It's possible my response to sentimental quotes is not normal:

My response: "And when an Alien-infested human hugs you, he's positioning his chest-burster to get at your heart."

But really, I feel like this could be important information, somehow.

People tend to think other people want what they want.  Of course the entire reason we have an economy in the first place is that people don't all want the same thing.

My favorite quote is from the x-files, "Trust No One"
As I ventured onto match.com, I've discovered the realities of human nature. First lesson, "Not everyone behaves like you do" Thus, you can't expect people to have the same common courtesy you have.
I don't know how many times I've communicated to someone on this dating site and not gotten a response.
Thus, the rejection form letters are a welcome sight. I like/respect you more if you reject me than if you ignore me. - c-est-la-vie-mon-amie

Well, I really don't think that you should necessarily take it personally when people don't get back to you.  I signed up for a dating site a while back in order to take a personality test that a friend wanted me to take, and simply got busy.  When I logged in a month later there were a ton of messages, and my circumstances had changed: I didn't have time to date anyone at all, so I just looked at what my friend had wanted me to look at, ignored everything, and logged out.  I don't think there's any onus on the user to respond to people except when convenient for him or her.

Dating site use is hardly a contract that requires you to be present, logged in at regular intervals, etc.  A dating site is not a job. It's a tool and its importance goes as far as it is useful to you.  Maybe in Soviet Russia, dating sites use you, but really it's supposed to be the other way around.

Every so often I think, "Gee, reviewers and critics are an intellectual, clever lot!  Surely all reviewers are wonderful and witty people able to appreciate the ironies of life!"

Then I run into idiocy like this review of 'Don't Trust Me' at Urban Semiotic.  Far from getting the irony of the song - which is laid on pretty thick - David Bowles sees the lyrics as an abhorrent picture of current dating norms.  To be fair, it may be just that, but what truly has me in despair is the way he assigns blame to the authors, 3oh!3.  "Quel temps, quel mores!" is a cry of lament for moral decay that goes back to the Romans, and he is digging out the same old tired cry of moral outrage without examining the object of his outrage in depth.  Like too many other reviewers, Bowles directs his ire not at the prevailing social conditions that generated the social commentary, but at the band, as if they are solely to blame for showing him a less than rosy picture of the world.  I began to wonder, reading his review - is it possible that he doesn't realize that a description of reality doesn't imply agreement?  Why blame the messenger? Using this wonderful logic, I suppose Explogasm should be arrested for conspiracy to murder, because their song 'Westside Killah' humorously suggests that they shot famous recording artists such as ODB, Tupac, Biggie, and Freddie Mercury.

Continue reading →

Some people have a categorical inability to grasp the fact that computer time is not "wasted time." It's sad, but to them computers will always be this alien and unfriendly force.

I’m currently reading Hugo’s Les Miserables at no pace (very very slowly).  This character who is introduced as a rough, dirty, scraggly, prisoner, is later given back story that reveals a rough upbringing having to take care of his sister and all of her children.  At some point he falls out of work at no fault of his own and finds himself stealing bread, gets caught and ends up in prison.  I am most drawn to the story because what Hugo builds as a ruffian is broken down through narrative to a simple man who tries.

How many people do i see and observe certain specific characteristics that rob them of a chance.  One wise person told me “stereotypes exist because people act in patterns of predictive behavior.”  It makes me wonder if efficient thinking is good.  When do “people” become “persons” with stories that matter?  The difference between “society” and “neighbor.”

Is everyone trying in this life?  Is what sets us apart simply narrative?

- The Farmer

I'd say not everyone is trying, and not everyone who is trying is trying in the same way.  I suppose you could argue that someone who thinks that good things happen to people who don't try is "trying" to cause good things to happen, but that's inherently contradictory.

I look at Jean Valjean's story as more about how life is not automatically fair.  Fairness is the product of many things working (the economy, the judicial system, etc.) and the right decisions being made by many other people.

Joining a book club is as bizarre to me as joining a food club.  It's like you're saying "Without it, I'll forget to eat."

If you really want to read, will you really forget to read without joining a book club?

Mixedbabiesrock has a hilarious look at dating as an economic proposition: to wit, filling the position of significant other is a lot like finding the ideal candidate for a job.

But here's the thing: awesome people, like executives, tend to get headhunted.  We do not mass apply.

A little while ago I saw something in a game that pissed me off.

"First female player to reach level cap," it read.

Seriously?  There's no mechanical difference between female and male characters!  I know that in real life when people talk about gender equality, others raise the spectre of physical differences (men are generally bigger and stronger.)  This is legitimate if things like sports are being discussed.

But what's the point of saying "first female player to do X?"  That just suggests that somehow women are inferior at gaming and need their own category of achievements.  As gaming is a mental exercise, let me say that I am unhappy with what that implies.

I asked myself, "What if they aren't tricks?"