MightyPen

Get Smart and Star Trek on a black-and-white TV -- probably 1968. Also, for some reason, watching "War of the Worlds (1953)" on TV with my older siblings when I was about four years old, and being petrified for (it seemed like) days. I do remember being in a crib, unhappy and alone, my older siblings at school, and hearing what I later learned was the theme to "Coronation Street". So that's probably my earliest TV memory even though it's one I heard, rather than saw. Damned tune STILL depresses the hell out of me! :)

I'll echo that sentiment. This has been a good year for me, and it's been made even better by my experiences here on CERB. Thanks to everyone for being willing to make the effort to share your own honest insights on such a wide range of delicate and fascinating subjects. I learn new things here all the time; and other times I'm surprised just to find that other people share ideas and sentiments I thought were weirdly unique to me. :) What an awesome place. And I agree that it's partly the online anonymity, but largely the welcoming and positive atmosphere here on CERB, that lets people risk revealing some of their unique inner selves we might never have known about otherwise. Best wishes on your break, SteveMcQ. It'll be great to hear from you again if do make it back to this neck of the woods.

That's crazy! Everyone knows that if you do that, then apple trees will grow in your stomach and burst out of your abdomen. Geeeeez!

Ah! Okay, so anyone who read my long and now plainly off-topic post a page ago, please un-read it! :)

Is there? See the top definition here: Urban Dictionary: White Knight... that's kind of where I'm coming from. But then... ... yeah, I've seen it used that way too, and I agree it's often used to dismiss arguments by questioning the motives of the poster. Guess this is why we each need to establish up front which of the many definitions we're using in order to move the conversation forward.

Yeah, this is one of those cases where it's easy to talk past each other if we aren't more specific about which of many possible definitions for "white knight" we mean. Looks like Miss Jane is alluding to that occasional tendency of clients to try to act on an SP's behalf to "save" her from "this life". And of course this has built into it several assumptions and ugly implications, to which the white knight himself is blind: "she needs saving!" (implied: "Look how terrible her circumstance are! Nobody could possibly want to live the way she's living!" Built upon several layers of narrowmindedness.) "and I'm JUST the guy to do it!" (implied: "My position in life is superior to hers; her position is inferior to mine." Thrives on and feeds the knight's own ego.) (never said aloud: ) " 'cause god knows she can't change on her own." (implied: she's broadly incompetent and incapable. Once again, it's about the knight's own ego.) It's too bad, because although the knight thinks he's being awesome, just scratching a little at the surface of his intent reveals all of the ego and contempt behind it. And yet the target of the knight's pity may very well have her life, her ethics, her philosophy, and her finances in far better shape than the knight perceives or can imagine. But it's also unsurprising; I see this mindset a lot in in well-off acquaintances who can be clueless and narrow-minded about anything outside the tidy, conventional paths their own lives have followed. Speaking of which... has anyone else seen the miniseries "The Crimson Petal and the White"? It's kind of about this, and well-made! Plus, you know, Gillian Anderson. And cool clothes.

I have two! And generally feel I'm ahead a bit if I trade them for bishops.

I don't really know enough about the whole proposal to judge its merits. I gather, though, that it's an idea strongly embraced by prominent conservatives and libertarians (among some others). One of the key bits is "... but you would not get any other government assistance." I just read on Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know) that here in Canada we could nearly institute such a programs today with no additional taxes required:

That's too bad. I'm not shocked since he was 95 and there was a close call just a month or two ago. But it's still sad to see his era come to an end. At least we can say... few people have lived a fuller life with more and better impact on so many people. He wasn't just a great and effective civil leader; he helped defuse the powderkeg surrounding the end of Apartheid. South Africa is still in deep social trouble, but it could have been incalculably worse without Mandela's efforts at a peaceful transition. A great man.

Ha! I remember one mega-"CHRISTMAS OF G.I. JOE". Featuring the incredibly cheesy, but nevertheless answer to my childhood dreams, G.I. JOE HEADQUARTERS: More at: http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/9932-childhood-toys-gi-joe-adventure-team-he This was the era of the 12" tall G.I. Joes with KUNG FU GRIP and fuzzy hair that came off in the water (but who nevertheless came with a leaky deep-sea-diving suit). I think the same year I got a bizarre toy of a styrofoam aircraft carrier with a joystick on one end, and an attached string you ran up a staircase and tied to a bannister. Then you clipped a little plastic Phantom jet to the top of the string... ran downstairs and jerked the joystick to release the plane... and moved the joystick back and forth to stretch or slacken the string so that the toy plane landed flat on the top of the carrier. Man... that was heaven, for a bout a day. Yeah! Here it is: More at: http://www.stuffwelove.co.uk/flightdeck.htm Note that I used the phrase "jerked the joystick" above, and didn't mean it THAT way even a bit.

I actually don't see it that way at all. I do agree that on occasion some others have posted "Goodbye, cruel world! I shall post no more!" messages that are brimming with self-pity. (And then some come back nevertheless.) WBS' post didn't strike me that way. Instead, he expressed surprise at himself, and some regret, but most importantly a resulting change to his feeling about his relationship with the community and the board. I almost never have a problem with a genuine feeling honestly expressed. And posting "that's all, folks" is cool if the poster has something to share about the experience, or simply to inform people so they don't wonder where X has gone down the road -- provided they really are just putting a period at the end of their tenure, and not a comma, if you know what I mean. That said: best wishes WBS. Oddly enough, it wasn't 'til I read this thread that I understood your user name to be We Both Score. For some reason I'd read it as WebO'Th'Score ("Web Of The Score") and always wondered. Geez. Time for new eyeballs, or the parts they attach to anyway...! Take care.

Yep, definitely an introvert here. I need a good fraction of alone-time to feel fulfilled -- time in which to reflect, consider, learn, and absorb. (But like Emily, my "puppies" don't count -- they're ALWAYS welcome. :) ) Funny thing is, people who know me casually would never think so -- I'm very well engaged with people and dynamic in social situations, including at work. Good with people, able leader of groups, etc. etc. ... and I truly enjoy all those things, in certain doses. Being introverted isn't the same as "shy" or "don't like people". But it does mean that I need solitary time to recharge and re-balance, or I get very cranky! As a kid, I always had a small number of very close and intimate friends. Never did the group thing well until my 20s though, when I pretty much forced myself to learn how in increments. It's valuable knowledge and opens up more of life to me... but it doesn't diminish the value of regular solitude. It's always struck me that, for those of us lucky enough to die of natural causes, there's going to be at least a few moments at the very end when we're right on the threshold of death, our external senses have all shut down, everything dark, and our brains will be isolated from the world. In that moment we'll each be completely and utterly alone inside a universe contained within our skull, aware of nothing else. It's the ultimate in solitude, and an unavoidable pause on the doorstep between life and death. If we can't bear being alone NOW, then how much harder will that moment be when it arrives?

Damn! You beat me to it! Wayne and Shuster it is, and each episode MUST be interspersed with monotonous Kraft recipe commercials.

Oh wow, this takes me back. I got my first job dutifully when I turned 16 at a self-serve gas station (one still made the "self-serve" vs. full-service distinction when referring to gas stations in those days...). I remember long weekend mornings, afternoons, and evenings trapped in the little glass box in the middle of the eight pumps, doing homework in the lulls, and the ever-present smell of gasoline.* In the summertime, once the sun set every insect within a half-mile seemed to make a beeline for the brightly lit glass booth. When I looked around I'd see the undersides of thousands of bugs of every shape and size, clinging to the outside glass, and me sitting in the middle of them all... * Also, weirdly, one of the other guys kept a stack of raunchy porn in a cupboard. Looking back: WTF?

Nice try, Rob Fo... uh, "369"! :)

Information abhors a vacuum. So, while some specific boards may come and go, I think there will always be an inclination for clients to gather and share local information somewhere on the 'net, and it makes business sense for SPs to interact with clients where they gather. Corrupt practices might appeal to dim-witted board admins, but it's a short-term con that inevitably erodes trust and damages the longer-term investment of the site itself. Given the value of anonymity on both sides in this industry, risking users' trust is an incredibly dumb move. Such places will weed themselves out naturally, and be replaced by somewhere people trust and value.

I answered "no", but... y'know what? My real, slightly odd answer is: no, I wouldn't pay to cuddle with someone I hadn't already seen for a GFE visit. but under the right circumstances, I can see myself paying for a cuddle session with someone I *had* seen for a GFE encounter. The only way I can make sense of this feeling on my part is: if it's someone I hadn't seen before, the comfortable intimacy of the cuddle (if we were able to build that) would eventually fall prey to me wondering "wow, can't we take this further... man, I wonder what it would be like to... mm, I wonder what she looks like when..." but if it's someone I'd already seen and with whom I'd already been, you know, uh, fully intimate, then some of that curiosity would be satisfied. Plus, we'd already have some kind of physical and intimate bond to build upon and make the lighter connection of the cuddle feel more meaningful and reassuring. Yup, I think it's entirely possible that once I'd established a little-r relationship with an SP, that on some occasions I'd like to just "hang out, close up" with her and talk and caress a bit. That could totally work.

[samuel L. Jackson] If a stone ain't got no moss, then get your ass to the bottom of the fucking hill and catch that rolling motherfucker! Oh HELL no, don't sew no nine damn stitches! Just sew one fucking stitch IN TIME and that'll save you ALL those other fuckers! What the FUCK do I want with your two goddamn bush birds when I got this one right here in my FUCKING hand? [/samuel L. Jackson] For bonus points: An apple every fucking day keeps the damn doctor the FUCK away.

I saw "Ender's Game" a few weeks ago. Loved the novel, but the movie was a watered-down version of an interesting story. One of the most intriguing parts of the story is reading about a young kid learning for the first time to devise tactics on a virtual battlefield, and tactics in social situations dealing with competing individuals. The movie had some of this, but not in enough detail to convey Ender's thinking process -- not surprising since it's so hard to convey that all-important internal monologue. Ah, well. I also saw "12 Years a Slave" last weekend and it was superb in its acting, directing, cinematography, the whole bit. The worst thing I can say about it is that you leave the theater sort of worn down and emotionally burdened! Still, very much worth seeing.

Ah, you beat me to posting this! I saw it on the BBC website today and had it pencilled in to share. I thought this part was interesting: "Some 3.6% of men had paid for sex in the last five years. Hardly any women had." And of course that's just the proportion of respondents who were willing to say yes to the survey. I'd wager some money the real number is higher.

But I'm only suggesting two people agree upon the method of inquiry -- not the set of conclusions that may be reached by using them. If two people can't agree on the principles underlying inquiry, then they'll just talk past each other and really won't get anywhere. There's still a broad range of conclusions possible from strictly interpreting evidence and trying, as much as possible, to avoid bias. See that's kind of funny, because I thought when I said "It's possible that the existence of the universe is something beyond cause and effect as we understand it" that I was paraphrasing your position... based on this: ... which I took to be a committed statement of fact, and a final position, rather than a statement about the limits of our current knowledge. You're absolutely right, though, that the simple answer "we don't know" is very often the best one, and perfectly valid, but leaves a lot of people deeply uncomfortable. Some people think a wild guess has more value than saying "I don't know." But they're usually wrong. (I think this, by the way, might be the same reason Miss Jane thought you were dismissing inquiry entirely with that statement and thus undermining science, rather than advocating the entirely "I don't know is okay" position.) Fundamentally, I think we agree here.

Oh, I agree, this is a good one! :) I both agree and disagree with that. I think a good question to ask of a partner in a conversation is: "Will we be guided foremost by evidence, or by anticipating the consequences of where that evidence leads us?" It's quite possible to say "we'll go only with the evidence," and then you can construct your conclusions without worrying about their implications. Human beings find this very hard to do though, especially when something DOES carry secondary moral implications like this subject. For a lot of people those things eventually loom too large to ignore. But not all people, all of the time. It's possible that the existence of the universe is something beyond cause and effect as we understand it. If nothing else, that's a consequence of our capacity for understanding, and not just the nature of the universe. After all, we're each trying to use a few pounds of jellied meat lodged inside our skulls to understand the nature and origin of EVERYTHING -- and nothing promises that we're capable of comprehending the answer (if there is one as we use the term), any more than one of the dogs currently at my feet could. That said though, I don't think we should throw our hands up just yet -- because we haven't excluded the possibility that the universe is the effect of a comprehensible, or at least mathematically and scientifically credible, cause. The whole brane thing is a stab at that understanding, and with some mathematical backing too. "Hey, here's a system that could give rise to everything, and the math even works." I'd settle for a good model like that, before reaching for "GODDIDIT" or "JUSTBECAUSE". Yup. Most people received instruction about The Big Things from various authorities from a young age -- "Marry! Procreate! Tithe! And you'll be alright", and built their world on those foundations of faith in prevailing institutions. More importantly, their social groups rewarded such acceptance, and punished deviations; and we're fundamentally social creatures who want a place in the pack. When you start to poke at the foundations of those beliefs ("Hey, maybe nobody and nothing is really in charge of all this, and we can all just do what we want with our lives!"), you encounter an emotional wall that's not about abstract philosophy, but is instead protecting people's identities. And they don't give those up easily.

Not "who", but "what". Why did the big bang happen at all? And the answer could be: Colliding branes, dude... colliding branes. :)

Heh heh. From an old source that (cough, cough) may or may not be the Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook c.1978, if we substitute "intelligence" for "knowledge": Intelligence is the awareness that smoking is bad for you; Wisdom is the ability to make yourself stop. Also, Intelligence is important for Magic-users (and Illusionists) and determines how many spells they can cast per day, whereas Wisdom is crucial for Clerics (and Paladins) and determines how many spells THEY can cast per day. (That I know this goes a long way to explaining why I had no dates in high school.)

My two reigning, and related, favourites: - A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. (Nothing worse than "but we've always done it this way!", or even the idea that because you are one way today, you must be the same way tomorrow) - Life is a collection of short stories pretending to be a novel. (We're enormously different people at different times in our lives or even in different circumstances that are close together in time; there doesn't have to be just one right answer to the question, "who am I?")