Dillon Levenque
-
Posts
4,375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Dillon Levenque
-
-
I had some eggs left over; I made eggs in advance for people I thought I might see at Gypsy's show but who were not there (and I had a chance to deliver at least a couple last night but biffed it, apparently). I've gathered them all together for a picture; I will send them to the people for whom they were made, so if you see your name on an egg here you can expect a notecard from me.
Happy Easter to one and all :smileyvery-happy:
-
Quinn Morani wrote:Dillon Levenque wrote:Well fine. Did it occur to anyone that I might have made eggs for people who weren't there on Friday night? Including, as it happens, the lovely Sylvia? Even though I was dancing at Naz' gig at No Label and had to miss Gypsy's show I would have been only too happy to send Sylvia's egg. That way she wouldn't be the only person in this picture who doesn't look like a complete nut case.:smileyvery-happy:
Ahem. I do recall mentioning that Maddy was there and eggless (knowing that you had an egg for Maddy). If someone had responded to that plea, I might have mentioned that Sylvia was there and eggless, too. Just sayin'...
Ooops.:smileysad:
-
Lillie Woodells wrote:
Well fine. Did it occur to anyone that I might have made eggs for people who weren't there on Friday night? Including, as it happens, the lovely Sylvia? Even though I was dancing at Naz' gig at No Label and had to miss Gypsy's show I would have been only too happy to send Sylvia's egg. That way she wouldn't be the only person in this picture who doesn't look like a complete nut case. :smileyvery-happy:
-
Quinn, I just got through putting a comment on one of your flickr pics that either you or Lillie should post a pic in Valerie's Egg thread in this section; I hadn't even noticed you sort of started your own thread :-).
@Valerie: Aww. We need to do an afternoon gig. I can see why you might have a problem with going partying at 3 o'clock in the morning. It sure was fun, though.
-
I've been going to No Label a lot. It takes its name from its music genre—there isn't one. The variety is limitless. It's kind of small but really interesting architecture with multiple alcoves, and the decor is terrific; all kinds of old and unusual posters. The only dancers are the people who visit; no dance poles (I have seen some bare skin but that was just high spirits). I'm admittedly partial because my best friend DJ's there Wednesday and Saturday evenings; on those two nights it tends to be a little t-girly, but there is no 'orientation' to either the club or the patrons.
Edited for punctuation. Twice. If you find any more mistakes please pretend you didn't see them.
-
Quinn Morani wrote:@Dillon, I think this very thread is a case study in the positive effects of unintended consequences.
I rather thought you might. :smileywink:
-
That was fascinating, Ossian. Not least because you can overlook the fact you were being scammed since the associations you gained were so positive:
Even though the group was created to skin people like me, it was a net that caught people like me, so I found exactly the kind of people I was looking for and needed.
It's nice when the unintended consequences of an action by someone with less than honorable intentions turn out to be a benefit to someone else.:smileyhappy:
Edited for spelling.
-
Jo Yardley wrote:Hope I understood the subject of this topic.So now I finally have my time travel machine, not perfect, not real... but a close as I can get it at the moment
You understood the subject perfectly, Jo. And I like that for you SL is a time machine; it is for me now and then as well (I've even been somewhere that looks and feels astonishingly like Berlin between the wars, believe it or not). Letting yourself spend time in your imagination is a good thing.
-
Thanks, Storm. Those kind of leftovers never last long enough to go bad. A Happy Easter to you.
-
Jimbo Mimulus wrote:Edit To Add: Wow that was theraputic
That comment made me smile. I know exactly what you mean. You should visit a thread having to do with community in this section and check out the archived thread listed there. A lot of people got some therapy with that one.
And stick around; never know what might happen. It's Second Life :smileyhappy:
-
What a nice surprise to click on 'Make Friends' and see this thread.
-
Sounds like a very cool idea, Dee. And pay no attention to Quinn's bragging. I got moves just as good as hers. I know who's HUD to join, too :smileywink:
Since it's a Friday I'll only be able to catch the late shows, but I'll be looking.
-
Mags Indigo wrote:This thread is taking on a life of it's own, so much though I'd like to take credit for that I can't.
Oh, go ahead. Take it. :smileyhappy:
-
kattatonia Wickentower wrote:Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean "bad"?Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously, and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.Dr. Raymond Stantz: Total protonic reversal!Dr. Peter Venkman: Right, that's bad. Okay, alright, important safety tip, thanks Egon.I do think that having a spouse in RL and having a partner in SL is cheating. And I do think that cheating is a bad thing. But here's the thing, when I first came to SL, I was married in RL. The marriage was in deep trouble and I am now divorced. I found the relationships I formed in SL were much more intense and satisfying than my RL marriage, and while I didn't come to SL intending to cheat on my then husband, I found myself doing so. I never would have considered cheating in RL but somehow I fell down the slippery slope in SL. So I guess I was bad. Now I am divorced so that bad thing is gone. But my SL partner is married in RL. And so I guess I am still bad, and still tortured by it. But somehow I can:smileyhappy:'t give up my partner. I'm not going to pretend that what I'm doing is OK, but I'm not ready to stop either. I am pretty honest about who I am but I don't think that means I should be excused for the bad things I do.
Gutsy and honest. Nice. You're right, it can be very difficult to arrive at a decision but to my mind the most important thing is to be honest with yourself and clearly you are.
Thank you for the quotes at the start. It need hardly be said that any friend of Dr. Venkman is a friend of mine:smileyhappy:
-
Mags Indigo wrote:Hmmm lots and lots of comments... as the discussion has progressed I feel the 'issue' that I'm finding most intriguing is the one of...Is lying to an SL girlfriend/boyfriend/partner about your status in RL actually a form of cheating?Now I'm not talking about straight RP, or 'just friends' - I mean getting involved with someone in SL in an intimate, sharing secrets, getting all romantic sort of way.What I'm most interested in is how people in SL 'really' see the people they share pixel space with - as mere playbuddies not to be taken seriously, as real people but as we'll never meet them we can lie/cheat and it doesn't matter - or somewhere in between or different.Lying to an SL girlfriend/boyfriend/partner about your status in RL is lying. Don't know as I'd class it as cheating. Well, maybe, I would. If you establish a relationship with someone in SL and let them think—or flat-out tell them—you have no RL relationship, then you'd be cheating on them every time you were with your RL girlfriend/boyfriend/partner.Did you really think you would delve this deeply into the souls of your fellow forumites when you started this thread, Mags? Not that I'm complaining. I like it.
ETA: Once again I seem to have deleted one too many division lines. I'll get this all figured out eventually.
-
This is possibly Off Topic for this thread; I most fervently hope it does not count against its survival. My subject has to do with both my real life and my Second Life, and how in some cases Second Life can impact real life in ways that possibly no other medium can.
Last night I had a long talk with a very good friend about relationships in SL versus RL and what that all means. My friend is partnered in SL and RL to the same person. That's not unheard of but in my experience it is not common; I know personally only a couple of other people who are with their RL partners in SL. I do not have a partner in SL, but I am permanently partnered in RL.
There'd been a thread started earlier in the day having to with SL versus RL relationships. One of the main thrusts had to do with fidelity. If a person with an RL relationship develops an SL relationship with someone else in SL—with or without the RL partner's knowledge—is that person being unfaithful? To me, the obvious answer was "Yes". My friend felt the same way, not at all to my surprise. The difference between us in this case is that I might go ahead and enter into a serious relationship (okay, enough with the euphemisms: love affair) with someone in SL whereas my friend would never consider that.
I hate to tell you this, but the previous two paragraphs are background only. I've yet to get to the point. It's next.
We both wound up inworld later in the day. Sent each other some IM's about it all and then met for a chat at my friend's house. In the course of the conversation we talked about a lot of our real lives. In my case we talked about my transgendered-ness and whether that was known about in my RL family and several other things. I would NEVER have even allowed such a discusson with the people I know in real life (other than fellow TG's that I talked with in the past: I've dropped out of the scene in RL; SL is my release).
After thinking today about the frankness of our conversation, I was reminded of something I'd read. A reference—I think in a novel but it might have been a biography—to someone who had just lost the last member of his nuclear family. The author called it something like "..the last person he could be truly comfortable with..". It resonated with me at the time; I have thankfully a good relationship with my siblings and I know exactly what he meant. But it seems to me that in a way Second Life can provide something very like that comfort zone. Our parents and siblings can overlook our faults, at least when they're dealing with us, just because they are our family. They will ignore the opinion of the rest of the world. Our Second Life friends have the luxury of not having to even deal with the rest of the world. They can just relate to us, person to person.
I've said other places that I believe the best thing about Second Life to be its contribution to tolerance of the different. I'd not thought about how that could lead to friendships that might otherwise never have been.
-
Never mind. I is an idiot. Just for fun I tried it on a different box with XP Pro (mine is 7 Pro) and all that was happening is that on my view I've got some blanked boxes in that bottom task bar, so in a way, yeah it's a browser thing (the other PC is also using IE8 but it's set up a little differently. It just so happened that the spacing made the entire link cut off exactly at the last letter of your name (didn't even see the foreslash) so I'd no idea I was only seeing half the link displayed in the hovertext.
-
Darrius Gothly wrote:Curious! It must be. I'm on Chrome and get the proper hovertext. When you click the link, which entry in the Attendees list winds up at the top of the window? Mine or the proper one?Usually yours; I was just clicking at random and a couple of times I seemed to go different places (could have just been me moving the mouse a bit; it was very non-repeatable). In all cases I see Darrius_Gothly (along with your wiki.secondlife.com bits) in the hovertext. When I clicked I jumped to near your name, not highlighted or anything, in the attendee list.
-
Huh. When I tried that latest version, I did get hovertext but in every case it was your link: Darrius Gothly. Is that a browser issue (IE8)?.
-
Mags Indigo wrote:For many the RL is RL thing really is their mantra and to me, at this stage, that means that although they may be nice people they treat SL and whoever they meet there like a fantasy with no real impact on life as it were.Honesty is good even if it's an honest no :smileyhappy:
I'm an RL is RL person, totally so. But I don't by any means think relationships here are a meaningless fantasy. I do think that having an RL relationship and indulging in same in SL is cheating. Might be pretty painless, but nonetheless it is something not shared with the RL partner. I am permanently partnered in RL. I am single in SL in that I've never had nor really thought about having a partner. Doesn't mean I haven't thought about having some rather serious relationships. In my defense I'm at least honest about it in SL. Nothing in SL is ever going to move to RL for me.
Does that mean I'm only half bad? Probably not.
-
Darrius Gothly wrote:I've seen mentioned a few times the problem of "signal to noise" for in-world meetings ... meaning how much of the conversation pertains to the actual topics of interest vs. how much is side conversation, useless bickering and general good-natured goofing off. For a lot of people, these "extra" comments from people just pollute the meeting and distract them from being able to follow what is actually being discussed. I can sympathize.But I cannot agree.Because the meetings occur so seldom, and because the attendees are not accustomed to the "noise" that goes on in those meetings, it can be very overwhelming. But that noise is also an integral part of the relationships between ourselves (resident to resident as well as Linden to resident). Without that socialization, a lot of the "glue" that makes each of us more familiar to others will be lost as well. From my perspective, this is a very important aspect of the meetings.Some of you may have noticed that during those meetings I'm just as likely to joke with or pick on the Lindens as I am with fellow Residents. This is because, IN those meetings they are just the same as "us". No .. even better ... they ARE us. The artificial division between the Lindens and the "rest of us" is mostly gone .. and what is left can be easily (but respectfully) disregarded. This is integral to helping them understand our perspectives .. and for us to understand theirs.
I fully understand the benefit of of chat. I live on it. Ask anyone; I never shut up. I could also see from the transcripts that the Lindens were part of the general joshing around, and I can surely understand why that would be an important part of forming relationships. That being said:
I do not agree that something like a problem-solving meeting is an appropriate place for the typical SL chat free-for-all. What would happen if all of us with an interest could actually get inworld to a meeting? The chat window is only so big.
-
Ishtara Rothschild wrote:But there still are a few hardcore fans and cheerleaders who believe that SL is destined to become the shiny new 3D internet andAXE deodorant can really get you laid,and anyone who says different is a hater.What? It can't?Sorry, that was such a good line I had to comment (I've never heard of Axe Deodorant, actually).I can't see how SL can be 'ported' to mobile. Unless maybe we're finally gonna get Virtual Reality—remember Virtual Reality? Then we can just slip on the helmet and plug it into the phone and go. I think not. I also think Ishtara is correct; SL will eventually fade away. Not because the concept is outdated, but because there will be better ways to do what it does. When those ways exist, I'll be watching. For now, I'm right where I want to be.
ETA: that's twice that's happened to me; I thought I got all the cutoff lines in the right place but I see my post looks like it's part of Ishtara's. For anyone who cares, my content starts with the line 'What? It can't"'
-
Wildcat Furse wrote:I love the night .... soooo romantic :smileysurprised: *meows*
I love this picture. It just....I dunno what it just is, but I love it.
btw I have sent a number of people to the 'plotting' link that I first saw in your sig—I can always tell when they're reading it because I hear the laughter. Our current kitty is in perpetual 'failed ambush' mode, it seems.
-
Darrius Gothly wrote:I especially like the ability to "Moderate" a channel and then grant "Voice" (the ability to chat) to specific people. IMs are of course still permitted, so people wishing to be heard could IM someone in charge of granting "Mic Time" but the general audience would be in listen-only mode ... IF desired.It also has a really handy "Mute" feature that lets you shut someone up without actually removing them from the channel. To my way of thinking, that's a very effective way of cooling down a hot temper without going to the extreme of removing them from the discussion.
I do not know anything about IRC, mostly because for the greater part of my career my main point of contention with computers was getting a lot of I/O, motor control, etc. working. I couldn't care less about chat. So even though I am plenty old enough to have used IRC, I haven't.
When the topic of the OP was first mentioned, I commented that one of the really big problems I had with reading the transcripts was signal to noise. I thought forum posting would be better (and still do, but as has been pointed out in this thread there can be lots of noise in posts). It would seem to me that a method such as you describe would go a long way to improve a live SL meeting. A very long way, even. I'd think maybe that should be on the Agenda. If somehow that could be implemented it would be a huge improvement in the User Group meetings and it might even be somewhat marketable. I assume any corporate meetings here have restricted access, but things are always easier when there is a default solution.
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
This is what happens when you make friends in the forum
in Make Friends
Posted
Hoppy Easter to you too, slugger :-)