Jump to content

Madelaine McMasters

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Madelaine McMasters

  1. Eloise Baily wrote: @ Peter. I just can't see them ever being competent enough to organise that. @ Maddy. There is a 100% chance that someone will die today. It's still not likely to be you. I'm happy to take my chances because it's much more fun for me. Eloise, there's a 100% chance someone will die of cancer today, but it's not likely to be me. Does that mean I shouldn't donate to cancer research? If we only react to things that are likely to happen to us, rather than things that are likely to happen at all, a lot of bad things are going to happen... to us. If the downside of surveilance is unlikely to affect you, and so you're happy to take your chances, is the upside also unlikely to affect you? If so, why allow your tax dollars to be spent on it?
  2. Eloise Baily wrote: Well I don't give a flying fairy about what my gubbamint knows about me. I'm not hiding anything. As for the rest of the population, they don't even know I exist, nor do they care what I get up to, and in the unlikely event that I suddenly become famous...well more power to me with all that juicy goss increasing my exposure right? I fail to see the downside, but I am very liberal. I just don't see surveillance a s a big deal because they mostly don't give a stuff about you. Eloise, I don't doubt that any one of us is at low risk of being harmed by universal surveillance, but I don't know if that's the right way to look at it. While the chance I'll be harmed by an abuse is very low, the chance that someone will is, I think, probably 100%. It's that inevitability we must weigh against the advantages.
  3. Kelli May wrote: I wanted something short and easy to type, yet with a bit of theatricality. And no offence intended to any real-life Kellies, I wanted something that sounded a little fun and frivolous, because I can take myself far too seriously. Kelli, your name does remind me of Holli Would.
  4. Perrie Juran wrote: RudolphUkka wrote: You would have to be really * stupid if you could not * work out for your * self how I * came up with this * name *** Rudi mental masturbation? With premature ejaculation.
  5. Hippie, I love the etiology of your name. I'm a big fan of 2001. This is my second second life. I carried forward Madelaine from the first one, as "Maddy" is my RL nickname. McMasters was an easy choice as it's alliterative, and there was no McMistress. ;-)
  6. Randall Ahren wrote: How about an automated attempt at a solution? A little captcha test before a new thread may be started? That seems to work well in a lot of other places. I used simple math problems to stop spam on websites I designed a decade ago.
  7. Void Singer wrote: or some of those 24/7 mods we were promised? I'd rather have them doing 24/7 system improvements.
  8. Deltango Vale wrote: What's the term? Fumble? Interception? Could be a close game Let's call it a fumble. Facebook has had some big ones.
  9. It's been a long time since I worked with a CMS, but this looks like what happens when the template directory/store goes awol.
  10. Sure looks like it! I like a good challenge, but this is pushing it.
  11. Void Singer wrote: sure, there's an easy solution to to dealing with RL not living up to SL expectations.... simply make your avatar less attractive than the RL you... I wonder if even this is enough. What if SL's population is more desirous of meeting others than the RL general population? If you socialize SL, but not RL, I'd expect the results to be skewed even if the avatars weren't.
  12. I need more explanation, Del. Are you thinking that SL's anonymity is an advantage over Facebook?
  13. Dana Hickman wrote: We all play real life the same way. Dana, are you sure? ;-)
  14. Ishtara Rothschild wrote: With the exception of dictators, we are all somebody's servant. Maybe even them? Snugs and I argue back and forth about who runs the show.
  15. There are some bits of that toon I find frighteningly reminiscent of the forum, including myselves.
  16. I'm still digesting yesterday's breakfast, Lillie. For those who feel like eating light today, I've left a pitcher of bubble juice and glasses on the counter. Happy Wednesday, Kids!
  17. Daki Aries wrote: I don't get why the guys involved in these relationships are called "pervs" and the females are not. What's the difference? I like mature 20th century equality between the sexes and wonder why one would fantasize about abusive un-equal roles people were forced to live out in less enlightened times? Why is being a slave something you wish for or fantasize about? Daki, I agree that "perv" should have no more gender bias than the statistics allow (how's that for weasel wording?) I'd also like to like to rephrase your last question a few ways to show how I see it. I'll start with your theme and add my variations... "Why is being a slave / master something you wish for or fantasize about?" "Why is being Christiam/Muslim something you wish for or fantasize about?" "Why is being a socialist / capitalist something you wish for or fantasize about?" "Why is being male/female something you wish for or fantasize about?" We can ask these questions honestly or pejoratively. People come to their wishes by a mix of nature and nurture. I might think that socialsm is unjust, someone else might think that capitalism is. We might have a hard time finding two capitalists that agree completely on just how capitalism should work. If you've followed any of the gender discussions here, you'll find there's a whole rainbow of things to consider. So, a woman executive who's had a long hard day pushing the envelope in the workplace might like to come home to a romantic evening with a partner who she can trust to "take control" in a loving fashion and give her the freedom to simply make someone happy, a thing she found very difficult to do at work. Would that partner be considered abusive if she, having spent the day bending over backwards to please by towing the line, took some pleasure in setting the direction of the evening herself, with the hope and expection (borne of experience) that she'd get it right and make someone happy by doing things her way? A loving relationship, regardless of its coloring is just that... loving. Which brings me around to asking which is the more useful question... Why do you wish to do something I don't understand? or Do I wish to understand why you do the things you do?
  18. Dillon Levenque wrote: BTW, I'm pretty sure I heard that Carole has walked through the fire. It can change a person. Didn't change me, but I've heard some people are more sensitive to the flame. Yes, Carole walked through my fire. I don't think it changed her a bit. Then you stepped in wearing a firearm and nicked your own thigh. I can't wait to see how sensitive Void is to the flame.
  19. Lia Abbot wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: It's so nice to have you back, Lia. It's been soooo long since my glasses had a good cleaning. ;-) Happy Tuesday, Kids! /me makes a dash for it whilst Maddy peers through her smudgy glasses and chats to a tree. That's a tree? I thought it was Hippie! His butt did feel a li'l rough when I patted it.
  20. Lia Abbot wrote: Happy Tuesday to all! It's so nice to have you back, Lia. It's been soooo long since my glasses had a good cleaning. ;-) Happy Tuesday, Kids!
  21. Simondavis wrote: Very well stated but yet i dont think you understood my point there, i hve true friends here in sl and i said that there are the exceptions to the rule here in sl but there are far more bad people here than good, over the five years ive been here i now have my permenent SL wife it took me awhile to get her to see thas what i wanted i personally have never cheated on anyone ive been with here in sl or rl for that matter, I have played the game so to speak and realized that the game was so much more, ive have had my share of drama more than you would believe if i took the time to explain it all i have had people just for the fun of it try to break me and my girl up using alts to slander her name and i belived it for awhile then realized she is what i wanted here and to hell with the rest, the mixture of the people that view this a s a game only are the ones you have to watch out for here in SL. This game is pardond the words the ultimate Mind **bleep**, you can make anyone think and belive anything you want here and there are those here that prey on those tender souled individuals here nad i find that disturbing because some do use this forum as a sort of therapy for their RL. I have had friends become more here and become rl married couples, those are the ones that know just what SL is really about, but most swing towardsthe drama claming that they do not want any drama lol i find that laughable actually, because you have to admit drama is the bread and butter of SL in the long run. So yes Friends are truely possible here i never deny that fact. Simondavis, you're making generalizations that certainly don't agree with my observations. I find most people in SL to be good. It would be hard to imagine all the wonderous creations I see if there were "far more bad people here than good". When the world around me looks wrong the first thing I do is wash my glasses (usually in Lia Abbot's gin). I want the best vision possible.. clear with no discoloration. Throughout life, we look for patterns to explain things in the world around us. When I look closely, the most powerful pattern in my life is my own involvement in it.
  22. UncommonTruth wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Hi Lindsey, After you dig out from under all your IMs in-world, revisit the forums. We're an odd little subset of SL residents, but we're okay! If you connect with Hippie, you'll be on your way to meeting lots of folks. Make sure you join the Hippiestock group so you'll become a part of Hippiestock 2! Hippiestock 2? :matte-motes-sing: That sounds like Hippiestock, sequaled! It had to be good to be sequaled right? UncommonTruth, I think it's a common truth that Hippiestock was worth a sequel ;-) ETA: I hope to see you and Lindsey there!
  23. Suella Ember wrote: Not wanting to pee on anyone's bonfire (LL could well still be working on something like this) but Rod himself has said that this is just press speculation and he's foud in quite amusing to watch! https://twitter.com/#!/rodvik/status/117388201966047232 https://twitter.com/#!/rodvik/status/117389228563890176 Suella, I'm glad you've found evidence LL may not be doing the wrong thing. Now I can return to waiting for evidence they're doing the right thing. Not that I have any idea what that is, mind you.
  • Create New...