Dresden Ceriano

Even within the confines of this very forum, I've seen people refer to those who choose to rollplay as a child as being engaged in age play. So, no... the inference is not entirely established here. I'm not saying that such use of those lone words is necessarily wrong, I'm simply suggesting that it would be prudent for all of us to go out of our way to nullify any possible misunderstanding by applying the adjective modifier (sexual) to the phrase... making that which we're referencing perfectly clear. ...Dres

Perrie Juran wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: I took it to mean that they do not suffer fools gladly. Some people are always looking for someone else to blame for their problems, amd when they do, they should come to expect not sympathy but exposure for what they are. I think we do a pretty good job of exposure here too but we just cant call a spade a spade like they can. That's another nice way to put it. And yes, we have to be poetic here when we call someone an idiot. What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. ...Dres

Phil Deakins wrote: Bobbie Faulds wrote: I've decided that Llazurus is a troll that loves to take the contrary position and then run with it to piss everyone off so...I ignore him as much as possible. He always has been exactly what you descirbed. On the whole, I do ignore him because of what he is. You may both be right about LLazarus, but you are most definitely wrong about his actual position on the matter. It's as if you honestly believe that everyone who visits this forum is well versed in SL vernacular... I have news for you... not everyone is. While we may understand the distinction, not everyone will... which is fine for everyday conversation. But, when discussing something as potentially incendiary as sexual age play, it's entirely imperative that we make ourselves as clear as possible. We need not be bound by LL's incompetent action of legally defining age play as sexual age play, then treating the two as interchangeable. Unlike LL, we should be able to understand the inadequacy of their actions and refer to the two as what they actually mean to the general public in common practice. Any less seems inadequately inappropriate to me. ...Dres

I suggest you read this page... link. Especially the "three key aspects" part and this sentence, "If you are in doubt as to whether an activity may be interpreted as ageplay, we request you err on the side of caution and desist." ...Dres

I don't believe for a moment that you or anyone else should apologize for showing your support for the people at Charlie Hebdo. I believe that what Tari fails to understand is that people are not buying that magazine in support of the views express within it, they're doing so in support of those who are expressing those views and their right to do so without being gunned down like rabid dogs for doing it. The very notion that criticism of religious institutions should somehow be off limits is the complete opposite of the very idea of free speech. Satire is not terrorism and should not be treated as such. Even the most incendiary of speech does not cause the type of damage that does a bullet to the head. When we stand up in support of free speech, we must do so in support of those with opinions with which we agree and also of those with opinions with which we, not only disagree, but may find offensive. ...Dres

garaouelle Giha wrote: this answer is rather pointless. This reply is rather pointless... as this thread was started over a year ago and the OP hasn't returned to the forum since their last post to this thread. I do hope that the reason why they haven't returned is that they were able to fix their issue, but, at this point, it doesn't matter that my suggestion was pointless. When I try to help someone here, I do so to the best of my ability, which sometimes falls short. Luckily, it's not unusual for others to jump in and help, who are better informed about some things than I... such as, in this case, Windows 8. If you've read the whole thread, it should've become apparent that Windows 8.1 did not play well with the current, at the time, SL viewer code and LL had to make some changes in order for it to work with some GPUs. I'm quite sure that whatever changes were made to the beta at the time worked and were eventually added to the main viewer code, making this a non-issue at this time... which actually makes your necro-posts here even more pointless. ...Dres

Muletta wrote: It seems like you lost my point here, Dresden. When you tell a customer to just forget, and go on with their sl, you are implicit supporting a possible bad and fraudulent merchant. Are you kidding me? In no way does suggesting a course of action implicate someone in the injustice that was perpetrated against the person whom they're trying to advise. No one here is stopping people from getting out their frustrations, but, at the same time, no one is required to coddle someone who's going off the deep end because of what amounts to a bit of pocket change. Muletta wrote: "It's only natural that carps beget carps. ...Dres" I do not agree at all. Are you suggesting that carps can beget flounders? ...Dres

Muletta wrote: KarenMichelle Lane wrote: The number of people who have done long rants on losing 9 cents drives me crazy! Hahahah...the number of people who sometimes carps at the OP, drives me crazy :matte-motes-wink: It's only natural that carps beget carps. ...Dres

Because, once they've taken the usual, suggested steps to rectify the situation and aren't able to do so, what else can they be told but to chalk up their losses to a learning experience and move on with their SLives? Let's face it, there's very little protection for consumers in SL, this is not the fault of those commenting here, that's just the way it is. I see nothing wrong with people suggesting to those who feel cheated to put their loss into perspective... especially when the monetary value of that loss is quite minimal. ...Dres

Syo Emerald wrote: Aethelwine wrote: But why not just roleplay using words..and if he says as part of roleplay he wants you to take off your rabbit slippers or put them on, or whatever... then just make the change yourself. I was close to just say that... In other RPGs we perfectly play without having RLV. Also...call me dumb, but isn't the context of Gor or D/S that one person obeys to the wishes of the other person? That would be a pretty bad slave, if I had to pull off her slippers myself, instead of herself doing that herself, when I command it. :matte-motes-big-grin: What you're talking about is two different types or levels of control. Some prefer to command their sub to do as they wish and others prefer to bypass their sub's ability to control what they do entirely, making for a very different dynamic. Unfortunately, Slink and other mesh body part creators simply didn't consider such scenarios when developing their systems. Perhaps one day, someone will develop a system to accommodate such activities... until then, I'm afraid those who prefer the latter are out of luck. ...Dres

It's not about what the game is set to, it's about what the game itself can do. If a game of skill is able to be set to both take in $L and give out $L, it needs to be on a skilled gaming sim... as long as it doesn't have the ability to do both, it's fine to place elsewhere. ...Dres

Lahnius Zaks wrote: OK so am I alone in an odd land where teleporting to a location that has alot of lights does not illuminate light fixtures unless your camera view actually sees that light fixture? Our place utilizes lights quite a bit, but the problem we're seeing, and hearing about, is that the lights do not shine unless their actually looked at ... oh and this also falls into lights not going off when shut off unless you look at them again ... A few updates back this was not a problem, but it seems to be now. Um... is this one of those philosophical thought experiments? You know, like, "If a light turns on and no one is there to see it, does it cast any light?" ...Dres

Dillon Levenque wrote: I believe (don't know for certain but I thought I remembered reading this) that one thing that is actually not allowed is having a Display name that matches an existing avatar's account name. See if you can find out if that's true and if so, double check the profile and AR. The TOS, section 4.2 states, "You may not select as your Account Name any name that Linden Lab determines may cause deception or confusion." I'm pretty sure LL would find that the selection in this instance is definitely deceptive. Dillon Levenque wrote: Display names can only be changed once per week, if I'm not mistaken, so your griefer's stuck with the one he has for at least a few days while you AR. If I'm reading this correctly, "You can change your display name as often as once a week. In addition, you can always reset it to its default, your username," (from this page... link) it seems as if you can reset it to default at any time. ...Dres

zzName is their user name and zzAnotherName is their display name. Click this for an explanation... link. ...Dres

When I read, "camping people's corpse's," I pictured someone running around dressing up dead guys in drag. ...Dres *either needs more coffee or more medication*

Are you sure you're not still wearing an eye alpha, which sometimes come with mesh eyes? ...Dres

Restart your viewer, but before signing back in, pull up Preferences and under Graphics/Hardware Settings uncheck, "Enable OpenGL Vertex Buffer Objects," then sign in and try to upload a texture. Let us know if that works. ...Dres P.S. If you're running Windows Skydrive see this... link.

Pamela Galli wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Merry Christmas from an old fashioned Christian! You must have a very different concept than I of that which constitutes old fashioned Christianity. I do :-) Well, if the way you conduct yourself on a regular basis is any sort of accurate example of what it truly means to be an old fashioned Christian, it's my sincere wish that more Christians immediately start becoming more old fashioned. ...Dres

Pamela Galli wrote: Merry Christmas from an old fashioned Christian! You must have a very different concept than I of that which constitutes old fashioned Christianity. I mean, when was the last time you tortured someone until they converted or burned someone at the stake for supposedly being a witch? ...Dres (Of course, that doesn't mean that there currently aren't God fearing Christians who actively advocate my being put to death because of my sexual orientation.)

LlazarusLlong wrote: I'm with the dog on this one. Yeah, but would you roll onto your back and spread your legs, just to get some attention? ...Dres

Traditionally, I rely only upon alcohol with which to impair my functionality throughout the duration of this most festive of holidays. This year, I have the option of also using an extremely potent herbal anti-depressant, a recently filled prescription of Vicodin and, if all else fails, half a bottle of NyQuil... and that doesn't even take into consideration the half-priced Boston Cream Pie I bought yesterday. I'm more than certain that this time around, I'll find the right combination of these ingrediments to ensure my ability to attain at least the illusion of this so-called Peace on Earth about which I've been hearing so damned much. Happy Holiday, Hippie... may you and your lovely Lady have the best Christmas ever. ...Dres *may brake tradition next month as well and not actually get naked for Hippiestock* P.S. Hahaha... yeah, right.

My love of Christmas has nothing to do with God or Jesus or any of that nonsense. It's really all about the music, which inspires not only fond memories, but rather pleasant, less horribly cynical thoughts... Not only that, but Christmas provides me with the perfectly legitimate excuse to dress my baby up in left-over garland (much to his displeasure), subject him to an impromptu photo shoot (against his will) and upload the best resulting image to the world wide web (without letting him know)... Merry Christmas!!!!! ....Dres

LlazarusLlong wrote: one of those infinite number of monkeys writing Shakespeare May I please borrow this phrase to use in my signature? ...Dres

Vandris wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Vandris wrote: It's a game and it was always a game. It's a SandboxMMOG. Mass multiplayer online game. You rent land and you build whatever you want on it that's how you play the game. You customize your character, play with virtual items, and run around a virtual world. I realized that the demographics for SL isn't exactly the average person that does play traditional games or even MMO's so they don't have experience to differentiate just what SL is. This game lets you get married,have sex, have children, etc. etc. That's all role play it is indeed very much a game because it does not have "real life" consequences behind the actions you take. As to date the only people I've come across that want to say SL is not a game are the kind of people that suppliment Second Life for their own reality so therefore they try to make a game seem more than what it is. I see this also as part of why people that get involved in "relationships" in this game end up getting hurt so much. They forget that this is all roleplay in this world and they try to cross the world over with reality and you just can't do that. So far I've notice that people I know that spend 24/7 in SL think of it as more than a game and refuse to acknowledge it as that while people that I've met that log in ever so often just think of SL as a game. What game doesn't take place in a virtual world? What game doesn't have a character you control? (even if you're just Player 1) You do have points in this game they're called "Lindens" Points in this game are its currency I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come along, completely disregard the topic at hand and present their argument either for or against SL being a game. ...Dres That's cool, because I was wondering when someone would come along that assumes their "opinion" overides someone elses "opion" and fail to comprehend anything stated or implied and therefore assume they're making an "argument". This is usually what happens when you don't read things fully. Usually resulting in ones embarassment. ...Van To help your inability to fully comprehend what you're reading allow me to assist you better my comprehionsly challeneged friend... I recall this thread being about someone asking why do people get offended calling SL a game. I believe this large portion of my comment that I've highlighted for you in bold letters should cover that topic quite well for you. Consider this a humble gift. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! "As to date the only people I've come across that want to say SL is not a game are the kind of people that suppliment Second Life for their own reality so therefore they try to make a game seem more than what it is. I see this also as part of why people that get involved in "relationships" in this game end up getting hurt so much. They forget that this is all roleplay in this world and they try to cross the world over with reality and you just can't do that. So far I've notice that people I know that spend 24/7 in SL think of it as more than a game and refuse to acknowledge it as that while people that I've met that log in ever so often just think of SL as a game," I took this opportunity to embolden your opening sentence and advise you to reread exactly what it says. If that sentence alone doesn't constitute an argument for SL being a game, I can't imagine what else possibly would. Good day ...Dres

Vandris wrote: It's a game and it was always a game. It's a SandboxMMOG. Mass multiplayer online game. You rent land and you build whatever you want on it that's how you play the game. You customize your character, play with virtual items, and run around a virtual world. I realized that the demographics for SL isn't exactly the average person that does play traditional games or even MMO's so they don't have experience to differentiate just what SL is. This game lets you get married,have sex, have children, etc. etc. That's all role play it is indeed very much a game because it does not have "real life" consequences behind the actions you take. As to date the only people I've come across that want to say SL is not a game are the kind of people that suppliment Second Life for their own reality so therefore they try to make a game seem more than what it is. I see this also as part of why people that get involved in "relationships" in this game end up getting hurt so much. They forget that this is all roleplay in this world and they try to cross the world over with reality and you just can't do that. So far I've notice that people I know that spend 24/7 in SL think of it as more than a game and refuse to acknowledge it as that while people that I've met that log in ever so often just think of SL as a game. What game doesn't take place in a virtual world? What game doesn't have a character you control? (even if you're just Player 1) You do have points in this game they're called "Lindens" Points in this game are its currency I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come along, completely disregard the topic at hand and present their argument either for or against SL being a game. ...Dres