lurker

If the evidence wasn't there to convict, then it doesn't feel any better to realize this from the vantage point of the jury box. It would be nice if more people with a spine and above average intelligence served on juries. That said, there is a reason that people who have a spine and intelligence get knocked off the list by one side or the other. Depending on my case, I may love to have you as a juror or I might make sure you have no chance of making the jury. But I suspect that if it was the former, the other side would have you off before I could blink. The sad reality is that too many people shirk this important civic duty, but the system isn't really set up to favor selection of the backbone bearing intelligentsia.

Congrats to my favorite couple of shmoops!

Is this REALLY news? Sheesh... Doesn't anyone have anything better to worry about?

Heretic!

The following is a bit rant-y, and I realize that it is mostly my own damn fault. But that doesn't change my mood. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am a contact lens wearer. I love my contacts. Love them, love them, love them. They are so wonderful for sports (especially hockey) and the whole peripheral vision thing. I am not only a contact lens user, I'm also an abuser. I'm the person who wears disposable lenses and when you ask me when the last time I switched was, I can't really remember precisely. I sleep in my lenses more often than not. I hate wearing glasses. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Fortunately, I don't do it very often. I can count the number of times that I've spent a day in glasses in the past two years without even needing to take off my shoes. My current pair of glasses is about a year and a half old (the last time I had gotten my eyes checked by an optometrist, gotten new lens prescription too). This pair never seemed right to me, but I never spent enough time wearing them to figure out if they were incorrect (in prescription or fitting) or if I just am not remotely used to glasses. Now, the story jumps to about two weeks ago, when I went to get my eyes checked. I hadn't seen an opthamologist in several years, and I knew my vision had gotten worse from my last prescription. [side note: the whole 'your eyes stabilize as you get older?' - not true when you spend your days in front of a computer screen or reading other written materials.] The doctor was very nice. Gave me a clean bill of health and issued me my new glasses prescription, which is a decent amount off from the last one. I'm getting even more near-sighted (which I tend to forget how bad it can be when I have my lenses in), but slightly less astigmatic. Then I went to see the contact lens guy (an optometrist) who wanted me to test out two different left lenses before issuing me my new prescription. Lens #1 never felt quite right. I took it out a few time to see if maybe I had it wrong. But lens #2 felt just fine. It more closely matched the type of lens I had been using before (it's a question whether I still need a toric in that eye). I went back this morning, planning to report that lens #2 was better and to be given my new prescription so I could go on my merry way. When the optometrist looked in my eyes, he discovered a minor problem. It looked like an early infection in my left eye - could be nothing, but he needed me to see the doctor. The opthamologist confirmed what was suspected. Corneal ulcer (which is a bacterial infection) that needs antibiotic treatment pronto. She told me to chuck the lens, and that I could plan on being in glasses for 10-14 days minimum. I pointed out that since I felt fine, had gotten a clean bill of health 2 weeks prior, and had just planned to get a prescription, I hadn't even brought my glasses with me and I couldn't drive home without my lenses in. And of course, I hadn't gotten the new glasses precription taken care of yet, because I was waiting on the one for the lenses, and I almost never wear glasses. So...on my way home, I went to order a new pair of glasses (it'll take 7-10 days), dropped off the prescription for the antibiotics to get that started as soon as possible, and took out the lenses. When I ordered the new glasses, the lady commented that they were a nice bit stronger than the last pair. (Gee, thanks!) With the old glasses, things aren't the best. I can drive, though I won't be reading any signs anytime soon, and I'll be more comfortable handing the responsibility off to my weekend visitor. The letters on my monitor are a bit fuzzy/blurry. The rational part of me knows that this is my own damn fault for not heeding my mother's advice about taking care of my eyes (you only get one pair!). It also knows that I'm lucky about the timing here (when I chose to see the doctor and how that played out) and I'm lucky that the professionals treating me took things seriously and didn't just send me off with a prescription and the potential for unknown damage. But there is also a part of me that is just annoyed at the thought of having to work out - and even worse, play hockey - in glasses (they fog up terribly). I'm annoyed that I won't be able to see clearly for a good week or so, and I'm annoyed that I don't know exactly when I'll be cleared for contact lenses again.

Snow Dog - Have you been reading Dawn of Tears again?

Bonus points in the race for Emperor are available if you can identify the actual poem that I'm ripping off.

Uh-oh. Perhaps I should start mobilizing my legions. It's time to get them moving from Kamchatka into Alaska...

I love it when... ...I can use the 'view new posts' option.

The new server calls to me. It's fast speed seduces my heart. Oh, how I want to post in the forums. Oh, how I want to read the blogs. Alas, I cannot...no wait. I can. Thank you, Myr! Thank you, Myr!

World domination starts in Australia. There is only one border to protect, and you get the extra armies at the start of every turn. Control of Australia and South America is the key to success...

The problem is that it is pretty much impossible to express sincere sympathy without having an empathy. Many other good deeds are more act-centric and the motivation matters far less. If I donate $100 to feed a family, does the family that gets to eat really care if the food came from my desire to get a tax deduction or my most altruistic nature (and nevermind asking the utilitarian whether there is EVER pure altruism)? The act may be 'cheapened' in some sense for the actor. It is by no means cheapened for the recipients unless it is handled in a manner that demeans them. The message of sympathy is "You are not alone and I am here to do whatever you need me to at this time of need." You can bring a sandwich to the widow no matter your reason. But if you lack a true motivation for sympathy, then you probably just can't pull it off.

As Emperor, such transgressions (unless comitted by high-ranking Imperial officials) would be dealt with swiftly through overwhelming public humiliation, and perhaps a visit from Andy . Snow Dog <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uhm, that's FUTURE Emperor - well, at least in some future timeline. The Senate has not been disbanded yet. Sheesh. Give the guy a birthday, and he starts making all these assumptions...

Job is a tough book to read, and I don't mean because of the major plot points. Seriously, have you guys read it? Speeches, speeches, speeches, boring, boring, boring. Job is the quintessential book to pose the question 'Why do bad things happen to good people?' I don't think the answer is supposed to be because God and Satan got together for coffee and donuts and made the kind of bet you see in movies. The big reveal at the end, after all, is God's argument: "Were you there when I had said coffee & donuts? Didn't think so." The anthropomorphic God concept is troublesome, no matter the context. The story is an allegory, and I think the inclusion of Satan is an important part of it - espcially once the idea of Satan is considered as being part of the same God. Monotheism dictates that Satan is either one and the same as God - the 'flipside' name used when we don't like the outcome or Satan is a lesser non-human being that serves under God - sort of as an agent given one particular trait/characteristic. God has many facets that can not be understood by humans. One part of that is the piece that some may call 'Satan.' All we can see is what happens to us and we must live our lives accordingly - even though we'll never know what is a product of what may seem like coffee, donuts & a bet. If the tragedy that befell Job happened for a nobler reason, it would defeat the message of the allegory. Given that, the most disturbing thing to me is not the behavior of God, but the behavior of Job's alleged friends. With friends like those, who needs enemies? (and dare I point out their heresy?) Bad things will happen, and there are ways to see friends through crisis. Blaming people for misfortune OR attributing it to coffee, donuts & a bet - neither method is particularly helpful to the sufferer. Anyway, that's just my two cents. And don't worry Snow Dog, there has to be a place in this world for the middle-aged to achieve global domination.

Happy Birthday, Snow Dog! PS Let's see you find something to argue about with this post...

Chapter 1 - Val's Opinion Chapter 2 - Lurker's Opinion Reading Val's post, I couldn't help but agree. Who wants to see the same thing repeated? There had to be a way to communicate all the thoughts and feelings if needed. Ahhh, screw this... Bravo, bravo, Val. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Hehe. I'm not quite deluded enough to have even thought of it that way, I suppose. I suspect there are a lot of worse things that could happen in the story if Dan really wanted to see how nasty we could get (e.g., "Then God struck Sean with a lightning bold and declared 'Death to the scientist infidel!'"). Of course, Dan writes for no one but himself and the story. And maybe that other guy too. No, not God. His new sidekick, Boy-Shmoopy. I agree with you that this chapter could be a bridge - I expect the next one is going to start out months later after the Modesto families have already settled in. Davey's relationship with his parents is one parallel we've already discussed (mom vs. dad) throughout the timelines. You mention that Davey automatically reaches for his father's God, at least before his father has fallen (or is prevented from it). I thought this chapter set up an interesting parallel between Davey and his father and their own relationship with religion. I think it is part of what makes Davey so much more able to connect with his father. Davey is moving toward the religion of his childhood, but his father is moving away from it and leaving the church for something else. Davey's Dad is finding that he has purpose in life outside of the church - both as a father and in career. Davey spent his first Do Over with nothing but outside purpose - both in his family life (with Brian) and career (working with the government at first and then in the military). Now, he's connecting it all back to the church. And somehow, the two have met in the middle. I really like how Dan played this out.

During the commercial break, a lone figure strided into the back of the theater. He had long, shiny brown hair that was parted down the middle, and wore sunglasses, even inside. He walked down the aisles toward the stage. The audience stared in disbelief, and the chattering came to an abrupt end. "It's him," someone yelled, "It's Bo!" The audience broke out in applause and raucous cries of "Bo!!!" He marched to the stage and yanked the microphone from the host's hand. He turned to the contestants, turned to the judges, and said, "You know, I sold my soul to be part of this enterprise. I thought I could parody it, out-cool it all, but being a character in a place that's a parody to begin with just doesn't work. So, consider this my favor to y'all. Freebird!" With that, he reached for a rifle hidden under the stage and opened fire. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Somewhere from above, the judges deliberated. "It was alright. You know you're my dawg, but it was just alright. Not really your best genre," Judge #1 said. Judge #2 chimed in, "Yeah, I agree. But you really took it and made it your own! It had real personality. Fun. Always fun." They turned to the Judge #3, who shook his head, "Horrid. Simply horrid in start, middle, and finish." Then a God-like voice boomed, "Enough with the character assassination already!"

Just finished Chapter 23 aka The Religion of Davey It was mostly an exposition-y chapter, so there isn't a lot to comment about (although I was happy to hear Davey's 'Brian speech' to his Dad), but the end of the chapter poses an interesting question about Davey, God, and finding meaning in life. This past weekend, I had a discussion with two friends about divine providence and the ability to recognize it vs. free will. Fun stuff, of course. Anyway, one of the friends asked me what I thought about people who explained certain bad events [insert one of your choice] as God's will or punishment for improper behavior. She had been hearing such statements from the fanatical elements of the community - people who are friendly and welcoming on a personal level. The dissonance struck her, and she tends to come to me as the neighborhood educated non-fanatic. I turned to my friend and said, "Well, someone who tells you that [x bad event] happened because of God' will or punishment is a heretic." She pointed out that she had never heard me express anything that stark before, and I explained that purported religious God-fearing people who claim to understand WHY things happen in a cosmic sense (to explain why God 'does' things) are a major pet peeve of mine, because I feel it undermines the entire belief system (of the delicate balance between free will & providence and our inability to process/perfectly judge the world around us). I told her I stood by my remarks and then backed off a little by adding "Of course, it's all just perspective. They think I'm a heretic too." And with that background, I read Davey pondering what God's plan for him & his family really is. At first, I cringed when Davey suggested that the reason the family members died is that they hadn't had good lives in the past timeline. I wanted to yell "heretic!" Then, though, with the evolution of his thoughts, I understood that he wasn't justifying their deaths or explaining them away. Instead, he was making peace with it as best he knew how. Perhaps it was all for the best. I sense that Davey is allowing himself to believe that things can/will work out for the best. Of course, if you believe that, then it can be easier to act in such a way that things DO turn out for the best (self-fulfilling prophesy) or at least that you feel that things happened for some reason. That doesn't mean that you know the reason or can identify where free will ends and providence begins. As Davey says, it is a crutch of sorts - but that doesn't make it bad. And as the chapter points out, he has faced more loss than most (especially if we add Brian from the past timeline to the list). Davey is in a critical place in this Do Over. Sean brought him a dose of humility, but his religious connection is doing the same - or at least has the potential to do the same. He is 'changing' the world, though as has been pointed out before, from the God omniscient viewpoint, he isn't. His mother blames him for what has happened. Dealing with this necessarily forces Davey to reconcile what must be and what to do with his power to make a difference in the world - the world that he's in. Even super-heros need champions. In the past timeline, Davey got his strength and security from Brian. In this one, he seems to be turning to God/religion. Nothing wrong with that, from my standpoint.

I'm sure you would have scored high on wishy-washy . No comment Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, even wishy-washy moderates can be Extreme! (and not only in the the ESPN sense of the word or in the 'More than Words' sense either) And isn't 'no comment' REALLY a comment? I haven't seen a paradox like that since one of Dan's stories...

What surprises me is that I didn't score as high even on my top 'labels' as any of you did, and a number of you scored just as high or higher on categories that came in 2d or 3d. I guess I'm just disagreeable. Anyway, I tied as Cultural Creative and Idealist. My results: Cultural Creative - 69% Idealist - 69% Postmodernist - 56% Existentialist - 50% Modernist - 44% Materialist - 38% Romanticist - 31% Fundamentalist - 25%

The cliffhanger is one of the most overused techniques in online serial writing. Good writing doesn't need a deliberate cliffhanger (unexpected visitor, fade out in the middle of dialogue, last minute explosion or collision, etc.) to build suspense. There are some authors who think that the cliffhanger is needed in every other chapter (at least), and it drives me nuts when I'm reading it. Others have already posted some of the reasons I dislike cliffhangers, such as 'unending' stories or waiting too long between posts. I agree with Mark that having the next chapter ready ought to be a prerequisite for posting a cliffhanger. And even if an author isn't quite that fastidious, he better at least KNOW how that cliffhanger gets resolved. If a story is suspenseful and interesting, then I'm eager to read the next chapter whether the last line is "And then I went to sleep for the night" or "What are YOU doing here?" The feeling that I can't wait to see what happens next can't be manufactured simply by how an author ends a chapter. It also loses the suspense if I know that a cliffhanger will be resolved in the first 3 sentences of the next chapter, because that is the author's m.o. I don't mean to suggest that no cliffhangers are ever successful as a technique in building anticipation. But the good cliffhanger comes chapters and chapters along in a story, catches the reader off-guard when it appears, and takes more than a paragraph to resolve in the next chapter.

I love it when... ...New-found friends inspire me to put love above all else. ...I don't mind doing a favor for an ex, because I'm surrounded by love. ...I look back on an amazing year getting to know the guy I love more than anything. ...I smile for four days non-stop. ...The reason I'm sore has nothing to do with ice hockey. ...I get to see Revenge of the Sith with him, and his presence warm me from the chills that it gave me. ...I wake up holding him and realize that I didn't have to let go all night - and I didn't. ...I can sneak his shirt into my bag and bring it home with me. ...I get my elite upgrade to first class each way and get some writing done on the plane. ...The next trip is already booked, and it isn't too far off. ...I know that the number of days left as a frequent flier are diminishing. ...The people I care about - both old friends and new ones - are at least as fortunate as I am. ...I find people who can understand that even a sarcastic critic can't help feeling a little shmoopy from time to time.

You raise an interesting question. I think most writers rely on a composite of characteristics they see in people. Perhaps the self is one such source, but I do not think it is predominant enough to claim that you typically can see insight into the writer by looking at a particular character. Even writers who write in first person narrative and draw upon some of their own perspectives are often turning that into some fictitious/idealized/imagined character. It is difficult, from the writing alone, to identify which part of the character comes from the writer, someone else they know, or pure conjecture. I've read some writing online that seems to treat a character - especially the narrator - as an outgrowth of author. I don't think the technique usually works that well in fiction. There is a place for autobiographies. But fiction written as autobiographical re-write often lacks honesty (consistency & realism of characters, truth about how things could happen, etc.) and the necessary filter separating the relevant from the irrelevant. That said, I think the writing itself can often give insight into the writer in a way that the characterization may not. The choice of the story told, the underlying theme(s), the type of characters - these all can inform the reader about the writer, especially when you take a series of works, rather than a lone story.

You claim to be on no one's side but your own. Then you use the term "we." Is this the royal we or are you being inconsistent? Plus, you refer to them as "Quinn's other so called friends," but since Quinn is a selfish twit incapable of caring about anyone else's needs, I hardly question his friends. Perhaps he needs to learn to be a friend before he can have one. (<---- Look! Actually on topic! Well, at least for some other thread...]