Jump to content

You Were Obvious Before You Even Began to Type


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3249 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


CheriColette wrote:

I dont have '
propensity to swear' nor do I post a lot,  so guess Im safe too Dillon. 

I love to swear. The creatures in my RL woods seem to enjoy being cursed at in cooing tones. I head out there when I'm peeved and let 'em have it. If I'm really peeved, I don't coo, I sound like this, but up an octave...

Here in the forums, I must sneak it in. Rather than call someone a SOB, I might say "When you get home, I hope your mother comes out from under the front porch and bites you on the leg."

;-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


LaskyaClaren wrote:


ZoeTick wrote:


Syo Emerald wrote:

Minority Report for forums?

That would be the LWL Watch Committee.

Ah, the "LWL."

The semi-mythical elite who are the Illuminati of SL forum conspiracy theories.

No myth, and certainly not elite. But, a real, and vindictive, *core of hypocrites, that while harboring several particularly unpleasant creatures in their own midst, decided to systemically report the least provocation as offensive, in an effort to dispatch someone they didn't like.

 

All the while, engaging in the type of behavior, they attempted to censure.

It was ugly to watch, and thinking of them now, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

*Mind you the actual group of LWL wasn’t this core, but they did infest the group.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


ZoeTick wrote


 the truth being that men are better multi-taskers when they think it necessary, but are much better decision makers when it comes to prioritising tasks and completing them, whereas the female of the species tends to prevaricate and thus juggles lots of activities, unnecessarily and inefficiently.


Source?   Because, studies I've read say there is no, "multitasking", instead our brains switch gears between tasks.  Some brains do this faster than others.  

 

"Sadly, multitasking does not exist, at least not as we think about it. We instead switch tasks."

https://hbr.org/2010/12/you-cant-multi-task-so-stop-tr/

 

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2001/08/multitasking.aspx

 

So, it wouldn't matter when men think it's necessary, they do the same gear switching as women, just slower. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24645100

 

(Also, note that within the BBC article is links to other studies.  I'd be willing to wager that as more studies are done on this topic, that women will consistently, (on average) out-perform men.   After all, men were needed for brawn, prior to modern times, not brains.  So, evolution hasn't brought men up to speed...yet.  ; )

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celestiall, back in the 70s I was involved for a considerable time designing multi-tasking computer systems, and we used to make a lot of jokes about Zeno's Paradoxes, and how engineers were significantly better at building working systems than philosophers. We played with multiple processor architecture, using the human body as an analogy, once we got away from believing that the latter had only one nervous system. The key to an understanding of multi-tasking is to differentiate between linked serial tasks and simultaneously processed tasks, since they require different control algorithms and resource allocation. The APA study you reference focuses on one small aspect in this area, the cost of task-switching, which is (as is implicit in their paper) only relevant where executive decision-making is required to progress the task differentially. This would not apply if the algorithm for the overall task required only pre-defined activity at switching points.

We also looked at success criteria; the number of tasks you can process at once is irrelevant if none of them ever deliver an end-result in a prespecified timescale. None of the research I have been able to identify even considers the overall effectiveness of eventual outcomes of multiple linked-task sequences.

Humans do multi-task; for example, the medulla oblongata operates independently of, say, the areas of the brain involved with reading a book, to moderate breathing in response to carbon dioxide levels in the blood. I could offer any number of other examples of conscious, sub-conscious, automatic and periodic responses to stimuli which are managed independently, not necessarily by the brain, and which do not interfere with each other's efficient operation.

Not much formal psychological research has been done on human multi-tasking because it isn't that interesting, other than potentially to generate sensational headlines supposedly confirming or refuting the ridiculous belief that women are better than men at it. For example, you reference this minimalist study (examining participants from West Yorkshire, which is not famous for the mercurial nature of its male inhabitants) fails to identify any particular difference in the time taken to achieve multiple tasks, but pretty much ignores the more effective strategies used by men to achieve certain tasks, as well as concluding in a dismissive fashion that men were only appreciably better than women where there was a need for simultaneous processing of tasks. You have to wonder how the researchers defined multi-tasking, don't you! They also seem to believe that pencil is spelled "pensil" which might be seen to diminish their credibility somewhat...

Another study that you reference, by Verma et al at the University of Pennsylvania, generated similar media interest, principally because the study consisted mainly of complex join-the-dot illustrations of human brains (unsurprisingly, Verma is an Associate Professor in the Department of Radiology, NOT Psychology) with accompanying nonsensical statements regarding the operation of brain hemispheres which lack any verifiable justification in applying them to actual task outcomes. All the study seemed to prove was that when women were confronted with a problem their brains scatter-gunned their thinking all over the place looking for a solution, whereas men were more systematic. That men actually identified practical solutions much more effectively was glossed over in the study, although the reference to "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" was telling.

So don't worry too much about it, Celestiall, I'll give you a hug anyway...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/04/0956797612459660.abstract

 

"In two experiments, participants completed a multitasking session with four gender-fair monitoring tasks and separate tasks measuring executive functioning (working memory updating) and spatial ability (mental rotation). In both experiments, males outperformed females in monitoring accuracy. Individual differences in executive functioning and spatial ability were independent predictors of monitoring accuracy, but only spatial ability mediated gender differences in multitasking. Menstrual changes accentuated these effects, such that gender differences in multitasking (and spatial ability) were eliminated between males and females who were in the menstrual phase of the menstrual cycle but not between males and females who were in the luteal phase. These findings suggest that multitasking involves spatiotemporal task coordination and that gender differences in multiple-task performance reflect differences in spatial ability."

 

Which explains why female who are mentruating should not be allowed to drive as their performance decreases when they are putting on their make-up in the mirror or gabbing away on their cell phones.

 

On a more serious note...

http://www.ccbi.cmu.edu/reprints/Just-Buchweitz_Chipman_handbook%20chapt_multitasking.pdf

 

"The following principles are consistent with almost all fMRI studies, including studies of multitasking (see Just & Varma, 2007):

1. It is always a network of cortical areas, not just one area that activates in any task.

2. Each activating area is a computational center with a characteristic processing style (such as the intraparietal sulcus’ processing of geometric information associated with spatial information).

3. The network of areas is self-assembled dynamically, as a function of the task demands. For example, a language comprehension task includes a frontal-temporal network consisting of at least the left inferior frontal gyrus and posterior temporal gyrus as well as the input sensory areas. This network automatically becomes activated whenever a person is exposed to utterances of their own language.

4. The activation in a task is synchronized between pairs or n-tuplets of participating areas. The communication pathways among areas are the brain’s white matter, the tracts of myelinated axons enabling the close collaboration among activating gray matter areas.

5. Resource consumption (indexed by amount of brain activation) is modulated by cognitive workload. The more demanding the task is, the greater the amount of activation in one or more areas.

6. The sensory and motor centers are tightly integrated with the “cognitive” centers and are not just peripheral buffers, as they were previously construed. The synchronization between sensorimotor centers and cognitive centers in multitasking provides evidence of this integration. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hark!


Madelaine McMasters wrote:



Posted a link to a gadget blog article, whose author's intent seems to be to post a pic of their 'keyboard pants' rather than anything of substance, regarding the efficacy of
dynamic keystroke
metrics to provide authentication processes during login to networks, taken from a 2010 staff writer's article for Scout, which in fact, upon reasoned consideration, actually demonstrates that the use of these biometric algorithms leads to potentially dozens if not hundreds of confounds rendering them essentially useless, thereby exposing the major flaw of the ridiciulous assertions made by the authors of the present paper under consideration.

This was followed by an irrelevant, contradictory and ambiguous section of fluff.

Then a statement of feigned self-deprecation and false modesty.

And concludes with a link to a cutsey puff piece, as a dire warning as to what it might be like if women were given control over the buttons of social engineering, by a woman whose friend seems to think she can hoodwink her mate as a lead-in to a story, using loosely associated comments from affirmed deceptors, as to the proficiency of women to excel in the field of espionage.


Wut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


dewisilures wrote:

4. The activation in a task is synchronized between pairs or n-tuplets of participating areas.
The communication pathways among areas are the brain’s white matter
, the tracts of myelinated axons enabling the close collaboration among activating gray matter areas.


Female brains have proportionately less white matter, thus reducing the efficiency/effectiveness of communication internal to the brain.

(For which they apparently attempt to compensate by  over-communicating externally.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


dewisilures wrote:

 

"In two experiments, participants completed a multitasking session with four gender-fair monitoring tasks and separate tasks measuring executive functioning (working memory updating) and spatial ability (mental rotation). In both experiments, males outperformed females in monitoring accuracy. Individual differences in executive functioning and spatial ability were independent predictors of monitoring accuracy, but only spatial ability mediated gender differences in multitasking. Menstrual changes accentuated these effects, such that
gender differences in multitasking (and spatial ability) were eliminated between males and females who were in the menstrual phase of the menstrual cycle
but not between males and females who were in the luteal phase. These findings suggest that multitasking involves spatiotemporal task coordination and that gender differences in multiple-task performance reflect differences in spatial ability."

 

Which explains why
female who are mentruating should not be allowed to drive as their performance decreases
when they are putting on their make-up in the mirror or gabbing away on their cell phones.

You might want to read your quoted paragraph a bit more carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


dewisilures wrote:

 

"In two experiments, participants completed a multitasking session with four gender-fair monitoring tasks and separate tasks measuring executive functioning (working memory updating) and spatial ability (mental rotation). In both experiments, males outperformed females in monitoring accuracy. Individual differences in executive functioning and spatial ability were independent predictors of monitoring accuracy, but only spatial ability mediated gender differences in multitasking.
Menstrual changes accentuated these effects
, such that
gender differences in multitasking (and spatial ability) were eliminated between males and females who were in the menstrual phase of the menstrual cycle
but not between males and females who were in the luteal phase. These findings suggest that multitasking involves spatiotemporal task coordination and that gender differences in multiple-task performance reflect differences in spatial ability."

 

Which explains why
female who are mentruating should not be allowed to drive as their performance decreases
when they are putting on their make-up in the mirror or gabbing away on their cell phones.

You might want to read your quoted paragraph a bit more carefully.

I read the paragraph, and, concerned that it was self-contradictory, checked the linked abstract, which has been quoted accurately, as well as a more recent version of the paper, which exhibited a similar inconsistency. Until I am able to read the paper itself I shall assume that, once again, an ESLer (the author is Swedish) is so delighted in their own perception of their command of English that they have not noticed that they are talking rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

The authors determined that the only gender difference between males and females they found, where the females were better, ie spatial ability, was mitigated by the menstrual cycle, therefore making them worse drivers, in their own right, within the context of multi-tasking. The fact that the difference in performance between males and females was negated was immaterial to my comment.

And was included only to add a little humour to the thread and not meant as a serious comment. I thought that was obvious by my separating comment "On a more serious note".

The second linked article does not mention gender differences specifically but does comment on individual differences. I have not done a lit review of the citations to see whether any controlled for gender. Perhaps someone can undertake that task as I am going to be washing windows today, which will demand my full attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


ZoeTick wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


dewisilures wrote:

 

"In two experiments, participants completed a multitasking session with four gender-fair monitoring tasks and separate tasks measuring executive functioning (working memory updating) and spatial ability (mental rotation). In both experiments, males outperformed females in monitoring accuracy. Individual differences in executive functioning and spatial ability were independent predictors of monitoring accuracy, but only spatial ability mediated gender differences in multitasking.
Menstrual changes accentuated these effects
, such that
gender differences in multitasking (and spatial ability) were eliminated between males and females who were in the menstrual phase of the menstrual cycle
but not between males and females who were in the luteal phase. These findings suggest that multitasking involves spatiotemporal task coordination and that gender differences in multiple-task performance reflect differences in spatial ability."

 

Which explains why
female who are mentruating should not be allowed to drive as their performance decreases
when they are putting on their make-up in the mirror or gabbing away on their cell phones.

You might want to read your quoted paragraph a bit more carefully.

I read the paragraph, and, concerned that it was self-contradictory, checked the linked abstract, which has been quoted accurately, as well as a more recent version of the paper, which exhibited a similar inconsistency. Until I am able to read the paper itself I shall assume that, once again, an ESLer (the author is Swedish) is so delighted in their own perception of their command of English that they have not noticed that they are talking rubbish.

If anything it tends to reinforce the comment made by someone earlier in the thread about what kind of garbage gets published these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


ZoeTick wrote:

Erm, you're ALL missing the point.

The assessment of posts (we'll ignore the non-definition of "worse") in the study was carried out by
a LWL Watch Committee
Mechanical
Turds
Turks as I have already highlighted. In case readers don't understand what this is, I would explain it as

I can see no explanation of definitive criteria by which they judged the posts.

Not quite true: the criteria are certainly vague, but they include such things as the tendency towards the use of obscenity, or the posting of digressive or "irrelevant" material. Much like the derail below, I guess.

But I certainly agree that those criteria seem inadequate. And I don't think I would put much faith in an algorithm to either detect or predict an off-topic digression.

Since there seems to be no prescriptive criteria by which software could assess posts, there is no way that moderators could be replaced by AI (artificially idiotic) software. The algorithm is only potentially of use AFTER assessment of posts is done by a "human".

But that is the way that most filters work, no? Google, for instance, harvests and analyzes past searches in order to filter subsequent results so that they more closely match what we've searched for before. 

All the study is saying is that a moronic moderator who deletes one post is likely to delete more of that person's posts until the number of deletions reaches the point at which the moderator is required to ban the person.

Yes, that is certainly one of the main take-aways from this. And that an algorithm might be produced that would be equally moronic automatically.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Before I forget, the title of your thread is a calculated stretch in this context, you actually do have to begin typing. But you don't have to type much, or anything in particular...

Yes, you're of course right. And it
was
"calculated." I pride myself on my thread titles! I'd like to think that I invented 'clickbait" long before it had made its appearance in social media. ;-)

Now, my response...

Human moderators act proactively as well, often erroneously so. Have you got anyone on your block list? Is the notable difference between the algorithm and the human in the disclosure of the inner workings? We don't like people who are caught being judgmental.

Actually, I've never used a block list, here or in-world. Although I do occasionally "hide" from people in-world.

But that's neither here nor there. I'd like to think -- no, actually, I insist -- that humans, or most humans anyway, are more capable of making critical judgements than algorithms, at least in the context of the current state of algorithms of this type. That's not to deny that many or even most people often make stupid or irrational judgements. Indeed, our tendency to err -- 
and to learn from our mistakes
-- is vitally human.

I pointed out in an earlier thread that I was, when I first appeared years ago on the old Residents Answers forum, perceived widely as a "troll." I stuck it out. I changed my own posting style somewhat, and at the same time the residents who had once shunned and/or attacked me re-assessed me, with the result that I was, eventually, very much integrated into that community without (and this is key) losing the essential qualities, views, etc., that had led to my being labelled a "troll" in the first place.

An algorithm would have been incapable of that kind of re-assessment. I would have been banned promptly, and the "community" would have carried on without my contributions to it ever seeing the light of day. (And maybe that wouldn't have been such a bad thing . . .)

The behavior this technology "predicts" is afforded by other technology (anonymous social platforms). If we're going to judge the former, shouldn't we judge the latter? Is anonymity a good thing? If one can effortlessly create anonymous personas and learn from mistakes, what is lost if one of them is banned? If anonymity is not possible, how often does the behavior occur?

Probably one of the differences not mentioned in this study between trolling and non-trolling behaviour is precisely the effect you identify. I think those who troll are far more likely to invest very little in their online identities, which they tend to view as desposable, while those who do not are more likely to identify closely with their online handle/avatar, whatever. I can think of a very obvious example of the former here (as I'm sure can you). As for me, I have invested a great deal, emotionally, in my identities in SL and on the forum. I can't imagine merely abandoning "Laskya" (or Scylla, for that matter -- note that I never deleted that account), and how she is perceived here reflects, I feel, on RL me.

Interesting thought: are trolls "augmentationalist"?

This is a single example from the large and fast growing world of algorithmic behavioral profiling. Google and Amazon have been profiling me for years, I can see it in my search results. And that is a small sliver of the larger and faster growing world of "big data". I suppose it bothers us to think that we are predictable, particularly if that's likely to increase over time. "Ignorance is bliss" is ripe for reconsideration as our relative ignorance grows in comparison to the algorithms.

Yes. I subscribe very much to Eli Pariser's notion of the "filter bubble," and it's one of the reasons why I generally dislike social media (especially Facebook). A key criticism I have of this study is that it seems to endorse the notion that "community standards" are the ultimate test of what constitutes a "toll." Trolling, in this context, can potentially mean little more than posting differently from others, and not "fitting in." I'm not interested in communities populated entirely by like-minded individuals: I want to hear different perspectives, and I'm refreshed by different posting styles, uses of language, etc. And I certainly don't want to be part of a community that actively suppresses difference.

Some people are taught that their god knows what they are thinking, and will take them to task for that in the afterlife. We've been manufacturing "thought police" for the purpose of exerting control over people for a very long time, the difference is that these new cops don't require faith.

Absolutely. And we must surely continue to critique and interrogate those "thought police," whether they are in clerical garb, police uniforms, business suits, or the tweedy uniforms of the politically correct.

My ambivalence here, as in so many things, is borne of knowing my own ignorance. Give me time, I'm learning.

And, just to make this seem all the more sinister to those who'd worry, imagine these algorithms were written by women to mimic our abilities...

And finally, JFK sends his regards.

;-).

See? I 
knew
it!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

Ha. I am in and in print even before your program started to run. Under the radar has always been my style.

 

All  your algorithms are belong me.

This is disingenuous, Dillon.

We all know that you and Maddy actually wrote the algorithm. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


CheriColette wrote:

I dont have '
propensity to swear' nor do I post a lot,  so guess Im safe too Dillon. 

I love to swear. The creatures in my RL woods seem to enjoy being cursed at in cooing tones. I head out there when I'm peeved and let 'em have it. If I'm really peeved, I don't coo, I sound like this, but up an octave...

Here in the forums, I must sneak it in. Rather than call someone a SOB, I might say "When you get home, I hope your mother comes out from under the front porch and bites you on the leg."

;-).

I have found, in some contexts, that "tarsk" (which is serendipitously close to a 17th-century obscenity referring to the male genitalia) works wonderfully well, and gets in under the radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:


LaskyaClaren wrote:


ZoeTick wrote:


Syo Emerald wrote:

Minority Report for forums?

That would be the LWL Watch Committee.

Ah, the "LWL."

The semi-mythical elite who are the Illuminati of SL forum conspiracy theories.

No myth, and certainly not elite. But, a real, and vindictive, *core of hypocrites, that while harboring several particularly unpleasant creatures in their own midst, decided to systemically report the least provocation as offensive, in an effort to dispatch someone they didn't like.

 

All the while, engaging in the type of behavior, they attempted to censure.

It was ugly to watch, and thinking of them now, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

*Mind you the actual group of LWL wasn’t this core, but they did infest the group.

 

The whole "LWL" thing was just making some noise as I was backing out of SL and the forums, so I'm afraid I missed most of the drama -- and most of the information about it. I actually have only a very vague notion of what this was all about, and who may or may not have been involved.

What I have seen, however, is a tendency to use "LWL" (which you admit is not quite the same thing as the group to which you are referring) as a sort of Word of Power: not merely shorthand for a largely unseen but putatively menacing underground conspiracy, but actually embued with a kind of sinister aura. And I have seen at least one person who posts here identified, over and over again, as a sort of Moriarty figure who has quietly masterminded a plot that involves manipulating posters as though they were pawns on a chess board, all in the pursuit of . . . well, I'm not quite sure what.

That there are cliques, and politics, and drama, and even abuses of RIC and other mechanisms, I certainly don't deny. What I find both amusing and a little annoying is the metaphorical investiture of an Illuminati-like intent and genius in the term "LWL." If there are individuals or cliques who have been manipulative and underhanded or abusive, then let's talk about them in a way that doesn't smear a group that merely happens to include some of those people, and in terms that don't mystify their machinations. The whole thing reminds me of the whacko conspiracy theories that seem to abound whenever "Islam" or 9/11 or the FTA  are evoked.

Drama and cliquishness are grotty and fairly pathetic, not embued with magical power. Let's demystify, and call a spade a spade, as they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


ZoeTick wrote:

Celestiall, back in the 70s I was involved for a considerable time designing multi-tasking computer systems, and we used to make a lot of jokes about Zeno's Paradoxes, and how engineers were significantly better at building working systems than philosophers. We played with multiple processor architecture, using the human body as an analogy, once we got away from believing that the latter had only one nervous system. The key to an understanding of multi-tasking is to differentiate between linked serial tasks and simultaneously processed tasks, since they require different control algorithms and resource allocation. The APA study you reference focuses on one small aspect in this area, the cost of task-switching, which is (as is implicit in their paper) only relevant where executive decision-making is required to progress the task differentially. This would not apply if the algorithm for the overall task required only pre-defined activity at switching points.

We also looked at success criteria; the number of tasks you can process at once is irrelevant if none of them ever deliver an end-result in a prespecified timescale. None of the research I have been able to identify even considers the overall effectiveness of eventual outcomes of multiple linked-task sequences.

Humans do multi-task; for example, the medulla oblongata operates independently of, say, the areas of the brain involved with reading a book, to moderate breathing in response to carbon dioxide levels in the blood. I could offer any number of other examples of conscious, sub-conscious, automatic and periodic responses to stimuli which are managed independently, not necessarily by the brain, and which do not interfere with each other's efficient operation.

Not much formal psychological research has been done on human multi-tasking because it isn't that interesting, other than potentially to generate sensational headlines supposedly confirming or refuting the ridiculous belief that women are better than men at it. For example, you reference
(examining participants from West Yorkshire, which is not famous for the mercurial nature of its male inhabitants) fails to identify any particular difference in the time taken to achieve multiple tasks, but pretty much ignores the more effective strategies used by men to achieve certain tasks, as well as concluding in a dismissive fashion that men were only appreciably better than women where there was a need for
simultaneous
processing of tasks. You have to wonder how the researchers defined multi-tasking, don't you! They also seem to believe that pencil is spelled "pensil" which might be seen to diminish their credibility somewhat...

Another study that you reference, by
, generated similar media interest, principally because the study consisted mainly of complex join-the-dot illustrations of human brains (unsurprisingly, Verma is an Associate Professor in the Department of Radiology, NOT Psychology) with accompanying nonsensical statements regarding the operation of brain hemispheres which lack any verifiable justification in applying them to actual task outcomes. All the study seemed to prove was that when women were confronted with a problem their brains scatter-gunned their thinking all over the place looking for a solution, whereas men were more systematic. That men actually identified practical solutions much more effectively was glossed over in the study, although the reference to "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" was telling.

So don't worry too much about it, Celestiall, I'll give you a hug anyway...

 

Yay! A good old-fashioned derail!

Just like Old Times!

I'm too busy waxing nostalgic to comment . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites


LaskyaClaren wrote:


ZoeTick wrote:

Celestiall, back in the 70s I was involved for a considerable time designing multi-tasking computer systems, and ...

So don't worry too much about it, Celestiall, I'll give you a hug anyway...

 

Yay! A good old-fashioned derail!

Just like Old Times!

I'm too busy waxing nostalgic to comment . . .

Well that's certainly a name for it I haven't seen used before.

Kudos on being able to multi-task in that regard.

Wanna come help with the windows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


dewisilures wrote:


LaskyaClaren wrote:


ZoeTick wrote:

Celestiall, back in the 70s I was involved for a considerable time designing multi-tasking computer systems, and ...

So don't worry too much about it, Celestiall, I'll give you a hug anyway...

 

Yay! A good old-fashioned derail!

Just like Old Times!

I'm too busy waxing nostalgic to comment . . .

Well that's certainly a name for it I haven't seen used before.

What, "derail"? "Old Times"? "Waxing"? "Nostalgic"?

Kudos on being able to multi-task in that regard.

I'm very good at multi-tasking, actually. For instance, I'm currently eating a piece of toast. Although not actually while typing, of course. Cuz butter on the keyboard.

Good thing I'm not menstruating right at the moment. I hate cleaning keyboards.

Wanna come help with the windows?

I don't do windows. Sorry. :-(

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


LaskyaClaren wrote:

What I find both amusing and a little annoying is the metaphorical investiture of an Illuminati-like intent and genius in the term "LWL." If there are individuals or cliques who have been manipulative and underhanded or abusive, then let's talk about them in a way that doesn't smear a group that merely happens to include some of those people, and in terms that don't mystify their machinations.


If you could be bothered to check your forum history you would find that a certain Pserendipity Daniels was habitually using the phrase "Ladies Who Lunch" to describe hypocritical old women of both sexes who read the forums through rose tinted spectacles and tutted into their pearls through their ball-gags when observing behaviour that, although they did not always fully understand it, did not accord with their neo-victorian values ("Cover up those naked table legs, Jeeves") long before the inworld Group of that name was created.

I am pleased to carry the torch in GD for the aforementioned Pep in highlighting the ignorance, peevishness, intolerance and covert malice of those who might have inherited the dubious accolade of informal membership of the vindictive clique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


ZoeTick wrote:


LaskyaClaren wrote:

What I find both amusing and a little annoying is the metaphorical investiture of an Illuminati-like intent and genius in the term "LWL." If there are individuals or cliques who have been manipulative and underhanded or abusive, then let's talk about them in a way that doesn't smear a group that merely happens to include some of those people, and in terms that don't mystify their machinations.


If you could be bothered to check your forum history you would find that a certain Pserendipity Daniels was habitually using the phrase "Ladies Who Lunch" to describe hypocritical old women of both sexes who read the forums through rose tinted spectacles and tutted into their pearls through their ball-gags when observing behaviour that, although they did not always fully understand it, did not accord with their neo-victorian values ("Cover up those naked table legs, Jeeves") long before the inworld Group of that name was created.

I am pleased to carry the torch in GD for the aforementioned Pep in highlighting the ignorance, peevishness, intolerance and covert malice of those who might have inherited the dubious accolade of informal membership of the vindictive clique.

Well, this is part of the history with which I do have some familiarity. My understanding was that the "official" group was a deliberate riff/parody on *cough* Pep's original characterization. I will give Pep credit, in this instance, for wit (if not for accuracy), and I'd extend the same credit to those who founded the "official" LWL group.

It's a long leap, however, from your improbable characterization of the LWL as a group of displaced Caledon residents, to one that labels them as a "vindictive clique."

This is all, however, rather irrelevant, and is in any case blood under the bridge. No doubt the automated algorithm would be tossing us both off the board for digressiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


LaskyaClaren wrote:

It's a long leap, however, from your improbable characterization of the LWL as a group of displaced Caledon residents, to one that labels them as a "vindictive clique."

If the cap fits, and you (voluntarily) wear it . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ivanova Shostakovich wrote:

Miss Otis regrets......

Well, this adds a new, unlooked-for, and very intriguing new dimension to the whole sordid affair!

Are you implying, perhaps, that this "Pep" character was one that loved not wisely, but too well?

That, heartbroken from having his affections toyed with, he sought revenge upon the perfidious trollop who left him weeping and disconsolate in a seedy hotel room in the low-rent district of the Berlin sim?

That he chose not the more conventional pistol with which to exact payment for his broken affections (because, let us concede, pistols in SL really aren't a very efficacious way to exact payment, etc.), but rather pursued his revenge here, in the pages of this forum?

And that his derisive assaults upon the "LWL" represent, really, a forlorn and sad attempt to both mend his heart, and reclaim his dignity?

Oh, I like this! It's a much more interesting story! I'm all aflutter with speculation now! WHO was the heartless wench??

Now, that would be almost worth a tedious search through the forum archives. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3249 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...