Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas

Privilege, change, and why it's my job to educate you

2009-10-13T14:05:25Z

I'm not going to be popular for this.

In this political rambling I am going to go off topic from my previous ramblings on justified anger and discuss the issue of privilege. I know that as a white, cisgendered, middle-class male, that talking about privilege in the way I am about to is going to anger many people who read this, but I still feel the need to express the following position:

It is unfair, unintelligent and frankly unhelpful to your own cause to deny someone an education, then get angry at them for not possessing the education you just expressly denied them.

In other words, as a member of a minority, if I say something is offensive, and the other party asks why, I don't get to say "It's not my job to educate you."

Because frankly? It is. Actively preventing people who have made the good faith effort to fix their own prejudice and offensiveness from doing so makes you part of the problem. When you do this, you perpetuate the current state of affairs you rail against so much. You forfeit your right to complain when you become part of the problem.

Okay, time to back up here. Some of you (especially my fellow Australians) may be scratching your heads and wondering where this is coming from. Quite often on internet political discussions, especially American ones, the issue of sexism, racism, or sexuality based discrimination comes up. Invariably people misstep, because people are not perfect and someone will get offended in these discussions because, let's face it, a lot of what is said in these discussions is offensive. The problem I have is in a common misconception perpetuated at this point. A lot of the time, people operating from a position of privilege are in these discussions because the discussions are interesting, and genuinely do not wish to offend. At this point people generally ask "Where did I go wrong" "How did I offend you?" "How was that offensive?" and the answer often, but not always given is "It's not my job to educate you."

Bullshit.

Education is THE most powerful tool in the fight against racism. It is THE most powerful tool in the fight against sexism. It is THE most powerful tool in the fight against homophobia, transphobia and other sexuality based discrimination. It is THE most powerful tool in the fight against religious discrimination.

Education is how we are going to win.

This is why I’m taking this opportunity to come out of the closet as a bisexual, madly in love with my boyfriend.

This is not to say that if you are hurt and angry that it is your job to swallow your anger and take five hours to painstakingly explain why they're wrong, but you've had this discussion before, you know of resources, and sometimes people don't know where to start looking. Standing by the principle of "It's not my job to educate you" and therefore refusing to post a simple link to a post that explains your point? Refusing to give people phrases to Google that will lead them to where they need to go? That actually makes you more of an obstacle to your situation improving than the person you're confronting.

I am an atheist, and that means some of the privilege and prejudice exercised against me is chosen by me, and that means it is even more my responsibility to actively combat anti-atheist prejudice. No-one should fight a battle I've chosen to be in for me. I am also a bisexual, and that means that if I want people to understand that it doesn't mean I am promiscuous, that if I ever get married it won't undermine the sanctity of someone else's, or that I am a not danger to children, then I need to tell people first, because I'll let you all in on a little secret: No-one starts out thinking of themself as being in the wrong.

A perfect example of why it is our job to educate happened a year ago, during the American elections. In California, a bigoted and frankly shameful rule was put into the Californian constitution repealing the previously held right of same sex couples to marry. This piece of legislature was, in the opinion of many, showing a blatant disregard to the role of the judiciary and legal precedent, but that's an argument for another time. An interesting fact about its passing though is that an overwhelming majority of the black community voted in favour of the now infamous Proposition 8.

In an interview with Rachel Maddow, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a political science professor (interview linked at the bottom of this post), makes the argument that the reason so much of the black community voted in favour of Prop. 8 was because the people campaigning against it did not reach out to black communities, and more importantly did not educate them.

Campaigners did not point out that the exact same rhetoric was used to denounce interracial marriage. Campaigners did not point out that this too was a civil rights issue. Campaigners did not point out that some of the pro-proposition 8 arguments were actually blatant lies.

Proposition 8 passed 52.25% to 47.75%

Communities of colour made up 10% of the vote.

The fact that it would be nice if people already knew what the campaigners should have told them, the fact that communities of colour returned what Harris-Lacewell described as "an awfully bigoted vote" does not change the fact, that if the people against proposition 8 had pointed all that out about the rhetoric and the lies, James Eslick and Jake Rowe might have been allowed to marry.

The problem with saying "it is not my job to educate you" is that unconscious prejudice does not simply magically disappear. It requires momentum. And to gain momentum, sometimes you need to give a push. It is a sad fact that willingness to change is only half the equation. You also need ability. And when you say "It is not my job to educate you"? You are denying them the ability. It is simple. In the same way that fire needs both fuel and ignition, change requires both willingness to change and ability to change. Without one of these change cannot happen.

It is our responsibility to force the change we want to see, because no-one assumes they are wrong, and therefore sometimes we need to point it out.

If you want to change and I want to see you change?

It's my job to educate you.

Bibliography and links to people who disagree with me:
http://www.derailingfordummies.com
African-Americans on Proposition 8: The Rachel Maddow Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcZVAlSqNbA)
The Art of Defending Racism - Yeloson (http://community.livejournal.com/sex_and_race/296541.html)
Stuff White People Do: Racism 101 for clueless white people, written by a slightly less clueless white person (http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/08/wonder-where-to-start-when-they-join.html)

Why are you so angry? - An addendum on justified anger and same-sex marriage.

2008-11-16T06:11:00Z

The one thing that hit me after writing the previous piece, "Why are you so angry?" was that there was one big issue that I should have finished with.

Because the whole piece made it seem like I was mostly angry that people didn't get why I was angry, and that's actually wrong. There are more irritating things than being simply misunderstood.

I'm not angry if you are ignorant of these issues, I'm disappointed.

I'm not angry if I think you're mislead.

I'm not angry if you disagree with me.

I'm not angry if you are passionate for things I don't believe in.

So then, what is the answer to the question?
Why am I so angry?

I guess the main reason is that I am angry because you are not.

If you are asking the question, "Why am I angry" that means you either do not know of the things that I listed before, in which case, you should learn about them, or you do not understand that those are things to get angry about.

It means that the entirety of the previous post was not news to you; you just didn't care.

Recently at work, I had the privilege of working the bar at the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple. It was really nice, the decking area all decked out in reds and black, with an Asiatic theme. The DJ perhaps left something to be desired. Choosing "I kissed a girl" may have been in poor taste, especially as the song to play when the couple entered the room, but all in all it was a lovely service. In spite of all this, however, I spent most of the time where I wasn't serving and instead spent my energies on polishing glasses thinking about how either of these two women could more easily marry me, who they don't know, than each other, who they love, and how deplorable a situation that really was.

Recently in California, Proposition 8, an amendment to the Californian state constitution was passed, repealing the previously held right of same sex couples to marry.

Recent protests against the Mormon and Catholic churches in California in the wake of the passing of proposition 8 have been labeled as religiously motivated hatred and bigotry prompting many pot/kettle allusions. But the accusation of bigotry is the one that astounds me the most. If these people were bigots it would be a group of people being angry at the Mormon church because they're Mormons. The protesters aren't angry with the Mormon Church because they're Mormons. They're angry with the Mormon church because the Mormon Church raised millions of dollars and countless hours of grass roots campaigning for the sole purpose of removing the right these people had to marry the ones they loved.

The most irritating part of the question "Why are you so angry?" be it directed at gays, atheists, or any group, is the automatic assumption that losing your temper makes you lose the argument. That there is something wrong with justified anger and passionate condemnation.

There isn't.

What's wrong is when unjustified harm is inflicted on people, and people aware of such things remain indifferent. It's not enough to say "I am moral because I don't do bad." To be moral, one must not only refrain from committing evil, but one must stand against it whenever one sees it.

So yeah, I'm angry because of the blocking of stem cell research, abortions and same-sex marriage.
I'm angry about the abuse of children and the current situation where the pursuit of knowledge is under attack.

But I'm mostly angry that more people aren't angry, because when such things can slip by in the foreground and people don't pick up on the fact that it's a bad thing?

Well that's something to be angry about.

Instead of asking "Why are you atheists so angry?" Next time you find yourself about to ask it, ask yourself a question instead:

"Why aren't I?"

Why are you so angry?

2008-10-01T17:44:41Z

Yes, I know, I suck at regular updating. The agnosticism article is taking longer than expected, and I got sidetracked. But here we go, I have another essay of sorts to present. This is quite a big one though, prepare yourself.

Again, regular disclaimer... actually, scrap that, I'm doing away with the regular disclaimer for religously themed articles. I have a new stance, which I hope to elaborate on in this essay/rant, but it basically boils down to "These are merely words. Get over them."

With that out of the way, I present yet another soapboxy, atheism-themed thingumy, entitled "Why are you so angry?"

Time and again, when discussing religion with theists, I find myself confronted by an irritating question.

No, this goes beyond irritating. It's blood-boilingly infuriating, it's a question that displays ignorance of the world around us to such a high degree as to make one Very Cross Indeed.

"Why are you so angry?"
"Every time I see you atheists, you seem so upset about everything."
"Aren't you worried you're getting just as fundamentalist as those guys you hate?"
"If Atheism is so great, why are all its members so upset so much of the time?"

Why are we angry?

This criticism is founded so deeply on a fatal misunderstanding of how an argument is formed as to be laughable, if it wasn't so rage-inducing. It mistakes passion for stubborn refusal to consider that you could be wrong. It mistakes social conscience for irrational hatred, and it mistakes a desire to better one's self and one's society for a nihilistic, morally bankrupt worldview.

But enough of why the argument sucks, and onto answering this question, hopefully so I'll never have to again.

I'm angry that despite the fact that we can help prevent one of the main causes of cervical cancer, there are those that see it as a bad thing, because it fails to discourage premarital sex.

I'm angry that in AIDS-ridden Africa, people are being outright lied to in order to prevent the use of birth control methods that could stem the spread of disease by way of prophylaxis.

I'm angry that people can be so pigheaded as to believe that preventing perceived sexual misedemeanour is more important that preserving life.

I'm angry that lifesaving stem-cell research is being prevented because of concern for the well being of a nonexistent entity.

I'm angry that women around the world are being forced into using dangerous and life-threatening abortion methods because some people value potentiality over actuality.

I'm angry that rational thinking is being touted by leading international education systems such as the International Baccalaureate Program as being only 'one of many ways of knowing' and that high-school students are being taught to value subjective experience on the same level as objective reality.

I'm angry that the wonders of life on Earth are being squandered due to the misguided belief that this world doesn't matter in the long term.

I'm angry that women around the world are taught, by people they have been brought up to respect and obey, to hate themselves and their bodies.

I'm angry that homosexuals, bisexuals, the transgendered and other members of alternative sexuality groups are still denied basic human freedoms such as the right to a family, in western countries. I'm angry that Oscar Wilde died unhappy and unrecognised, I'm angry that Don Dunstan's partner was made to feel that he'd be unwelcome at his partner's funeral service.

I'm angry that LGBTI etc. are taught that they are in some way 'wrong' on a fundamental level. I'm angry about over 2000 years of psychological trauma inflicted on a group of people who had done no wrong.

I'm angry that children are taught the doctrine of hell, that this horrifying bullying tactic is used to coerce good behaviour in lieu of decent moral instruction, that many children are traumatised because of this contemptible idea.

I'm angry that religion teaches that blame can be passed onto another, that personal responsibility can be forsaken in favour of scapegoats in the form of Jesus or other blood sacrifices.

I'm angry that atheists are forced to have to explain why they are able to be moral, that human empathy and compassion are so diminished in the eyes of the faithful, that they are to be seen as insignificant motivating forces for morality.

I'm angry that young men are taught that killing themselves and others in the name of ingroup/outgroup fighting is virtuous.

I'm angry that people squander this life in favour of an afterlife.

I'm angry that untrained individuals are put forward instead of psychologists or psychiatrists as mental health experts because they happen to wear a funny hat.

I'm angry about Galileo

I'm angry that it took them over three hundred years to admit they were wrong about that one.

I'm angry that belief without evidence is taught to so many as being a good thing.

I'm angry that I cannot be passionate without being seen as intolerant.

I'm angry that people think a T-shirt soliciting hugs is 'offensive' because it dares to use that most horrible of expletives: "Atheist"

I'm angry that people think that the blame for what people that hold the faith do in the name of their faith can be separated from the faith itself.

I'm angry that people think they can look at the above and say "What they're doing isn't real religion, they're misapplying the doctrine" and then turn around and say "What the doctrine says isn't the real religion, it may say hateful things, but the people do good." when the flaws in the doctrine are pointed out. You are capable of doing wrong, accept it.

I'm angry that around the world, people are choosing faith over medicine as a way of healing their sick children, and then thinking that they are not to blame when the child dies.

I'm angry that the churches have striven to keep the rape of children by their officials a secret.

I'm angry about the atrocities of the World Trade Centre attacks, and the Bali Bombings.

I'm angry that American religious leaders blame such horrors on homosexuals and atheists, saying that countries are being punished, because these groups have committed the crime of existing.

I'm angry that people use their church's tax-free status to fund their own lavish lifestyle, while others starve on the streets.

I'm angry that I am accused of being arrogant by people who think the universe was created specifically for them.

I'm angry that I am accused of being 'just as fundamentalist as those I'm arguing against' because I sometimes offend people. Learn what fundamentalist means before you use it. Hint: It's not synonymous with arsehole.

I'm angry that I am held to such rigorous standards of intellect by those that don't even try to meet them themselves.

I'm angry that I have to know more about religion than a believer, or "I haven't thought it through properly"

I'm angry that people willfully mistranslate their religious texts to "Take the edge off it", discarding thousands of years of history and literature to make it more palatable.

I'm angry that it takes me learning large swaths of Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek to convince people I haven't just mistranslated or misrepresented what their holy book says.

I'm angry that people claim that the statement "god exists" is not a factual claim about objective reality.

I'm angry that phrases such as "I think you're wrong." "What evidence is there for it?" "I disagree entirely" when applied to a religious framework are seen as 'intolerant'.

I'm angry that people think that intellectual criticism is persecution.

Lastly, I'm angry that people can possibly think that the atrocities I have listed above can be comparable to the fact that I say things they don't like.

I'm angry that people compare the rape of children, mass murder, the abuse and hatred of women and the alternative sexualities, and thousands of years of oppression to people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and bloggers like myself using words. Words on paper, screen and voice that harm no-one.

I'm angry that in light of the above, people still wonder what I could possibly have to be angry about.

Audio blog failure

2008-07-26T17:14:37Z

So I was actually going to have a podcast and post links to the mp3s from here, but that fell through due to uploading/hosting issues.

Instead, I'll post a transcript of the second part of the first podcast, wherein I review the season finale of Doctor Who and ask your opinion on whether I should also post the first, possibly offensive to catholics, part on the recent eucharist desecration saga in Florida.

Aaaaanyway. You know the drill. Contains spoilers for the end of Donna Noble's season on DW, so if you are Australian, like me, but haven't downloaded/watched the finale, this may spoil. That said...

When Catherine Tate was signed on as a full time companion, I admit I was dubious. I suppose that should have been an early warning sign for me that in actual fact I had nothing to worry about. There's a well known quote from Terry Pratchett that goes “Things that try to look like things often do end up looking more like things than things - well known fact!” so it goes without saying that the fact I was so totally convinced by Donna Noble's irritating vapid act in The Runaway Bride should have tipped me off that she was going to be brilliant.

And Brilliant she was, managing to win the hearts of all but the most diehard haters in only 13 short weeks that are sadly over, leaving those of us who are still hypnotised by her MASSIVE... uh... acting talent, sadly bereft. Yes, whether it's dodging boulders at Vesuvius or flashing the headlights on vintage cars when chasing after giant extra-terrestrial insects, eating angel cakes at garden parties with Agatha Christie, viewing the twin peaks of the Mill's brilliant CG work on Ood-sphere or the double whammy of her split personalities in the finale, Catherine Tate busted her way into the hearts and *coughs* minds of Who fans worldwide and will be sadly missed as a companion who was certainly larger than life.

I guess the biggest problem I have with the series then, is how the writers chose to finalise the era of what was ultimately one of the most enjoyed companions in the history of the show. Instead of a send-off that celebrates the magnificent contribution Catherine Tate made to the series, we get one of the best characters since the revival of the series reduced to once again getting excited over a new flavour Pringle and celebrity gossip without any memory of the magnificent character development she went through over the past 13 episodes, nor any memory of the events that shaped it. And to top it all off, the promise that if she ever becomes that magnificent person again, her head's going to explode.

In fact, after 12 fantastic episodes, Journey's End actually seemed a bit of a let down. It was certainly not bad television, indeed I can say that it was redeemed by everything after the cliffhanger's resolution but before that scene where the earth is towed back to its rightful position using a mystical energy towrope. (which was, let's face it, utter pants). However, despite this ultimate redemption of the episode, the payoff for the let-down after last week's cliffhanger led into a bit of a disappointment.

The first problem I had with the episode, one which I wish to get out of the way as soon as possible, is the farewell given to Rose in which she is given a clone version of the doctor who is identical in all but two ways, he's slightly more mortal and slightly more genocidal. This does three very disappointing things: Firstly it cheapens the ending to doomsday, an brilliant ending that managed to serve the needs of both the rosefans and those that were glad to see the back of her. Speaking as someone not overly enamoured of the character, after such a goodbye, her return would need to have been bigger, and more focused on her, and it would have to involve more consequences for her return than we got for it to even remotely approach not cheapening the previous narrative arc of the character.

The second thing this ending did was it did the character of Martha an even greater disservice than she'd already been dealt, because her character was written into a corner because of the 'rebound girl' angle and the constant harping on about Rose in series three diminished Martha's chances to grow as a character in her own right. For the doctor to then go “Well, actually, I'm happy to leave her with a clone” means that all the constant harping on about Rose over the past two seasons has had no real payoff and Martha was constantly shafted for something that wasn't that big a deal after all.

Which leads into the third problem with the end of rose's story arc. It shits all over the idea of narrative consitency. The writing team really need to make up their minds. Is the story of Rose and the Doctor an epic love story or one where the Doctor's just been stringing her along for four seasons. Because really, either the Doctor loves her, and wouldn't willingly seperate himself from her for no reason whatsoever by putting her back in the parallel world needlessly, or he's just acting as a kindly old uncle, setting her up with someone 'suitable' and then buggering off, making sure he never sees her again for the rest of his life.

Speaking of narrative consistency, that brings me onto the second huge problem I had with the episode, and that is the conclusion to Donna's story arc, where we leave her mind wiped of all the character development and experience of the past 13 episodes, turning her back into the irritating shouty persona I was worried would be her only contribution to the series.

This wasn't a 'journey's end' because it wasn't a journey at all, it was aimless wandering that ended up right back at the starting point having gained nothing from the experience. And worst of all, this might have been beautifully tragic, and emotionally engaging if I wasn't thinking through the entire thing that a bit of thematic consistency in the series wouldn't have gone astray.

Because Donna's end didn't only come as an irritance to those of us that genuinely liked her character and how it developed over the course of the season, it also went against the grain of everything we'd been told about the doctor's character and all the messages we'd been told to take away from previous episodes. Because Doctor Who has always had two messages at its heart since the revival: Firstly that with all the weird and whacky aliens out there, it's everyday humans, in their ordinaryness that have the potential for greatness. Donna's end, therefore, seems all the more pointless when you realise that all that potential and growth has been for absolutely nothing.

This idea goes back all the way to the Lazarus Experiment in Series three when confronted with the idea of man attaining eternal youth. The doctor explicitly states that 'some people live more in twenty years than others do in eighty. And that it's not the amount of time, but the person that has it and what they do with it that matters. This flies in the face of the picture we're given in Journey's End, where the doctor erases the person she's become and the experiences she's had in order to give her more time, all the while she's begging him to stop.

This was even referenced as late as the Steven Moffat two-parter where we're shown explicitly in the case of River Song that it's preferable to keep the good times than to live longer without having experienced them. “Time can be re-written,” the doctor says and the answer isn't “Okay then. Erase all my experiences so I can live longer.” it's “Not those times, not one line, don't you dare”.

And yet he did dare in the finale, he dared to violate the mind of one of his closest friends in order to return her to a personality that her later self appeared to destest despite her pleas for him to stop. This was an astounding display of very immature way of thinking, that is to say one that values continued existence over fulfilling existence.

That is not to say, that I believe that Donna should have been killed off. I believe that the character would have been better served had they avoided the binary choice of vapidity or death altogehter. There are many ways in which Donna could have left the series after becoming part time lord that didn't have to result in that choice. Here's one right now. Instead of threatening her life, it could have put a taxing strain on her heart to the point where she needed to retire from the high stress life of battling aliens or she would die. She's obviously upset by the choice put before her, but chooses to stay with her gramps and stargaze every night and write stories about her adventures. After the Doctor drops her off, she says goodbye and he promises to visit every now and again, and her gramps catches up to him as he's leaving and promises to look up at the stars on his behalf now he has been bereft of a travelling partner. It allows for all the conclusions previously put in Journey's end, Gramps' farewell, the doctor's acknowledgement of them having had 'the best of times' and Sylvia's growing appreciation of her daughter's worth, but doesn't require railroading the Doctor into performaing an action that the series had already told us to be morally repugnant and against his character.

Much has been said about Russel T Davies' supposed atheist agenda, but I think he hasn't gone far enough with it. It can carry the anti-theist sentiment of Parting of the Ways or Voyage of the Damned but never goes that step further into portraying the positive side of atheism, the lack of a death-phobia that comes from mature acceptance of one's own mortality and the determination therefore to not be worried about preventing death, so much as making sure that when it comes, you have no regrets.

And with that comes the end of my first podcast-that-wasn't. Let me know if you want to hear my musings on transubstantiation, death-threats and celebrity toenail clippings. Otherwise, I'll be back next week with a review of what I've seen of Q.I., and a small piece on the intellectual poverty of agnosticism entitled "Agnosticism and puppy killling: an exercise in Godwin's Law Avoidance"

Hyperbole

2008-06-22T14:41:05Z

So it turns out that I'm VERY prone to exaggerating things beyond the point of metaphor. So much so that after what must be fifty seperate MSN messages on such topics as apocalyptic battles, tentacle beasts from an eldritch realm, the possibility of David Attenborough multiclassing to druid (Pshaw... he's totally an epic level sorceror.) in order to defend the new British Empire (As advanced my yours truly, after being promoted to director general of the BBC, a position that coincidentally happens to have more to do with World Domination than it does making quality television) , from French rebels who'd been hiding in the (magnificent) Parisian sewer system, using a humungous helium balloon to travel back in time and force my old schoolmates to act out the entire works of Shakespeare in T-shirts with embarrassingly un-funny slogans on (that'll teach them) by way of psychic posession and a teleprompter, etc. etc. I tend to miss the point I was going for by so much I land in another galaxy entirely where the bobble-headed aliens mistake me for their god.

At this point, the bobble-headed aliens mistake the works of nietzsche for prophecy and find myself chased by pitchfork weilding bobble-heads who think that "God is dead" is an instruction, either that or they think that if the prophecy doesn't come to pass terrible things will happen. Either way, my life is threatened most horribly by errors of translation. So I hop in my time machine and head back to Earth where, after a long and brutal struggle involving six sherpas, a grizzly bear, a panther, five tubs of yoghurt and a small wooden hamster, I finally reach the point I had been laboriously trying to get to for the last paragraph of hyperbole.

Of course half the time I end up thinking the scenarios I paint are less dissuasive and more ROCKING AWESOME. Example: after explaining to a friend that intimate relations between the two of us would likely result in the apocalypse, I suddenly realised that such a scenario gave me a fifty/fifty chance of riding a six-headed dragon into battle against a cthuloid monstrosity from beyond the edges of reason, and as if that weren't enough, after causing the breakdown of the universe, in the timeless void I wouldn't have to wait for a week before getting the next episode of Doctor Who. I mean sure, everyone I would have ever known and/or loved/been friends with/talked to would be dead by dragon fire (Save my friend who would instead be posessed by a cthuloid monstrosity) but you've got to look on the bright side.

So yeah, I guess what I've been trying to say with this post is "THE LATEST EPISODE OF DOCTOR WHO WAS THE MOST AWESOME THING THAT EVER AWESOMED AND I WANT IT TO BE NEXT SUNDAY ALREADY!"

EDIT: I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise to the English Language for using 'Awesome' as a verb.

EDIT the second: I would like to retract that previous apology. The English Language is a bitch that deserves everything it gets/got.

EDIT the third: Except Finnegan's Wake. Nothing deserves Finnegan's Wake.

Is it just me...

2008-04-27T13:15:28Z

Or are videogames really, REALLY, stupid…

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching/playing them immensely, I am a fanboy at heart. Cut me and I bleed pixels, but I really wish that script writers would please realise that the people watching their product want characters that have intelligence above that of a gnat…

Not content with forcing you to figure out that ‘oh I needed to take a photo of the random bystander and take it to the swamp where the tour guide would give me the special important quest item. But then I need to swap it for the letter to mama, and I can only do it while wearing the frog mask and hopping on one foot.’ This all from the fact that an irritating little bitch of a fairy floating above your head has said “HEY LISTEN I THINK YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR SOMETHING green”... No, not content with springing such stuff on us, they then proceed to teach us a song in an impossibly long cutscene, tell us that it invokes the protection of the magical goddess, then go on to have the irritating bitch say “HEY! LISTEN! I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO! WE NEED THE HELP OF THE MAGICAL GODDESS!” “GEE WHAT SHOULD WE DO? WE NEED TO SAY OUR PRAYERS BECAUSE ONLY THE GODDESS CAN HELP US NOW!” “HEY LISTEN!” All the while you are realising that the fairy cannot hear you yelling “LISTEN YOU STUPID BITCH! I REALISED I HAD TO PLAY THE SONG WHEN YOU TAUGHT IT TO ME DURING THE MAJOR PLOTPOINT! I DON’T NEED YOU TO TELL ME IT AFTERWARDS! I JUST SAT THROUGH 5 HOURS OF CUTSCENE! THE LEAST YOU COULD DO IS SHUT UP AFTERWARDS!” All the while getting funny looks from your parents for using foul language at a bunch of pixels.

We then get past this important opening five seconds of gameplay followed by seventeen hours of angsty cutscene in which some pop-psychology is invoked in telling you that blondie has an Oedipus complex and hates his father, while black mage is a slut and the summoner is a frigid bitch. We got that already… But no… on EXACTLY midnight, you need to give the letter to mama only to realise that the bitch has gone senile and thinks you’re her son, then proceeds to tell you a story that lasts a whole 24 hours.

I mean really… the Alzheimer’s sufferer can’t remember what her own son looks like but can remember 24 hours worth of boring story about giant imps and other magic mushroom dreams.

Okay, so these irritating side-quests are done with now… you think you’re safe. WRONG!

You finally defeat the final boss and it turns out he’s the semi-penultimate boss and there’s really a ‘power behind the throne’ or he was possessed by a demon, that’s always a popular one, or he actually sent himself back in time in order to become generic villain X who you haven’t seen for 5 discs of gameplay. So you go back in time, or through the vortex to another world or some shit like that and you arrive on, not a primitive setting, not a dungeon, but apparently the inside of people’s memories, which surprisingly look like a ruined city, full of powerful monsters, fallen clocktowers, chests with powerful items and a magic crystal that holds the source of all life on earth… sorry, ‘Terra’… You reach the final boss and it turns out he’s actually the embodiment of all evil, or the darkness within the human psyche and defeating him makes everything right with the world. Can I at least ONCE have a video game where there is an evil person who is responsible for his actions and defeating him only has the effect of removing him from the situation instead of turning everything into a promised land where everyone is happy and gaily skipping through the meadow?

Thought not…

Okay

2008-01-10T10:32:26Z

Okay I suck at keeping a journal, that much is clear. I'd create a sockpuppet but then I'd get depressed because he'd have a much more exciting time than me.

eh.

Also I'm nineteen. (and can kill you with my brain)

My nerd sense is tingling.

2007-02-10T06:17:18Z

I said this journal would be a soapbox for my own personal views, thoughts on philosophical things and chapters of novels, I have decided to include three more sections:
Reviews, Fanfiction, and Fantheories

Yes, I know, probably very boring stuff. But hey, I'm a nerd. What can I say?

Look forward to new things coming within:

"Rudd, Abbott and the Lesbian Witches of Southern Queensland: Faith in Politics and The Politics of Faith" - A philosophy essay on the politics of Australia, religion and why Tony Abbott knows not of what he speaks. (Also fleshed out in my mind somewhat, but probably not going to be written any time soon)

Followup to WWSABS

2006-05-22T11:11:32Z

Just to finish up with a little epilogue...

"Aha!" cried the bible literalist. "But doesn't that mean that Satan was tricked into doing God's work? Doesn't that mean that God had a great victory over Satan by having him introduce philanthropy into the world?"
"If that were so, why would God have decided to punish humanity with pain and death then if he intended it?" James replied.
"Uh... God works in mysterious ways?" the bible literalist said
"That is SUCH a cop out..."

some time later, James runs into a different religious person

"Aha! I've got it!" The very reverend says. "Genesis is a cautionary tale telling us to follow God's word or we will all get ZOMGSPLOSION!"
"Really... so God intended us to think that if we didn't follow his instructions, we would be punished, even if we thought it was the right thing to do, and that comitting a deadly sin and being hypocritical is alright for a deity but not for anyone else?"
"Um... I guess..."
"And if it is a cautionary tale telling us to obey God, why didn't they have the disobediant act be something that is obviously morally reprehensible so we would be left with no doubt that God was trying to get us to be nice to each other and that he doesn't play dice with the universe?"
"Uh... God works in mysterious ways?"

Why we should all be satanists, part 2

2006-05-22T11:02:06Z

Welcome again to Why We should all be Satanists The usual disclaimer to my religiously themed articles applies here. you read at your own risk, this is meant to spark interesting discussion, not to promote anti-theism. It is ENTIRELY tongue in cheek when I say things that are anti-theist. I'm merely trying to be philosophcal about the Christian, Jewish and Qu'uran dogma here.

Section 2: Human Morality
Ain't religion a wonderful thing.

Religion can spur people into doing great things. 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' is a great rule to follow, even if you, like me, don't believe in the big bearded bloke in the sky. The threat of hellfire also stops many people from doing bad things. In short, the fear of God and the love of God working together are a powerful force for good.

The distinction we must draw here, is what the bible tells us was INTENDED by God and what we have come up with ourselves and ATTRIBUTED to God.

Let's review the last section shall we? God does not intend to give us knowlege of the difference between good and evil.
Lucifer does.
Something cannot be called a mortal sin deserving of everlasting punishment if it is not known to be a sin, especially not one that you can inherit, in that case it is a minor, venial sin.

Okay, given this information, what can we extrapolate about the above.

Based on the following premises:
1: People do acts of good based upon the morals they follow.
2: One cannot be 'moral' without knowledge of good and evil.
and 3: Satan gave us the knowledge of good and evil

We can extrapolate the following:
All acts of good are attributable to morals
All morals are attributable to Satan
Therefore, all acts of good are attributable to not God, but... Satan?

Well don't those two have egg on their faces...

Read at own risk, Theological Blather contained within

2006-05-22T09:04:33Z

Hello and welcome to my second soapbox article.

This one may be considered offensive to Jews, Muslims, and Christians if you're easily offended. But if your faith can be rocked by my little LJ post, then perhaps that's a good thing. I use the Christian version of Genesis but as the Torah practically IS the OT, and the Qu'uran is the Torah with one extra prophet and arranged by length of verse instead of chronological date there shouldn't be much difference in the application of this article.
Yes my slightly tongue in cheek article is targeting this particular god, whatever you want to call him, Jehova, YHWH, Allah, whatever. That is because you guys represent the majority, and as such are the ones with the most to answer for. Take note that it tackles only the dogma, and not the people, if you choose to take the bible/torah/Qu'uran literally that is your prerogative, but equally so I have the prerogative to post this.

but that little disclaimer out of the way, without further ado, I present:
Why We Should All Be Satanists! (I did say read at own risk.)

Section one: Original Sin
Having gone to a Catholic primary school, I consider myself to know a little bit about this subject, but I will present it in a very irreverent script for those that need to catch up.

Scene 1: int 'Garden of Eden'

God: Oh, aren't I happy and joyful. I just created the world! Here, Adam, have a girlfriend*.
Adam: Oh, pretty! ^_^
God: Now behave you two... All that you see is yours, except that easily accessible and conspicuous tree over there with the big neon sign saying DO NOT TOUCH! Yes I am that naive.
Adam and Eve: TRALALALALA! *Skip merrily*

Scene two: by tree
Eve: Tralalala... I am naive of all things moral.
Adam: As am I... ooh! a flower! {exit}
Satan, he who is called Lucifer, spawn of the very darkness itself, prince of lies, king of all that is evil: What a brilliant idea I just had! I'll turn myself into a snake.
Eve: I am lazing under a pretty tree which I'm not allowed to eat, oh what fun.
Satan, spawn of whatever (in snake form): Hey Eve, you know what would be REALLY cool?
Eve: No...
Lucifer: Eating that fruit thingy.
Eve: But God said not to.
Lucifer: Hey, you guys don't know the difference between good and evil anyway, or at least you won't until you eat the fruit, so how do you know disobeying God is a bad thing?
Eve: Point *eats*
Adam: ZOMG!
Eve: Eat up! It's nice!
Adam: *Shugs* whatever.
Eve: I feel funny, I have a feeling that we've just done something bad.
Adam: Too late now... maybe if we say we're really sorry...
Eve: We shouldn't even be sorry, because we shouldn't know the difference between good and evil!
Adam: Point... HIDE!
they hide

Scene three: Also by tree
Adam: Uh... God, we're really sorry, but we ate from your tree thingy.
God:...
Adam: Uh... God?
Eve: I think we broke him...
God:...
Adam:...
Lucifer: XD
God: ZOMGSPLOSION! WRATH**! PAINOFCHILDBIRTH! BANISHMENT FOREVER!

Scene four: Outside Eden
Angel: Um... isn't sending them out into the wilderness as mortals and making me guard this gate thingy with a flaming sword a bit too much like overkill?
God:...
Angel: Shutting up...

Pan to Adam and Eve. Eve is trying, unsuccessfully, to start a fire.

Adam: Well this sucks...

*I choose not to address apocryphal stories about Lillith at this point, because of its irrelevance to the article. THAT's a subject for another time.
**isn't that a deadly sin anyway?
Fin

*Waits for applause*
Okay, so that was the slightly condensed version.
Anyway.
A couple of points need to be addressed here.

You would not punish a small child for something they didn't know was wrong, would you?
Of course not, you would explain to them first that it was wrong and you shouldn't kick daddy there because it hurts quite a bit. Then you punish them if they re-offend.
So by extension, can you call something a sinful act if the person doesn't know it's sinful?
Wikipedia has the following to say on sin:
"any willful disregard for the norms revealed by God is a sin." Any willful disregard. So really, the name of 'original sin' does not stand here.
Catholocism also states the following about the different types of sin:
According to Catholicism, a venial sin is a sin which meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. it does not concern a "grave matter",
2. it is not committed with full knowledge, or
3. it is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent.

Such a sin involves a "temporary loss of grace" from God.

Temporary loss of grace. Does "ZOMGSPLOSION! WRATH! EVENTUALDEATH! PAINOFCHILDBIRTH! ETERNALBANISHMENT!" sound temporary to you?

I didn't think so.

So to recap:
God creates people who don't know that disobeying him is a Bad Thing. When they eventually do, as newly created curious beings with no concept of morality are eventually going to do, he blows up in their face and curses them with, among other things, mortality, childbirth pain and eternal banishment for paradise on Earth.
God is Love

Why do I always get pompously philosophical after watching thought provoking movies?

2006-04-14T12:54:19Z

first soapbox-ey type article.
And, like my MSNSpace blog says, entirely due to V for Vendetta.
I highly reccomend watching that if you haven't
Without further ado...

Morals, Who Needs 'Em?

After watching the movie 'V for Vendetta' my sister and I were driving back home, chatting about the various philosophical issues relevant to the movie. One was pertinent to the question "Who were the 'good guys' of the film. Our discussion went something like this.
Is a man judged by his motives or his actions. If it is by his actions, then is it by their reasoning or their consequences.
It can't be by their consequences, Would you call a man who leaps in front of a bus to save his 5 year old daughter, but who in doing so accidentally sends the bus careening into a wall, killing all inside, a 'bad man'? you cannot. The man, while responsible for the deaths of those people, did not intend to kill them. We do not punish people who commit manslaughter the same as we do murderers, and this is because of the distinction we draw between consequence and intent.
Yet it cannot be their reasoning for the same reason. If we will admit that mistakes are less morally reprehensible, then we must also say that reasoning based on a flawed premise must also fall under this umbrella, because people do not know they are reasoning under a flawed premise, if they knew it was flawed, then it would not be reason, it would be emotion.
Yet also it cannot be someone's motives. Hitler is the epitome of a 'Very Bad Man' in western culture, yet if you look at his motives, he wanted to 'make the world a better place' admittedly, by removing the Jews, the homosexuals, the disabled and the gypsies from it.
One cannot say that trying to 'make the world a better place' is a *bad* thing, now can they? We regard Hitler's actions as morally reprehensible and thus regard him as a Very Bad Man. Yet we have just seen that neither someone's actions, nor the reasoning behind it can be what a man is judged on.
So what is it that defines a person as good and bad?
It must be the opinion of the judge. For without a judge, how can someone be judged?
Yet there seems to be something very wrong with saying that Hitler was a bad man just because people think he is. Does that mean that if everyone thought killing the Jews was a good idea then it *would* be?

At this point we decided not to continue this line of philisophical thought, and move onto the topic of how silly it is to blow up a building surrounded by innocent civillians and your supporters.
What with the debris, and the schrapnel and the death and the GLAVEN!

guestyperson @ 2006-04-11T19:08:00

2006-04-11T09:38:51Z

Okay, sorry about that bad link. I've changed the permissions to public so anyone can see it now.

Update! Amazing!

2006-04-10T10:14:32Z

Hey! a lot has happened since my last update.
In fact, four months have happened.
Rowing is over, and for PAC rowing, over forever, at least from the viewpoint of an oarsman, I may come back to coach.
HMS Pinnafore is coming along well... I've been cast as the evil one yet again. Methinks Mr Hopkins is trying to tell me something there...
I've started a new novel, and this time... SHOCK HORROR! It's not fantasy! Look out for "Death of a Dowager" my new murder mystery, 1920's style, to be posted chapter by chapter in this journal.

Year twelve is going swimmingly.
I didn't get too drunk at the HOR afterparty, or at least not as much as Ed Stollery who spent the night shirtless and hanging from the ceiling.

Methinks I need to spice up this livejournal a bit so I will be using this as a soapbox and novel chapter posting centre from now on. If you want to find stuff to do with my day to day life, go here: http://spaces.msn.com/le-moff-jeune/

YEEEAH! WOOT!

2005-11-30T01:46:04Z

50,343 / 50,000
(100.7%)

That is all I have to say.

guestyperson @ 2005-11-16T06:40:00

2005-11-16T20:11:57Z

NaNoWriMo update

20,573 / 50,000
(41.1%)

30,000 words with fifteen days remaining (including today) makes 2,000 words a day. I can handle that...

NaNoWriMo update

2005-11-08T09:18:46Z

I'm participating in National Novel Writing Month. Huzzah.

5,226 / 50,000
(10.5%)

</update>

guestyperson @ 2005-10-07T22:26:00

2005-10-07T12:57:01Z

Yay! I can make a cut!

I guess I should post something...

<td align="center">

Take this quiz at QuizGalaxy.com</td>

How pensive of me...

Update on my not so interesting life

2005-10-07T12:27:30Z

I saw Howl's Moving Castle with my Girlfriend on Tuesday. It's an excellent movie. Doesn't live up to Diana Wynne Jones' book, but it's a really good film in its own right. All Miyazaki films are, I also saw another one, Laputa - Castle in the Sky. Methinks I'm going to have to look more into this Miyazaki fellow, he's a very good director.

Oh, I forgot to mention that I had a girlfriend before this post. I really should be going squee over that onstead of a movie... *Sheepish grin*

Her name's Beth Forest and she's about my shoulder height with dark-blondish/lightish-brown hair. Really nice, incredibly insane. Her friend Ellen is even freakier though... scary people this girl has for friends. We catch the train together after school and she's a former rower as well so we have a lot in common. (If you did rowing you'd understand why that one thing is a LOT in common.)

Speaking of which, rowing season has started, as has my new writing project that I mentioned earlier (See entry from April 7th). I have the plot all planned out finally and I'm ready to start writing chapters. It's called Siren Song and is based in a generic city with a generic boarding school and generic teachers, except for three who happen to be amzing magical people who fight the forces of evil.

guestyperson @ 2005-09-28T19:29:00

2005-09-28T09:50:59Z

Click here.
Take the quiz.
Post your results.
1) Where would shrapnelshrike most like to visit? Kylie
2) If krissywonder commanded an army, who would be his/her followers? everyone, charismatic girl that she is
3) What flavor of jello would pokedigimaniac be? Rasberry
4) Does omgthings have a big secret? if it is, it's a secret
5) When did you last call sezzah? about a month ago
6) Is sezzah friends with wondergirl_kate? no
7) What languages does le_brouillard speak? dunno
8) What would sezzah give omgthings for his/her birthday? A pet llama
9) Is pokedigimaniac in a relationship? with himself
10) Would wondergirl_kate and fishness make a good couple? *Thinks* XD
11) le_brouillard's hair color? urple
12) If tainty took over the world, who would be happy? me
13) Is le_brouillard a nerd? definately
14) Does fishness know krissywonder? I don't think so
15) What would sezzah do differently in your shoes? dance, I can't dance in any shoes.
16) Could you see wondergirl_kate and pokedigimaniac together? *Thinks* More XD
17) What animal does le_brouillard remind you of? Leopard
18) What is shrapnelshrike's favorite color? sex
19) What is krissywonder's biggest flaw? too sensitive sometimes.
20) Where was le_brouillard born? Cardboardia, or at least I like to think so.
21) How many monkeys could le_brouillard fight at once and win against? billions
22) How long have you known tainty? ages
23) How long would wondergirl_kate dating tainty last? not very long
24) What song/movie would you recommend to omgthings? Advent Children. I reccomend that to everone!
25) Have you flirted with fishness? seriously? no. Jokingly? maybe
26) Are fishness and pokedigimaniac going out? *Thinks* even more XD
27) What is krissywonder's shoe size? huge
28) Did wondergirl_kate break up with you? no
29) Does omgthings have a crush on shrapnelshrike? probably not, he's gay, married and on the other side of the country
30) Is le_brouillard an emo? dunno
31) Would pokedigimaniac be a better ninja or pirate? pirate probably
32) One quality you find attractive in krissywonder? she's exuberant
33) One thing you can't stand about tainty? the fact that we never talk anymore!
34) Is le_brouillard a college student? Dunno
35) Is omgthings introverted or extroverted? Extroverted
36) If le_brouillard was a superhero, who would be his/her archnemesis? ME! BWAHAHA!
37) What planet should wondergirl_kate be from? Pluto
38) le_brouillard's eye color? dunno
39) What do you agree with shrapnelshrike about? Everything, she's too like me and that's scary.
40) Where was le_brouillard born? YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED ME THAT!
41) What mental disorder does tainty remind you of? all of them
42) Would shrapnelshrike and fishness look good together? definately... XD
43) Are tainty and le_brouillard going steady? *Thinks* *Dies laughing*
44) Is krissywonder athletic? probably
45) What would tainty think of le_brouillard? dunno
46) What exotic animal would tainty like as a pet? whale! Everyone likes whales!
47) Which of your friends should sezzah go out with? Hugh. He's pretty cool
48) If sezzah were hanging off a cliff, what would wondergirl_kate do? laugh
49) How tall is omgthings? fairly
50) If tainty and fishness were spliced together, what would it be like? one humungous red blob that would eat the planet!
51) Do tainty and krissywonder go to the same school? nope
52) If omgthings and wondergirl_kate were siamese twins, where would they be joined? the toenail
53) What rank would pokedigimaniac have in a giant robot army? General
54) Thoughts on krissywonder? really nice girl. Shame I never get to see her IRL.
55) Would you set up sezzah and le_brouillard? maybe
56) If omgthings had a superpower, what would it be? Uberness
57) Does tainty travel a lot? dunno
58) Is wondergirl_kate single? yes
59) Which president would wondergirl_kate be likely to idolize? Lincon
60) Is le_brouillard related to krissywonder? no
61) If shrapnelshrike took over the world, who would suffer? random actors that would be forced to kiss each other for her amusement
62) What animal should sezzah be combined with? A cat, then she wouldn't trip over so much
63) Where did you first meet tainty? I haven't yet
64) Does krissywonder go to your school? no
65) How would pokedigimaniac conquer the world? subtly so no-one would know until it's too late
66) Is krissywonder 1337? definately
67) Is tainty a high school student? I think so
68) Does tainty do drugs? she's on SOMETHING
69) What would you do if you found out tainty has a crush on you? Complain about the cost of airfares to america these days
70) Is pokedigimaniac dead sexy? *Thinks* *Explodes while laughing* possibly...
71) Does omgthings smoke? maybe
72) Has le_brouillard dyed their hair? probably
73) Do you have a crush on fishness? no, no offense
74) Do you have le_brouillard's screenname? yeah
75) If sezzah and krissywonder were spliced together, what would be its name? Krizzor the mighty!
76) What is tainty's favorite movie? dunno
77) Would you wrestle pokedigimaniac in jello? Depends on the flavour.
78) Are tainty and fishness married? no
79) What is le_brouillard's favorite band/artist? dunno
80) How would le_brouillard kill krissywonder? with a 16 ton weight
81) What word best describes tainty? drugs
82) What video game does tainty remind you of? Super Mario Sunshine
83) Does le_brouillard have a dog? dunno
84) Is krissywonder your best friend? She's up there
85) Is wondergirl_kate related to you? no
86) Have you ever dated wondergirl_kate? no, shame really
87) What would you do if pokedigimaniac died? Cry and go emo
88) Is shrapnelshrike popular? yeah
89) What is sezzah allergic to? me
90) Does tainty drink? Pure molten sugar? yes. Alcohol? no
91) Has shrapnelshrike been to your house/dorm? no
92) Would you make out with wondergirl_kate? depends on whether we were going out or not
93) Would wondergirl_kate go out with fishness? hmmm... interesting concept.
94) Would you ever date pokedigimaniac? he likes to think I would
95) What is omgthings's favorite game? Naked twister
96) What color should tainty dye their hair? Urple
97) What do you disagree with shrapnelshrike about? Nothing
98) What is tainty's favorite food? Ectoplasm
99) What comic book character would krissywonder be? Catwoman, just because I want to see her in bondage gear
100) Do you think shrapnelshrike is hot? She's teh smex

guestyperson @ 2005-09-27T20:39:00

2005-09-27T11:10:31Z

REAL reasons Americans/Australians/bigoted idiots are opposed to gay marriage...

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans/Australians/bigoted idiots always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America/Australia.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

</sarcasm>

I laughed so hard when I saw that on Hikaness' journal. So true.

guestyperson @ 2005-09-20T21:27:00

2005-09-20T11:58:23Z

http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?James%20Moffatt

Just because I'm bored and sez is trying to get me to update.

guestyperson @ 2005-08-30T19:47:00

2005-08-30T10:19:24Z

Okay, this is the first and last time I'll ever post something like this on my blog, for the simple reason that I think it's a good idea, and I'm fishing for compliments.

One little compliment can make you feel amazing. So give me a compliment, anything in the entire world, even that my shoelaces are pretty. Put this in your journal. And once you get some comments, put that entry in a memory or tag and when you are feeling down, just go to that entry and this will remind that you're not so bad in other people's eyes after all.
Comments are going to be screened so none of you will know if I'm uber-popular and get over 100 comments on this or a total loser who doesn't get any.

guestyperson @ 2005-08-21T08:35:00

2005-08-20T23:06:33Z

Guestyperson's LJ stalker is pokedigimaniac!

pokedigimaniac is stalking you because they heard you are awesome in bed, and they want to find out. They are also slowly poisoning you!

LJ Stalker Finder
From Go-Quiz.com

Anyway... onto other news.

NARWHAL DIVING UPDATE!

986

HAH! Beat that Sez!

Re: Re: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: OMG THIS ROX0RS LOLZ! ROFLMOA

2005-08-20T22:58:27Z

.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........
...........
............
.............
..............
.............
............
...........
..........
.........
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
Keep scrolling...
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........
...........
............
.............
..............
.............
............
...........
..........
.........
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
Keep scrolling...
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........
...........
............
.............
..............
.............
............
...........
..........
.........
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
Keep scrolling...
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........
...........
............
.............
..............
.............
............
...........
..........
.........
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
I got over 20 chain letters in my inbox over the last two days.

Now if anyone ever sends me a chain letter again I will personally hunt them down and brand the subject of that chain letter into their forehead.