AnthonyJoanne

We've already discussed this ... but the topic (if not the forums) was rolled back. Twice. No 'authority' is acceptable when it comes to determining truth. Every government on the planet has, at one time or another, been found to be corrupt and/or breaking their own laws. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I'm not saying that every government today is corrupt, but I'd be willing to bet a significant chunk of change that there isn't a single government today that doesn't have corruption at some level. Now we're seeing those same governments creating departments to "combat misinformation". And to pick the most heavily reported one ... the Biden's administrations "Disinformation Governance Board" is going to be headed by a person who literally claimed that the now confirmed-by-the-New-York-Times Hunter Biden laptop was a "Trump campaign product" and that it was "a Russian influence op". That same person was very impressed by the now completely discredited Steele Dossier. That person is a partisan political hack. And THAT person is going to be in charge of deciding what is and what isn't the truth. Even though that person, in the past (while Trump was President) said "I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power" about the very job she has just accepted. That may work for you right now. But will it work for you when the other side are in power and a partisan political hack who has very different opinions to you gets to determine what is misinformation and what is not? No government, or any other organisation for that matter, is sufficiently trustworthy to be given the power to determine what is true and what is not.

And of course as the person directing those businesses ... to the extent that he does ... he's in a position of authority. And as such he has a responsibility to his shareholders, and if they believe he's failed in that responsibility they can sue him. In fact that recently happened. The shareholders lost btw. But if they had won ... he personally would have been responsible for the amount awarded against him. Now contrast that to the elected official in the same jurisdiction (i.e. the US) ... to avoid a hot button issue we'll go with a hypothetical: A woman sues her city government because they did X, and it cost her a lot of money. It goes to court. After a trial the woman wins her case. The city is awarded a penalty of $100,000 dollars and costs of $75,000 dollars. The money to pay for that comes from the city's coffers. $175,000 plus whatever the city spent in it's legal costs. The money for the penalty and costs comes from the city coffers, as did the money to defend the case. And the people who are responsible for actually doing the wrong thing don't pay a cent, and more often than not stay in their job. I'd suggest that a businessman like Elon Musk may well have a more of an idea of the responsibility that goes with authority than elected officials who rarely have to bear personal responsibility for their actions. *edit* Inserted missing sentence

I have two responses that leapt to mind on the the Karen topic. Here is my first, somewhat more serious one: Calling A woman Karen is not misogyny. Calling ALL women Karen is misogyny. The 'Karen' designator is a shorthand term for a set of behavioral patterns which HAVE been observed frequently in RL. It is sufficiently frequently observed that pretty much everyone 'gets' the concept in short order ... which is a pretty good evidence that the 'Karen' behavioral pattern actually exists in reality. So if it's REAL, and it APPLIES to a given individual ... then using that designator isn't misogyny. Whether or not it applies to Warren ... I can't say. Referring to Warren as Senator Karen is clearly a JOKE. Arguably it's a mild insult as well. Senator Warren is no more entitled to insulation from insult than any other US Politician ... it comes with the job. Here is my second, somewhat more tongue-in-cheek response: It's not misogyny if we SAY it's not misogyny. This is the standard established by those upright pillars of the rectitude: Feminists, who can say "KILL ALL MEN" and then say that it's not misandry. Enough said. As to how the thread ended up another trans discussion: When a certain segment of the population are losing the argument, or unable to counter the points of those with whom they are arguing ... the inevitable result is that they start hurling slurs. Neo Nazi. Misogynist. Transphobe. White Supremacist. That, I should note, is the segment of the population who are currently fouling their underwear because it looks like they are going to lose control over twitter ... which is rather ironic, when you think about it. Go and have a look at the narrative about anyone that that segment wants to remove from public discourse and they ALWAYS make the same claims. Nazi (or Neo Nazi). White supremacist. Transphobe. Homophobe. Misogynist. Racist. I am quite sure that at least one of the people that I've blocked on this forum for being bigoted or for repeatedly showing that they cannot argue in good faith has called me a transphobe. Yet I am the person who, back in the late 80s, sat and held the hand of a friend who was going in for SRS when her family rejected her. I am the person who waited throughout the surgery and was there when she finally came back from recovery. I am the person who visited her every day until she went home (the other side of the country). I am the person who was in contact with her for several years until we finally lost touch. That's how transphobic I am. The point? The people making these claims have established in their own minds that they are the arbiters of what is and what isn't. They get to decide if something is transphobic, or any of the other ists or phobes that they find useful to stifle debate. There's no reason why they should have that power ... and every reason why they should not, given their track record. The thread ended up being another trans discussion because once again that segment of the population trotted out their usual list of claims and made damn sure it became another trans discussion. And another Nazi discussion. And another Sexist discussion. Etc Ad-Nauseum.

What's ironic is that, like Musk, before the massive leftward shift I was demonstrably a left leaning centrist. I still am. I could detail a long list of my positions on a whole range of issues, but some of it would take me into hot button topics and would be almost guaranteed to derail the thread. More significantly I could list a whole range of issues which were formerly considered "radical" or even "extreme" which are now a part of the 'mainstream left' agenda. But each and every one of those IS a hot button topic. And the question that you all need to ask yourself is this: Why are there SO many hot button topics now? That brings us back to the actual topic ... twitter and it's ownership. Let's acknowledge an unchallengeable series of facts. I realise that it was a hot button issue, but we don't have an option: Twitter banned the New York Post when they reported on the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Just weeks before the Presidential Election in 2020. Twitter banned numerous users who referenced that story. The vast majority of the 'mainstream media' actively avoided reporting the story. Joe Biden dismissed it as a "smear campaign." That story was confirmed to be true by the New York Times in 2022. While the Hunter Biden Laptop story was demonstrably a HUGE story ... it became a hot button topic because twitter enabled the outright suppression of the story and enabled the narrative that it was all a right wing conspiracy theory. In other words twitter took action which made it possible for the left to denigrate anyone who raised the existence of the laptop in discussion. And yet we've seen what are supposed to be reputable news sources claim that twitter is right wing. The same news sources who reported, as fact, numerous stories which were then found to be utter fabrications with no supporting evidence whatsoever. The same news sources who have NOT been banned from twitter for that disinformation. At this point I wrote on a particular topic to illustrate just how far the Overton Window has been forced to the left. But it would absolutely derail the topic, and I'm really trying hard to do the right thing so as not to make the moderators jobs harder. Suffice to say that because of the domination of twitter and the majority of the media by groups who subscribe to a particular set of political narratives, a number of issues which are fully supported by demonstrable fact became 'hot button issues' because those facts were suppressed and/or labeled misinformation or conspiracy theories. Those facts persist in emerging ... and are being ignored by the media. And are being suppressed on social media. But the domination of social media is now threatened ... and suddenly we're seeing governments rush laws to establish what can only be described as Ministries of Truth. I'm sure some people here will poo-poo me referring to them as Ministries of Truth. I won't see it because my block list is working overtime in this thread 😀 ... but I'll address it anyway: If you don't think these organisations are a bad idea ... are you going to have the same opinion when the pendulum continues to swing and control of those Ministries end up in the hands of religious extremists who believe that homosexuality is a sin and should be treated by chemical castration or outright execution? Ministries that enforce the mandate that anyone who claims otherwise is spreading disinformation and should be blocked from posting, and charged with a crime. Because people are already being charged with crimes for expressing opinions on the net ... hell, people have been convicted of crimes for quoting song lyrics. Because those Ministries won't always be under the control of people you approve of.

Difficult to respond to without tripping over a hot button topic, but worth a shot perhaps: There have been a number of posts on this vein on twitter in the last few days. All waxing rhapsodic on how the worlds richest man has just spent a lot of money on a social media platform. (Let us note that now that that particular social media platform is changing hands ... political parties all over the planet are freaking out and rushing laws to attempt to control it ... the same people who until recently said, and I quote, "It's a private company, it can do what it likes.") One that amused me greatly was a response to a Musk tweet. For anyone who doesn't know (I didn't) ... Nina Turner is a Democrat politician who is standing for Congress in the US. For the purposes of full disclosure I should note that apparently she's not in good standing with the Democrats as she's running against another Democrat who has the party's backing. But as an Australian I readily admit I don't really have my finger on the pulse of the political mess that is Cleveland. Anyway - back to the topic. Apparently Nina, and many people, fails unable to grasp that Elon Musk's money isn't all sitting in a huge bucket waiting for him to just dispense it however he sees fit. He has NOT accumulated 44 billion in disposable income. But more important than that is the expectation that he should be spending his money on things which we are paying our GOVERNMENTS to address. So I found myself wishing (for the first time ever) that I was on twitter so I could respond to Nina: Why are you tweeting at Elon about this when minimum wage isn't any part of his job? Why not tweet Nanci Pelosi: 2012 Minimum wage: $7.25/hour Nancy's Net Worth: 87 million 2021 Minimum wage: $7.25/hour Nancy's Net Worth: 120 million Or are you telling me that minimum wage is a matter of complete indifference to a politician who has been in office since 1987? BTW ... I picked Nancy Pelosi because she and her party are currently in power and she's been in politics a looooong time without apparently solving any of the problems she was elected to solve. But just so that nobody thinks I'm picking on the Democrats here's one for Mitch McConnell: 2012 Minimum wage: $7.25/hour Mitch's Net Worth: 22 million 2021 Minimum wage: $7.25/hour Mitch's Net Worth: 35 million Apparently Mitch isn't as shrewd an investor as Nancy. Or perhaps he's just better at hiding his money? Mitch has been in office since 1985. And I have no doubt he hasn't solved any of the problems he was elected to solve. So I'm completely unbiased here ... I've just put the (stiletto heeled) boot into both sides of the aisle. Either way ... according to numerous sources Musk paid 11 billion dollars in tax in 2021. So why not ask the US government why, with that windfall, THEY haven't addressed these issues with that money? It IS their job after all. *edit* Typo

I initially came to SL quite early in it's development. It failed to impress, so I turned to other things. Mostly, I think, because of the third world internet that Austalia had at the time making it just too laggy for words. Then some years later a friend lured me back and as we were exploring she told me about all the stuff I had missed. The sims that had come and gone. The spontaneous events that had just happened which were amazing. I'm still kicking myself for missing out on all of that.

Not really sure about that definition. Choosing not to support someone is not necessarily an attempt to cancel them. I've given it a lot of thought, attempting to come up with an example which won't derail the thread, but I simply cannot think of a real world case where someone might not step in to defend something that I think poorly of. So I've invented a fictional scenario. I am NOT just changing names ... I'm inventing this from whole cloth. In fact I'm going to include the disclaimer: This work is fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Fred Nurk is an author. Fred has written a number of books over the years. The first few weren't anything special, but eventually he wrote a novel that many consider brilliant. It became incredibly popular. He wrote another novel and it too was a big seller and very popular. That continued for several more novels. Fred is frequently discussed in online forums and widely regarded as an excellent writer and aside from a few who don't like his work, everyone is looking forward to his next novel. Fred releases his next novel. It sells very well, initially. But the general reception from the public is much less enthusiastic. Fred has changed his writing style, and has moved in a different direction creatively. Some people are wildly enthusiastic about the change(s). Others are not. Opinion on the forums is split ... with many of his fans expressing disappointment with the new novel. Fred releases another novel. This novel continues with the new writing style and creative direction as seen in the previous book. Opinion on the forums is still split. Many people have announced that they are no longer going to buy his books, and recommend that people not 'waste their money' on his future writing. By the terms of that definition ... that constitutes an attempt to cancel Fred. But that's not canceling. (Technically the term should be 'cancellation' ... but sadly the term 'canceling' is now in common mis-usage so I'll use it, even though it makes me wince) Canceling is attempting to prevent publishers from publishing Fred's works. Canceling is turning up to Fred's book signings and attempting to disrupt them to prevent sales. Canceling is digging through Fred's history to find any spurious evidence that will support a claim that Fred is a 'bad person' and should be prevented from writing/publishing. If I decide not to buy Fred's books, and tell people why, that's not canceling ... that's just me 'voting with my wallet' and being open about why I made that decision. Why am I spamming a wall of text as to what really constitutes canceling? Because twitter has been a primary mechanism for canceling for quite a while now. And some of the people who have the biggest problem with Musk buying twitter are the most egregious practitioners of canceling people. Organisations too. But I can't name them or we'll be into hot button topics.

I'm well aware that this is off topic ... but I'll throw it out there before I go to bed just because: If I had the chance to talk to Elon Musk for an hour on any topic I wanted ... twitter is the least likely topic I'd raise. Not until he does something demonstrably wrong with it. Nope ... I'd ask him why he's got SpaceX working on a Mars programme. Honestly, I still fail to understand why anyone would claw their way out of a gravity well to jump into one almost as deep. Not when you consider that there is the moon right there, with plenty of real estate and a much shallower gravity well ... and the asteroid belt with resources galore. Food for thought. Goodnight :)

Ok - I'm going to make a great deal of effort to comply with the rules and avoid topics which are likely to derail the thread. There is ample evidence that twitter has, in the past, deliberately and knowingly enabled disinformation. Note that I said disinformation and not misinformation. Disinformation is deliberately spreading false information with the intent to deceive. I could list a few of those lies that twitter willingly enabled, however they are all what would be classed as 'hot button topics'. Twitter has frequently suppressed people posting what later turned out to be completely accurate facts. Again ... 'hot button topics'. I could list a number of other issues, but not surprisingly ... they are all 'hot button topics' and more often than not they are political. One can, however, search using an unbiased search engine (assuming you've made the effort to find one: Here's a hint, Google and Duck Duck Go are NOT reliable unbiased search engines and openly admit that they are not) and find literally thousands of concrete examples where Twitter displayed blatant bias. Even to the extent of permitting actual death threats which, I'm sure you will agree, violated TOS ... except when it suits the Twitter-approved-narrative. And yet people are stressing about Elon Musk having control? It seems to me that the only thing those people are worried about is that Musk won't approve the same narrative. If Musk forces bias onto twitter (in any way) I'll be just as quick to condemn him. But so far, there is no evidence that he wishes to do so.

Twitter is inherently flawed by it's very nature. Attempting to communicate on a meaningful level within a 240 character limit is farcical at best. Even a successive string of tweets on a topic is going to be truncated due to the need for brevity. The fact that people in the west (I can't really say how it's regarded in the east, etc) actually base their opinions on tweets and headlines (neglecting to read the article for some reason) is arguably one of the reasons why we're seeing so much divisiveness in society. Let's face it ... twitter was a cesspit, perhaps it may actually get better.

I think this is one of those things which is absolutely down to context. And there is no question that there is a cultural aspect to it as well. In some cultures, insult is simply unforgivable. In others it is a part and parcel of day to day interaction. So unless you share the culture (or an awareness of the culture) and know the context ... one can't know the significance of an insult. The most well known example I can think of would be Don Rickles. If a person was exposed to Don Rickles and had NO idea who he was, or what he was about (i.e. context) one might well think he was just a mean person. But if you know the culture and the context ... you could see that much of his humor was self depreciating, and was not mean spirited in any way. I always got the sense that Don Rickles wanted people to laugh, both at themselves, and at the world ... not as a means of putting people down, but as a means of seeing the common threads that bind us all together.

I guess the problem is 'feel'. It seems that we (collectively, as a society) are spending more and more time worrying about people who 'feel' things ... regardless of whether or not it's rational for them to feel that. I have had discussions online with people who claimed that they felt bullied based solely on the fact that I was disagreeing with them. Now I have to stress that my interactions with them were polite and detailed, as I tend to the wall of text approach, so as to make very clear what I'm trying to say. I swear that it is true that one interlocutor actually accused me of trying to intimidate her by typing in long, detailed, replies. As an aside ... I have to admit, since then I've wondered if it's possible to wall-of-text someone into submission While it's a nice principal that no one should ever feel bullied ... I think a better way of saying it is that no one should ever BE bullied. Because there ARE people who, for whatever reason, will claim to feeling bullied at the drop of a hat. Let me put it this way: I've just disagreed with you. I believe that I have done so politely and I certainly have no intention to make you feel bad or to do any damage to you whatsoever. Nor am I trying to bludgeon you into agreeing with me. If, however, as a result of this interaction you felt bullied ... should I be held responsible for it? I should add an addendum for clarity ... solely so that you fully understand my perspective: I initially got access to the 'net in the 80's via academia. Back then usenet was the way we communicated. And in some corners of usenet flaming was considered an art form. We could, and did, hurl vitriolic insults at each other ... not for the sake of hurting each other's feelings, but because it was creative and amusing for all involved. Implicit in the exchange was that you needed to be an adult and to remember that it wasn't serious. I was very good at it. As a result I have been the recipient of insults which, today, would figuratively melt the fibre optics. I also spent six years in the military. So I have a very thick skin. I try to be sensitive to the fact that other people may not be so equipped, but I persist in the belief some people are just too sensitive.

A very interesting thread :) A couple of weeks ago, on a gaming forum, I posted something pertaining to the actions of the publisher of the game in question. I should note that the majority of people who responded did so positively ... they either agreed with me, or disagreed politely and engaged the argument I had made. Some, however, reacted very differently. The phrase "frothing at the mouth" comes to mind. I found myself wondering why? This is the result of my deliberations: It seems that some people on the net (and sadly in RL) are simply incapable of having discussions in good-faith. Why is that? As has been noted previously in this thread by both @Orwar and @Lindal Kidd ... ambiguity is quite possible in short statements. So I tend to be somewhat obsessive about spelling out my arguments in detail so as to avoid that kind of ambiguity. Especially when discussing something complex, nuanced, or contentious. Yet these days we live in a world where, for some reason, otherwise intelligent people pay attention to twitter and headlines (without reading the actual article) and believe themselves well-informed. Where hashtags are considered meaningful. These are not the way to become informed. Nor, I should point out, are any of the mainstream media sources ... all of whom have been shown to be little more than clickbait and echo chambers. When was the last time a mainstream media source gave you the links to their sources? If you really want to understand a complex or important issue, you are going to have to do your own research. But very few people seem willing to do so these days. As a result, I believe, we see people adopt positions which they cannot defend because they are actually uninformed on the subject at hand, and therefore their only option for response is personal attack. And that is why, I think, we are seeing an increase in interpersonal disputes.

Thank you, everyone, for the suggestions. I shall go forth and see what there is to be found :)

I've just spent the day looking at every long hair on the MP to no avail. What I'm looking for is fantastic hair in the actual meaning of the word: Fantastic adjective a. Based on or existing only in fantasy b. Strange or fanciful in form, conception, or appearance So not 'good' or 'great' or any of the other misuses of the term fantastic. I chose the word very specifically. I'm not particularly looking for 'fantasy' hair eg a normal hairstyle with horns, or the like. I'm looking for hair that is very long, or very big, or very full. Preferably all three. I'm looking for hair that is not an attempt to capture standard RL hair. I'm looking for crazy or wild or outrageous hair. But it's got to be MESH for this project. Preferably rigged mesh. I hope I'm not coming across as picky, I just want to save people time recommending shops which don't really apply. Can anyone suggest a store or stores that I might try?

I'm fairly unconcerned. If someone doesn't want me around, I have no use for them anyway: Last year I saw something on the MP that I thought might be pretty useful for an outfit I was putting together. But I'm one of those people who doesn't buy clothing or the like without a demo and there wasn't one available on the MP. However ... the listing did say that a demo was available in-world. So I attempted to TP to the link listed for the shop only to get a message telling me I can't teleport to that region. I was confused! I jumped on to my main avatar and WAS able to tp into that region. Hmmm ... very strange. So I sent a notecard to the creator of the item explaining the problem and asking if they had any idea what was going on. I got a response telling me that the region was blocked to anyone who didn't have payment details on record. Given that I used to buy all my $L on one avatar (I stopped buying quite frankly ... there's just so little I actually want these days that I'm just using up my existing balance) naturally there's no reason to have payment info on my alts. End result ... A lost sale to that creator, and to my delight I found a better item that was mod so I had a big win there. I've never found any place or thing on SL that I couldn't access that caused me to go without ... there's always an alternative.

I haven't been here forever, but I recall some time back there was a huge fad for thigh gaps. The kind you could drive a bus through LOL. Now you hardly ever see them. Now the fad is for thicc. These trends are fine for those people who enjoy those looks, but not so much for those who think that the look isn't very appealing. I personally don't like the thicc look any more than I liked avatars with enormous buttocks running standard AOs and spending most of their time with their hands buried in their butt cheeks up to the wrist. To each their own and I have no problem with anyone going for the look they want in SL. But if you don't LIKE that shape then read on. Given that I use (and have no desire to change from) the Hourglass I'm a little disappointed that some creators have dropped that body. But I note the following: An MP search for 'hourglass' under Apparel - Women's gives me 470469 hits. A search for 'kupra' under the same give me 83892 hits. AND a number of those hits for kupra included HG rigged 'sizes'. In short - there is a LOT more stuff on the MP for my preferred body than there is for the new bodies. That's just the way it is and it will take a long time for the new bodies to catch up. So I advise you not to make your decision based on the fact that a number of creators have dropped the older bodies. You CAN still find a TON of stuff for the older bodies. Well - not so much for the TMP body, but that never was a 'normal' body in terms of shopping anyway. The other thing to remember is LAG. Not latency, OMG why is my frames per second going negative, lag ... but production/creation lag. If you are using animations in your activities then you are going to find that a LOT of the furniture out there is running animations that do not really work too well for bodies which deviate significantly from the SL standard avatar. This harkens back to my comment about AOs before. For a long time the people who wore the bodies which were markedly different to the 'standard' avatars had a TERRIBLE time finding AOs which suited their body. Hands disappearing into buttocks and breasts were a common sight and quite offputting for many people. It took a long time before AOs which worked for 'ultra curvy' girls were available. And that was back in the days when there were a lot more active creators than there are now. With the advent of mega-boobs we saw a lot of the sex furniture which uses animations based on the standard avatar needed a LOT of tweaking or you'd find your nipples sticking out behind your partners back in the missionary position. Many animations were just not workable at all. Now we're seeing similar issues with buttocks and thighs. As someone who spends a fair bit of time watching the new releases in animations (I like my RPing to be accompanied by matching screen action) I find that the animation market is STILL not doing much for the thicc bodies. It's up to you ... but I don't much want to see my lover's hands buried to the forearm in my thicc thighs during an intimate moment. Nor do I want to see my buttocks sunk halfway through the floor. I should note ... you CAN find poses coming out for the thicc look. But I think poses are only viable for photography. Certainly they don't impress me when I'm getting sweaty. So before you opt for a new body, you may well want to consider the uses you are going to put it to. If you are buying it to stand around looking hot in a club, that's very different to if you're buying it to dance in, or if you're buying it to go wild in so to speak. Addendum: I should include ... I'm aware of the OP's opinion on 'chonksters' ... my reply was more for public info than anything else. Many people are likely to find that they've spent a significant amount of money on these new 'thicc' bodies and then discover that in some scenarios they are a very very poor option.

It's overwhelmingly the former I'm afraid. Ariel keeps trying, but frankly I don't know where she gets the fortitude from.

While I acknowledge that there are a limited number of members of the Governance Team ... I have to point out that that your system actively works to prevent users to reporting a large number of infractions. Case in point ... keyword spam. There are some shops who have many infractions of this particular rule. While searching the MP I frequently get returns from a number of shops which include the names of all mesh bodies as keywords even when the item in question only fits one particular body. I report these infractions ... however the shops in question have dozens (perhaps hundreds) of such items and your system only permits me to report one at a time. I think it would be appropriate for LL to acknowledge, in it's system design, that the users have a finite amount of time (as does your Governance Team) and it's unreasonable to expect us to list every single infraction in a given shop. And I KEEP seeing new infractions by the same shops that I have reported for this issue multiple times. Remember ... your Governance Team is getting paid to deal with this stuff and are aware of the results whereas we, as users, report an infraction and (as I pointed out above) we often feel like we're achieving nothing.

Hmmm ... I'm surprised we're at 10 pages and nobody has run this up the flag pole. At least nobody I've read has mentioned it. As I've read this thread I've found myself wondering ... have the new owners split Tilia off and are now charging LL for access? If so, have they just increased the charge to LL and are they (LL) now passing on that cost increase to the customers? Just a thought.

Noob me DOES see me now. Sorta. At least once a year I create a new avatar ... go though the current noob zone, and then I go to Freebie Galaxy and remember the glory I felt as I wandered around looking at all the stuff for the first time. The sense of potential, the realisation that I have complete control over how I look, the growing anticipation as I add items to my inventory, the excitement as I find a place to try on my acquisitions, the confusion as I contemplate the stuff in the box, the delight as I learn how to put all the various items on, the dawning realisation that I can mix-and-match things to make my own combinations, the exaltation when I find a hair that I like in the giant box of hair the majority of which are crap ... the dawning realisation that I'm gonna have to be very careful or I won't be able to find ANYTHING in my inventory I've managed to recapture that wonder each time. Obviously for me the first real WOW moment was making my avatar into something I liked. For others it might be exploring, or the first time they rezzed a prim, or took a photo of something ... but whatever it was, if you find a way to revisit that moment, I think SL remains a wonderful place. I feel truly sorry for those who aren't able to see SL again with noob eyes.

I must preface this with a disclaimer: I don't use a mesh head, but I've been playing with them for some time trying to find one which I can get to look like 'me'. I got the HD PRO Queen during the recent ... shall we say excitement, and have been fiddling with it a lot as it's let me get closer to my face than any others I've experimented with. As a result I went and got some group-gift skins and some (several) demos out of curiosity and I agree with you ... I was taken aback by the results. What I found worked best (and I must stress this is my opinion) is the skin I bought before mesh heads were even a thing. Now this may be that it just looks right to my eyes because I'm used to that skin ... it's what I wear on my system head after all. And it's possible that, not being a mesh head user, I'm not seeing things that a long term user of them might find unappealing. Either way - I suggest that older skins might be worth checking out.

I wish I could emote as easily here as I do in-world, I'd be smiling and laughing. Thank you so much @Vir Linden for letting us know :)

Today I was asked a question and it literally made my jaw drop. Why was it called Project Bento? My search-fu has failed me, and so I turn to the forums. WHY????

I got it last night ... via the MP during the outage. I think it's a very good example of a mesh head. Well made and executed (as far as I can see), very functional (although the HUD is not the most user friendly design I've ever seen). And I was able to achieve some quite pleasing results with it. But I won't wear it ... because like every other mesh head that I've gotten (all free/uber-cheap), I can't make it look like ME even with several hours of tweaking. Someday I'll find a mesh head that works exactly the same as the system head, but of course has the benefits of mesh etc.