at the point where I explained that calling my name is a sure way to get my attention, even when I'm TRYING to be discrete. You're right, though. I didn't want to read it. Good thing it's not the sort of thing I'm posting in my blog about, even though my blog is allegedly about "What I'm reading." Hope you have a great weekend, Dave!

I hate it when... some idiot at the supermarket slams a shopping cart into the back of my foot and I'm wearing sandals. I hate it more when... that idiot is me.

Happy Birthday, Jules!

I use green too.

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday! First J and now you. I don't think it'll be safe to drive anywhere in this country for some time...

I love America (not the rock group, the country), but I have to respond here... The amount of fighting in NHL hockey has declined significantly in the past 20 years. This is true if you look at the number of actual 'fights' on tape, the number of penalties leveled for fighting, OR what is being defined as 'fighting' (it takes far less now). The days of the all-ice brawl are pretty much over. Hockey fights are heavily controlled battles between 2 players, and they are broken up the instant one player hits the ice or gains too great an advantage. Is it the same as international or college competition? No. But without going all Don Cherry on anyone's ass, there are reasons to doubt that the international or college games are actually 'safer' for players either. The problem of hockey violence is not really one of 'fighting.' It's about stickwork that breaks bones, trips/slewfoots that take out knees, and elbows/charging that increase concussions. Can Olympic hockey be more exciting to watch than the NHL? Sure, of course. Because you've taken the absolute elite skaters in the world, and for the top 6-8 countries, their best players are more talented than the NHL average team. But this has nothing to do with fighting. It has to do with a watered-down NHL talent pool due to over-expansion that even the influx of more international players could not keep up with. If the NHL dropped at least 4 teams, you'd see a nice across the board improvement in the quality of play. Of course, we still have the problem that international ice is bigger, and you can't go rebuilding every NHL arena just because players are faster, bigger, and stronger now. I'll happily debate whether two-line passes should be offsides. I'm inclined to think they should be allowed. But the ice would STILL be clogged with players. If you can't make the ice bigger, you need to create more space. The solution? 4 on 4 all the time. So now, we have fewer teams playing 4 on 4 all the time - bam, the hockey starts looking a lot better. Only the NHLPA hates me, because I've cut all those jobs. Icing, btw, is absolutely necessary if you don't want teams to be able to throw the puck ahead to no one in particular. It makes the game more interesting, not less. I've heard that they may be instituting shoot-outs in the NHL (now that a deal has been reached) to avoid having so many regular season ties. I think it's a silly solution to a non-problem. A good hockey game can end in a tie. Go ahead, kiss your sister. Get over it. I'll let JR handle talking to those 'fans' who think shoot-outs are needed because hockey is 'boring' if there is no clear winner to a regular season game. Awarding extra points to the team that has the better goalie or more talented top 5 breakaway types make no sense. Hockey is hockey and shoot-outs are NOT hockey. Let the points be decided by playing hockey. In the playoffs, we have sudden death OT however long it takes and nothing tops that. Now, we can't do that in the regular season, but perhaps OT should be a little longer (10 minutes or even 20). It's more feasible if they drop the number of games in the season, which they should. The hockey regular season is far too long. Maybe 50 games isn't perfect if you want an unbalanced schedule and to play every team at least once. But the number of games should be closer to 50 than 80. Fewer games with more importance - and a longer OT if need be - now the regular season games get more exciting, count more. [The playoffs don't neeed fixing, they are great.] And now, the NHL owners hate me, because I've just destroyed all the revenue from the games not being played. Ok. Must stop now before this turns into a rant...

Not only is it confusing at first, but even once you know where these key points are, it is pretty useless to anyone who lives in the middle. Barring some major accident, they never explain WHERE the tie-ups are clustered. Is it stop and go the whole way? Does it clear up after the merge? Who knows?