So, what are you doing other than gaming and work, nowadays?

Has anyone ever done any letterpress? I just recently finsihed a letterpress piece (one sheet) I did for a friend. I'm not sure why letterpress is so fun? It takes far longer than doing anything by computer, but it does look far better than what you get from a normal printer. Also, there's the fact that it's 100% hand-made, and in fact it is your hand that made it! These days, anything done by letterpress is high-quality. Of course, decades ago everything was done by letterpress, but today it's only for fine books and private presses. Thought I would share the love...

XLord007 wrote:

On pre-marital relations:

Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first? Just because it's a new car doesn't mean it will perform up to your expectations. Some gently used pre-owned vehicles have all the bells and whistles you need, and you can take comfort that they know how to hug the road and properly take corners. As long as their service history is accurate and they've passed their routine maintenance exams, pre-owned vehicles often offer much richer driving experiences than their factory sealed counterparts.

What I'm about to say, you may find offensive (I don't mean to be), but it's probably one of the few things I'm willing to say definitively and without exceptions: Comparing women (or people in general) to automobiles (or other material things in general, but especially machinery) is one of the most misogynistic and sexist things a man/woman/person can do. It objectifies a person like a doll/toy/plaything/something that's designed to be controlled and manipulated to its user's will. And all of everyone here say I'm misogynist/sexist, but I certainly don't think like that.

Sex just isn't much of a thing for me. If you're really, truly in love with the person you're dating/married to, sex will come naturally, easily. I really don't feel the need to find out if a girl is "good at sex" before making my decision to marry them. If you can't trust a person enough in order to marry them, if you can't trust them enough to depend or rely on them, why, then, would you trust them to treat the most sensitive biological parts of your body with respect?

The fact is, I felt pretty damn objectified when the girl I had been dating said I was "just ONE of her guys," when I'd found out that she had, and still is, having sex with multiple different guys. That's what she said to me. "You're JUST one of my guys." As if she just pulled one of us out of a file when she wanted us. As if we're expendable, replaceable; if one doesn't work, another one will. It's one thing to tell a person that you're still dating around (or sexing around), but another completely different thing to make a person think that they've gone steady with you. And when you find out they really are just sexing around, and that they've been hiding that from you, they treat it like it's no big thing, and treat you like some kind of judgmental shmuck if you have a problem with it. How can you can me a judgmental shmuck when you deliberately deceive me?

And she basically completely lost interest in me when I told her that I don't do pre-marital sex. I can't help feel sex being pushed on me, and the notion that it's EXPECTED of me, that I especially resent. Fact is, I'm more interested in a functional relationship in which I have someone else I can actually depend on, talk with, and commiserate with, if necessary. I see sex getting in the way of that. In this politically correct, feministic society we live in these days, us men have been taught to back off with sex and not expect it; why, then, should women expect it, then?

A roommate I once had asked me if I'd ever had sex once, of course I told him no, and he told me that I was probably smart for keeping my "V card," and went on to tell me that, once a person has sex, they crave it, and are like a drug addict looking for their next fix until they get it, and until they next time they crave it again. This, of course, just reinforced my notions of abstinence.

Don't misunderstand, though: I don't look down on people who "live a sex life," but I definitely feel other people's pains that result from them trying to live vicariously. It'd just be difficult for me to share that close an encounter with a woman, and not become emotionally attached; I become emotionally attached enough without sex. I know it's the same way with many other people, too. I hear their stories practically every day.

And not just emotional scars. Emotional scars, I don't think, can be scientifically or empirically proven; but the way some people have sex, they're doing lasting, permanent damage to their own bodies, and those of their partner. But so long as you're doing it to the person you're married to, and it's consensual, at least that damage is being isolated, and the person is willing to tolerate the damage for the pleasure...for the time being.

Vampirism is just one helluva metaphor for secretly having a really strong sexual libido in spite of a society that looks down on it; I think vampires and vampirism have become so popular in recent pop culture, because sexual inhibition is not only prevalent these days, but very publicly prevalent; common people flaunt their "sex lives" like celebrities do.

So, y'see, my ethical code when it comes to sex isn't determined just by some seemingly arbitrary code limited to any religion.

Last edited by Dartannian (Jul 29, 2012)

Jodo Kast wrote:

Dartannian wrote:

The fact is, I felt pretty damn objectified when the girl I had been dating said I was "just ONE of her guys," when I'd found out that she had, and still is, having sex with multiple different guys.

According to a genetic study, 80% of all women have successfully reproduced, while only 40% of all males have reproduced. Source: A Billion Wicked Thoughts

I'm not an expert on genetics, so I will just have to trust the results. In the far past, this was probably very true. A great deal of males were probably killed before they could reproduce (through warfare) or restricted from women by more powerful men. Humans were more like other mammals, in which one male would reproduce with many females.

Well, there's a reason that, when you see a group (pack?) of deer, there's only one, maybe at most, 2 males (the ones with the antlers) while the rest are all females, and the second male is probably the next up-and-coming male; it's because the male deer fight and kill each other for the right to reproduce, thereby leaving only the strongest male with the best DNA (alpha male) and therefore greatest survivability and greatest possibility of creating the best offspring possible, thereby guaranteeing the continuation of the species into the future.

Humans have primal instincts like that, too; I'd swear bullying only exists, because that's men fighting amongst themselves to find the alpha male. In other words, it's all for the sake of sex. Sex and violence go hand-in-hand with each other, as well as with one's survival instincts. Unfortunately, all of that results in conflict. That which continues our species into the future is also the same thing that might kill off our species.

Only thing is, as humans, we're capable of realizing this and preventing it.

Last edited by Dartannian (Jul 29, 2012)

Congrats to NASA on a successful Martian landing for Curiosity! The car-sized lab appears to be working great, and I can't wait to see images! Far more exciting than the Olympics, in my opinion. I'll be following NASA and hope others do too. Curiosity's goal by the way, is to search for life. Some scientists believe Mars likey has or had "primitive" life (ie bacteria) in its early history, and perhaps some bacteria still survives in the soil. If bacteria (life) is discovered on Mars, I really wonder how all the religious fanatics will respond? This could be one of the greatest discoveries humans have ever achieved! By the way, my personal opinon, there is definitely intelligent life in our galaxy (let alone the Universe) other than us.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html

Jodo Kast wrote:

Mars is basically a smaller version of the Earth, so I think it's likely we'll find bacteria. From what I've been able to piece together, Mars leaked all of its hydrogen fairly rapidly, which left oxygen free to poison everything. That's why the planet is red. Water did flow, but not for very long. If Mars had had the same mass as the Earth, then we probably would have War of the Worlds for real.

That is an interesting question. What would the consequences be if two planets in the same solar system both produced intelligent life?

Venus is actually closest to Earth in terms of mass and initial composition. However, Venus is too close to the Sun to support life as we know it. Mars, is too far away from the Sun. Also, the fact that it has much less mass is a problem as you noted. However, Mars may still have water underneath the topsoil, and as you said, maybe there will be bacteria. Now, if Venus was a bit farther from the Sun, in that case, it could have developed life, and then maybe we would be able to visit Venusians! How exciting that would have been... however, it is not to be. Alas, poor Yorick...

longhairmike wrote:

we're fostering another bunny from the shelter. this will be a monthly thing.
http://www.binkybunny.com/FORUM/tabid/5 … fault.aspx

Nice! Always good to support your local shelter, and the bunny is super-cute!

Lately I've been having considerable difficulty remembering when I played certain games, which I need to know to write my essay. I had a long discussion with a friend at work as to when we beat the first Tomb Raider (he couldn't remember). I also couldn't remember when I beat Tomb Raider II. However, I remembered something interesting while trying to fall asleep. I had played the Tomb Raiders on my 35" Sony, which was a CRT 480i set. I did not play them on the new 480p set I bought with the money I made from the ebay user valentwang.

I figured that if I could find when I sold those cd's to valentwang, I could force a limit on when I beat the Tomb Raiders. It took a while to find the feedback, but I made the sales in Nov. of 2001. This means I beat Tomb Raider I and II before November of 2001, because I had bought a 480p set at that time, which I primarily used for Gamecube games.

I haven't been having any problems with Nintendo titles after the NES era, since I almost always bought those on the release dates. I just look at gamefaqs and I know when I played it. It's not that easy with PlayStation titles, since I didn't get a PS until 3 years after its release.

As for NES titles, knowing the launch dates is not that helpful, because I didn't know the launch dates as a kid. I never got NES games as they were released, unless through some coincidence. I could've played a NES game after it had been on the market for 2 years and thought it was brand new; I had no way of checking.

This essay is turning into a big deal now, since I've written 29 pages so far (23,000 words).