The post-umpire report.
May. 26th, 2005 12:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptI'm getting in late tonight after doing my umpiring stint. Today started with a bit of a scare, but it was resolved - I retraced my steps and found an important object, not too far from where it was supposed to be. There was some discussion with the socialist today - the idea of Ortegrity, to him, was too abstract to be practical - by not taking into account the current class-based society, he says, most abstract thought processes are ineffective at producing actual change. There is something to be said about that possibility - of course, in theory, Ortegrity can work that part out with sufficient negotiation rounds, but the design would work much better in the Communist phase of a revolution. We discussed a little bit about logistics and the risks involved in joining a revolution (or not joining a revolution) - not much left in the ideological to discuss, more about the logistical ways of going about it. Food for thought, anyway.
Of course, thinking such thoughts makes one a thoughtcriminal, destined for the prison system, where it can turn a thoughtcriminal into a hardened authority-hating bastard. So avoid those thoughts, and instead, be amused by yet another Virgin Mary sighting, this one in a place where you wouldn't expect.
And if you feel like thinking outside a causal universe's box, there's some writing about the noncausal's signature object - synchronicity. Now, the article itself could be quite a bit of psychobabble, but the examples help bring the idea into clearer focus. So if you're getting lost in the jargon, skip to the bottom and read some examples, then go back. I don't know if it'll help any, but it might.
I got some very interesting responses back from my question - I'm still sorting them a bit. The consensus among those responding, excepting for one who holds himself above the law, is that intimidation is based on the perception of the person who's trying to ask. Since there's a particular vulnerability involved in exposing one's romantic interest, those characters that come across as most likely to attack that vulnerability and stomp on it are intimidating. If that's true, then there's good reason for it - emotional survival instinct. Of course, then there are the ones who float like a butterfly, then bite like a poisonous cobra. But they're not intimidating, they're alluring... right up to the trap point.
Anyway. The question even spawned some relationship advice from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
greyweirdo, although it was the kind of advice that everyone knows and nobody believes. Doesn't mean it isn't good advice, just that nobody believes it. One of those perception things - I see my insides, and judge other people's outsides, and all that.
I tried three times to copy sketch Millicent today. One came out acceptable, one came out as a bust when I screwed up the arms, and one was a flop. Although I do have an idea of what it might be like were Millicent to try and let her bangs grow out a bit. Ms. Mudd wouldn't stand for it, I suspect, though, so we won't know.
Work tomorrow, and then another weekend away from my computer. (And the weekend after that will likely be that way, too.) Whee for birthdays, weddings, and other social engagements. Although I may yet still be able to sneak in some quality .hack gaming time if I plan properly. Hee, hee, hee. G'night, everybody.
Of course, thinking such thoughts makes one a thoughtcriminal, destined for the prison system, where it can turn a thoughtcriminal into a hardened authority-hating bastard. So avoid those thoughts, and instead, be amused by yet another Virgin Mary sighting, this one in a place where you wouldn't expect.
And if you feel like thinking outside a causal universe's box, there's some writing about the noncausal's signature object - synchronicity. Now, the article itself could be quite a bit of psychobabble, but the examples help bring the idea into clearer focus. So if you're getting lost in the jargon, skip to the bottom and read some examples, then go back. I don't know if it'll help any, but it might.
I got some very interesting responses back from my question - I'm still sorting them a bit. The consensus among those responding, excepting for one who holds himself above the law, is that intimidation is based on the perception of the person who's trying to ask. Since there's a particular vulnerability involved in exposing one's romantic interest, those characters that come across as most likely to attack that vulnerability and stomp on it are intimidating. If that's true, then there's good reason for it - emotional survival instinct. Of course, then there are the ones who float like a butterfly, then bite like a poisonous cobra. But they're not intimidating, they're alluring... right up to the trap point.
Anyway. The question even spawned some relationship advice from
greyweirdo, although it was the kind of advice that everyone knows and nobody believes. Doesn't mean it isn't good advice, just that nobody believes it. One of those perception things - I see my insides, and judge other people's outsides, and all that. I tried three times to copy sketch Millicent today. One came out acceptable, one came out as a bust when I screwed up the arms, and one was a flop. Although I do have an idea of what it might be like were Millicent to try and let her bangs grow out a bit. Ms. Mudd wouldn't stand for it, I suspect, though, so we won't know.
Work tomorrow, and then another weekend away from my computer. (And the weekend after that will likely be that way, too.) Whee for birthdays, weddings, and other social engagements. Although I may yet still be able to sneak in some quality .hack gaming time if I plan properly. Hee, hee, hee. G'night, everybody.
