Madelaine McMasters

Dillon Levenque wrote: Persephone Emerald wrote: Considering absolutes, when each of us chooses an avatar or body shape in SL, are we not also asked if we are to be male or female? Well, of course, you might say, what else could we be? The Victorian Steampunk styled, text-based, turn-based game Echo Bazaar has a third option however. You may be a Lady, a Gentleman, or "A Person of Indeterminate Gender". Couldn't Second Life also offer an option of Other? That's an interesting idea, but I personally like the SL options the way they are. I've always felt that Second Life is a mirror of real life. I grant you I don't look very masculine in Second Life but I am still a male. True transexuals (a discussion I had with Dagmar earlier in this thread relates to that) can actually with a single click become female, or become 'post-op'. People like me, who are usually classed as 'transgendered', can exist in SL almost as they would in RL overlooking the obvious fact that we tend to have avatars that look WAY more feminine than we do in RL at our best. I like having that information 'known'. It means that when I interact with someone they know exactly who/what I am. Isn't the selection of male or female only visible at time of avatar creation? I don't recall seeing anything in my profile to indicate gender. If I've picked a suitably androgynous name, what cues would anyone have to my gender beyond the appearance of my avatar, which is completely under my control?

I'll guess that the rotation update to the prim gets stalled by each prim update. At 20/second you notice it. Maybe you can put the title on an invisible prim that's linked into the set?

Oooh, I like this explanation.

Domitan Redenblack wrote: llSleep( ) seems to slow down llTargetOmega( ) - huh? I thought targetOmega ran in the local client machine, so should not be affected by llSleep( ) - yes? Yep, llTargetOmega() is executed in the viewer. Is it being called repeatedly by something involving llSleep()? If so, you may be seeing stutter as the viewer restarts the rotation. Can you give a more detailed description of what's happening?

Deltango Vale wrote: Del, do we want the pill, or simply to remember Henry Ford who said... Whether you think you can or whether think you can't, you are absolutely right. ? If I had a bottle of those pills, maybe I'd pour them in the ocean and hope there's something to homeopathy after all.

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.

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?

Hippie Bowman wrote: Wow! I am late today! Happy Sunday Everyone! Peace! Sunday? Sunday?! Sunday!!! Sunday

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?

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?

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

Void Singer wrote: please don't encourage me to do bodily harm. Void, have you seen Carole's body?

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

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!

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...

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!

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. ;-)

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.)

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.

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?

Imnotgoing Sideways wrote: I'm frigg'n Immy. ()y I'm glad it's you saying that, right?

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.

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? ;-)

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

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? ;-)