Jump to content

Madelaine McMasters

Resident
  • Content Count

    19,656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Madelaine McMasters

  1. Charolotte Caxton wrote: Up is perhaps one of my most favorite movies ever. The backstory at the beginning of love found, life shared and the sadness of loss is possibly one of the most touching I have ever witnessed. I'll agree. That is, I think, the most powerful five minutes of silent film I've ever seen.
  2. Dillon Levenque wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Carole, I'm gonna toot my own horn here. You and Ima are right, but I used fewer words to say it!  Scylla Rhiadra wrote: It's one's performance, not one's labels, that interest me. And I replied: Yep but, as in the Olympics, shouldn't degree of difficulty figure into the score? Bragger. Might I be pretending?
  3. Hippie Bowman wrote: Wow! I am late today! Happy Sunday Everyone! Peace! Sunday? Sunday?! Sunday!!! Sunday
  4. SL is opt-in, as are a great many other entertainment venues. There are no barriers to exit from any venue and all require a means to participate (computer and internet access) that can easily exceed the cost of actual participation. Given that and the fact that nobody actually lives here, I don't see how socialism is possible, even as a pretense.
  5. Carole Franizzi wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Carole, I'm gonna toot my own horn here. You and Ima are right, but I used fewer words to say it!  Scylla Rhiadra wrote: It's one's performance, not one's labels, that interest me. And I replied: Yep but, as in the Olympics, shouldn't degree of difficulty figure into the score? Oh, hey. You were being waaaaay too metaphorical for me. I only understand Haikunese these days. Had you written it like this, then maybe I’d have got it. I do not come here To make life easy for you I come here to be I learned at the TooDeeLoo Caribou School of Haiku, you?
  6. Carole, I'm gonna toot my own horn here. You and Ima are right, but I used fewer words to say it!  Scylla Rhiadra wrote: It's one's performance, not one's labels, that interest me. And I replied: Yep but, as in the Olympics, shouldn't degree of difficulty figure into the score?
  7. Celestiall, in the interest of saving screenspace, I won't quote you, but I do agree. Our perspectives differ from each other and change over time, sometimes quickly. If my perspective someday changes, I hope I'll understand that it was probably only mine that changed. I hope to have the grace to remember the perspective I once shared with those friends I might leave behind. I will not think less of them for going their own way and I hope they will not think less of me for going mine.
  8. Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I find your attitude curious, MoiselleErin. You call your friend an addict and say you wasted time on her. You disparage the time you once spent in SL together. You say she (and any of us who spend more than an hour or two a day in SL) are rotting away and do not have real lives. If this has always been your attitude, then I certainly can't understand why she'd miss you. But I suspect this is a recent turn and that's what's upsetting her. None of us wants to be told we're a waste of time. I didn't pick up on this because that is exactly how I view my own Second Life, as well as the SL of many people that I've met here. I and they are either addicts, or don't have anything that deserves the label Real Life, or both. (Personally, I've been cured of my addiction by Linden Lab, but I still don't have an RL. I'm hoping to find another virtual environment that I can get addicted to). I didn't find the OP's judgement insulting but rather insightful. That's why I said "I'm happy for my SL friends if they manage to get themselves a real life". A former friend of mine has managed to do just that, and I hope that she never has a reason to come back. If I believed in a deity, I would think of SL as god's dumping ground for people like myself Nobody should have to be in this virtual limbo unless they have nothing else, imho. I didn't find the OP insightful. As I understand it, insight is the ability to see the underlying hidden truth of a thing. If my years of experience in SL are typical, the underlying truth here is pretty obvious. I have had "what price am I paying by spending so much time here?" conversations with many friends. They all know the score. That the OPs attitude is disparaging rather than compassionate is what I found curious. I recently purposely used the phrase "get a life" to provoke a friend who was in the throes of indecision over RL/SL. But it was said in the context of this very kind of discussion and I freely admitted that I tell myself to "get a life" too. I have said goodbye to several friends who'd returned to RL and told them I hoped I never heard from them again, except to hear that RL was better than expected and I should try it. It's also curious that the OP started this discussion, yet barely participated in it.
  9. I find your attitude curious, MoiselleErin. You call your friend an addict and say you wasted time on her. You disparage the time you once spent in SL together. You say she (and any of us who spend more than an hour or two a day in SL) are rotting away and do not have real lives. If this has always been your attitude, then I certainly can't understand why she'd miss you. But I suspect this is a recent turn and that's what's upsetting her. None of us wants to be told we're a waste of time.
  10. Void Singer wrote: a letter on a card helps determine the size or presence of a "pistol"? I'm not sure which is more impressive, the leap of illogic or the failure of the metal detector. and when (or where) did they start allowing "typical" photos for ID? last I checked they all required largely unadorned headshots, current at the time of issue. And head shots aren't all that useful at identifying heads either, it seems... http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334420/title/Same_face%2C_different_person
  11. Void Singer wrote: please don't encourage me to do bodily harm. Void, have you seen Carole's body?
  12. Ceka, thanks for taking the time to explain. I expected that there was some history involved, but Jesephina would have no way of knowing that. While she did jump to the conclusion you were making light of her, rather than Dogboat, I had the same feeling. But I've also known you long enough to suspect I'd misinterpreted. So I asked. As I was recently reminded, our posting styles are not known to all. For as hard as I try to be understood, I don't always hit the mark. And a final thought: You say when people come at you, you come back harder. I've tried that over the years, never successfully. If a troll comes at me, s/he's looking for engagement. The only thing I can do is deny it. If I misjudge a comment as an attack and return fire, I've simply exacerbated a misunderstanding. It happens, but I try to avoid it. Thanks again, Maddy
  13. Lia Abbot wrote: Hi all! Still in England and having real difficulty getting online, but here I am. Horrible experience Thursday night. My son choked at a restaurant. I gave him the Heimlich maneuver but had to squeeze six or seven times. I was scares s***less. Thankfully he's fine. Sorry to be so low, but I needed to share it with someone.Back to normal Tuesday. Good grief, Lia! I'm glad everything came out okay. I'd offer you a hug, but I'm afraid you'd return it, six or seven times!
  14. DQ Darwin wrote: Hugs Lillie, hugs all. Was the fight anything like this? ETA: Hugs Maddy and Love:) E again TA Hugs Wildcat and Hippie:) It was a li'l like that, yes. Dee, that video reminds me of this one, which still chokes me up a bit...
  15. Lillie Woodells wrote: Good MornAfterEvening everyone! The girls kind of destroyed my kitchen with a big food fight yesterday, so i propose we all go out for breakfast today! hugs and kisses!!! Ooooh, there's a LOT more food to throw in a restaurant! Hi, Everybody!
  16. Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I find it very difficult to look at the behaviour of any particular individual (especially online) and draw any conclusion whatsoever about their viability or even the viability of their social group. We have such a blinkered view here that I've no idea what we can say about viability. I agree, and I would never presume to do that. I'm not mother nature Only hindsight can tell what was viable and what turned out to be not. Well, I don't believe you did so seriously, but you did hint that a particular individual might be a member of a certain group that will go extinct soon enough! I share the frustration that drives such commentary but eventually bite my tongue because I seem to run into more of them every day. I skipped over the chance to reproduce, so my particular genes aren't going anywhere, but I also can't quite banish the thought that folks who share my disposition are also headed for extinction. ;-)
  17. Ceka, I took your comment in much the way Josephina did. Let me explain how I came to that potential misunderstanding... It started with this comment from Josephina: (I'll show all quoted text in non-bold italics) I am "out" as Bipolar 2 Rapid Cycling as my avatar but it's on a need-to-know basis in RL. If I was outed in RL my world wouldn't end. While I want to tell people in RL there is never really a right time for that conversation, and I have no real patience for other peoples prejudices. Which was followed by this response from Dogboat: what the heck is bipolar rapid 2 cycling,, sometging to do with the olympics also? or just some wierd label you bestowed on yourself to make you seem so different when you are so the same as everyone else? So Josephina got more or less the kind of prejudicial response she's received so often before. You then replied to Dogboat with: you mean being moody is a disease now? i'm probably an F5 bipolar then as moody and bitchy as i can get..sometimes you just can't get out of my way. i always thought it had something to do with balance..oh well ..just shows how much i read up on diseases of the mind hehehehe Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your comments as agreeing with Dogboat's. You equated a formal diagnosis with "being moody". You then diagnosed yourself as F5 bipolar. Both of these comments appear to make light of what I will take at face value as a formal medical diagnosis. You then go on to make light of your own ignorance on the subject. We've every right to do that, but as an excuse for prejudice it falls flat. Josephina's then responsed to you: Comments like that are why I am not "out" in RL. People are very ignorant, rude and think they are the first person to ever say it to people like me. As Josephina's response was to you, not Dogboat, it seems she perceived you as being in agreement with him, just as I did. Josephina has heard these kinds of disparaging remarks before, so it's not surprising that her response is short, sharp and perhaps prejudical. Prejudice (perceived or real) often breeds more prejudice. And finally, you responded... don't assume what i am saying just because you may have heard something similar before.. you are in the real world right now.. i asked a question to someone else...feel like jumping in without thinking it's all about you then have at it any time.. i was referring to me not you miss thang Now again, I may be misreading you, but it seems you are saying that equating your moodiness to another person's diagnosed medical condition is all about you and not them. Josephina apparently doesn't see it that way and neither do I. And to top it all off, in a thread about naming, you wrapped up with a bit of name calling ;-) I love irony and satire as much at the next person, but I sometimes (often?) blow it and have to back up and start over. I also understand the errors in tone that arise from jumping into a thread without having read the entire thing, particularly in response to someone you know. It happens. So here's our chance to correct the misunderstandings. I hope Josephina will return to participate. (My apologies for the horrific formatting of this post. The Lithum software demands more intelligence/knowledge than I'm willing or able to muster at the moment.)
  18. Void Singer wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: [...] That conscious societal pressures affect reproduction might be called "unnatural selection" (surely there's a "real" name for this by now?).[...] I believe it's known as "social bias", and actually still qualifies as natural selection... because selection is for environment, regardless on how the environment arose. So the difference is that in 40,000 years the rabbits won't be blaming each other for their predicament.
  19. Ishtara Rothschild wrote: I meant both the ability of each individual of a highly social species to cooperate as a member of a group and the willingness of the group to support individuals even if they can't pull their own weight. Both has been strongly selected for in human beings, which means that it constitutes fitness (at least as long as there are enough resources to go around. If resources become scarce, competitiveness and territoriality increase, but humans will still cooperate with and be supportive of their closest in kin). The common misunderstanding of Spencer's phrase is that all species and even individuals are supposed to compete with each other. Another misunderstanding is that only the fittest survive, and not all those who are barely "fit" enough. I understand those selections, but they were made long before we had such a heavy grip on the planet (in so many ways). My Father noted that we're the first species capable of taking a conscious hand in our own evolution. He placed no value on that. He thought that a job best left for future anthropologists. I find it very difficult to look at the behaviour of any particular individual (especially online) and draw any conclusion whatsoever about their viability or even the viability of their social group. We have such a blinkered view here that I've no idea what we can say about viability. I am fascinated by the larger pictures, as teased out by people like Hans Rosling. If the world geographically segregated into two political ideologies over the course of 40,000 years, might we see Hans' bubbles tracing new species evolving out of those man-made distinctions? That conscious societal pressures affect reproduction might be called "unnatural selection" (surely there's a "real" name for this by now?). It is taking place. I simply don't understand what variables are at work. And if we get the immortality you think might lie ahead, will it come with a vastly different rate of evolution? Or no evolution at all?
  20. Imnotgoing Sideways wrote: I'm frigg'n Immy. ()y I'm glad it's you saying that, right?
  21. Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Btw, I would just ignore the troll with the strange name. He is the one type of person that can't be tolerated or accepted in a tolerant and open-minded society, simply because he is against everything that such a society stands for. Simply don't pay any attention to the neanderthals, they will become extinct soon enough. Oh dear, Ishy! What if we misunderstand what "fittest" is? ;-) Well, I think most people misunderstand that I'm not very fond of the term for that reason. It should be "survival of all individual organisms and social groups that are fit enough. PS: It's not necessarily a competition. PPS: In social species, the fitness of the individual is determined by the individual's ability to cooperate". Well, there is my fondness for deliberate misunderstanding, but I've also noticed that I seem to truly misunderstand fitness in the context you describe as well. The "ability to cooperate" doesn't mean the ability to cooperate with you, or me, or even anyone we like. I respect nature but I don't expect the same in return.
  22. Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Btw, I would just ignore the troll with the strange name. He is the one type of person that can't be tolerated or accepted in a tolerant and open-minded society, simply because he is against everything that such a society stands for. Simply don't pay any attention to the neanderthals, they will become extinct soon enough. Oh dear, Ishy! What if we misunderstand what "fittest" is? ;-)
  23. Dogboat Taurog wrote: you cant metabolise meds? why not,.care to explain? you are probably the first person that cant. Tell that to the folks who do hepatic compability testing. Here's an explanation... http://labtestsonline.org/understanding/features/pharmacogenomics?start=1
  24. Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Someone who has known you here forever without knowing you were bipolar might well be astonished to find out. The effect would surely be to educate that person about the nature of the condition? Someone who has known me here forever without knowing I'd bite your head off for chewing ice cubes within earshot might well be astonished to find out. The effect would surely be to educate that person about the nature of tolerance in SL? ;-)
  25. Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: It's one's performance, not one's labels, that interest me. Yep but, as in the Olympics, shouldn't degree of difficulty figure into the score? lol Only if we are intent upon measuring people's right to self-fashion against the right of our culture, and our language, to do it for them. It's a crazy thought, but what if one's sexuality or gender were about as culturally "meaningful" as hair or eye colour? In such a world, the "score" would be largely academic, wouldn't it? http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alice_dreger_is_anatomy_destiny.html What I'm trying to get at is that the ability of our performances to change others perspectives is affected by their belief that we're actually inhabiting the life that yields our own. Life isn't academic, so the scores won't be either. I've an RL TG friend who's story is remarkable. Being in her presence makes her performance more powerful than any I can imagine witnessing in SL. For the many who discount the scourge of alternative sexuality as "chosen", SL would be the posterchild for tolerance run amok. While I can hope that SL gives some of us a chance to broaden our understanding, I wonder if we'd have done it anyway (or even better) without it. Could it be that we're sequestering our tolerance here?
×
×
  • Create New...