• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Stature

Story Wednesday September 6, 2017

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, animalia said:

Ehat makes you guys think Sam is attracked to Sarah? Maybe Sam sees Sarah as a friend and worries Sarah is attracted to them but will be disappointed when they find out they are PHYSICALLY female?

 I am only guessing at Sam's sexual orientation based on statistics. There is not saying Sam can't be an exception.

I'm thinking Sam knew this was going to happen one day. Sam just wasn't ready for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e) They might have spotted the cloaked figure in the center of the mall, or some of the commotion cause by it, seeing as Dan put in a number of background reactions that Elliot and Ashley were oblivious to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, animalia said:

Ehat makes you guys think Sam is attracked to Sarah?

The fact they are going on date. I mean, sure, neither of them are comfortable with calling it a date, but I don't think Sam would mislead Sarah if he wasn't interested in her. Compare this with Susan, who didn't mind spending time with Catalina, but immediately tried to make clear it wouldn't be date. Of course Catalina realized it quickly.

9 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

e) They might have spotted the cloaked figure in the center of the mall, or some of the commotion cause by it, seeing as Dan put in a number of background reactions that Elliot and Ashley were oblivious to.

Oh, right, the "they are actually looking at something else than Elliots tracts of land" option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2017 at 2:37 PM, mlooney said:

Right.  Quite awhile ago they became the "Guy" Family in my head canon.  Having to known not the same people having a relationship, even a close relationship off screen doesn't make me want to push the shiny candy coloured button about all characters being a known character and the The Dan doesn't seem to really use conservation of detail as much as some teachers say you should.

IMHO excessive conservation of detail creates worlds that seem bare. Face it, reality is mostly made of irrelevant details. I like worlds with enough detail to seem real. And characters who, even if they are really minor in this story, feel like they have their own stories.

Unfortunately, some critiques of my writing say I go too far in the opposite direction. One chapter of a story I'm working on has dialog with three characters, and only one of those characters appears at all in any other chapter. Got a couple of suggestions that this chapter isn't needed.

23 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I think any kind of mistaken self-assessment would be shaky ground at best.

Once one has a clear understanding of what genderfluid is and what a transsexual is, and one also has a clear understanding of how they personally feel, genderfluid and trans are going to be hard to mix up. 

My view of that is that we're trying to draw sharp boundaries between different parts of a cloud. And while there clearly are different parts, the sharp boundaries mostly don't exist.

In particular, the boundary between genderfluid and gender-neutral is rather fuzzy. Also between gender-neutral and agender. For that matter I'm married to someone whom I suspect is mildly transgender - and that person agrees I have reasonable grounds for that suspicion.

But we don't exactly have well-defined scales and calibrated tests for this stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

My view of that is that we're trying to draw sharp boundaries between different parts of a cloud. And while there clearly are different parts, the sharp boundaries mostly don't exist.

In particular, the boundary between genderfluid and gender-neutral is rather fuzzy. Also between gender-neutral and agender. For that matter I'm married to someone whom I suspect is mildly transgender - and that person agrees I have reasonable grounds for that suspicion.

But we don't exactly have well-defined scales and calibrated tests for this stuff...

The only test can be good self-knowledge.  The last thing we ever want is to have an authoritative body define personal matters like gender and attraction.  What we are has to be our decision.  And that's where the cloud-cutting comes in.

To be honest I'm not sure "cloud" is the proper metaphor.  Clouds don't cut because they constantly shift.  An individual''s sex, gender and attraction to my knowledge don't shift.  Even "genderfluid" is always genderfluid.   It might be better to consider this an issue of focus.  We may not have enough resolution on the topic to make a precision cut or clearly identify which aspects of gender and sex lie along spectra.

My point doesn't actually deal with the messy and chaotic real world but the simplified world of EGS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

IMHO excessive conservation of detail creates worlds that seem bare. Face it, reality is mostly made of irrelevant details. I like worlds with enough detail to seem real. And characters who, even if they are really minor in this story, feel like they have their own stories.

Unfortunately, some critiques of my writing say I go too far in the opposite direction. One chapter of a story I'm working on has dialog with three characters, and only one of those characters appears at all in any other chapter. Got a couple of suggestions that this chapter isn't needed.

Tell them they will appear in sequel and/or prequel. That's how real professionals are doing it. (It is not necessary to actually plan any other story from the same universe. Wait for them begging for it.)

24 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

The only test can be good self-knowledge.  The last thing we ever want is to have an authoritative body define personal matters like gender and attraction.

So, you are atheist? :)

24 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

To be honest I'm not sure "cloud" is the proper metaphor.  Clouds don't cut because they constantly shift.  An individual''s sex, gender and attraction to my knowledge don't shift.  Even "genderfluid" is always genderfluid.   It might be better to consider this an issue of focus.  We may not have enough resolution on the topic to make a precision cut or clearly identify which aspects of gender and sex lie along spectra.

I think they may shift, but nowhere near as much as the person's understanding of them.

Talking about focus implies that if you study the topic long enough, you may eventually get at resolution where you can make the cut. Although it may work if you add that you are looking at fractal. The better you are looking, the harder the cut seem to be. But still ... the border of fractal is hard to define but it exists.

I think the rainbow is better metaphor. Rainbow obviously contains colors blue, red and green. But if try to make the cut between green and blue, well ... you wouldn't know where AND you can't exactly go to the rainbow to make the cut.

(I though this is why LGBT got rainbow as flag, but it doesn't seem so.)

24 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

My point doesn't actually deal with the messy and chaotic real world but the simplified world of EGS.

* Pandora is offended *

:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

So, you are atheist? :)

No actually. 

Commonsense exception then: If God wants to come down here and tell me my orientation I'd be inclined to listen to that.  Humans?  Even those claiming authority from God?  Nopenopenope.

22 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I think they may shift, but nowhere near as much as the person's understanding of them.

Talking about focus implies that if you study the topic long enough, you may eventually get at resolution where you can make the cut. Although it may work if you add that you are looking at fractal. The better you are looking, the harder the cut seem to be. But still ... the border of fractal is hard to define but it exists.

If I study well enough I can make the cut that makes sense for me.  Remember I'm opposed to letting other people make that diagnosis.

24 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I think the rainbow is better metaphor. Rainbow obviously contains colors blue, red and green. But if try to make the cut between green and blue, well ... you wouldn't know where AND you can't exactly go to the rainbow to make the cut.

Emission and absorption spectra.
 

24 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

* Pandora is offended *

:)

Apologies to Pandora then.  Her world is simple compared to ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Commonsense exception then: If God wants to come down here and tell me my orientation I'd be inclined to listen to that.  Humans?  Even those claiming authority from God?  Nopenopenope.

According to some, he's already there. He supposedly said "Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." Doesn't seem to be talking, though.

But those humans who claim authority from God tend to get it even worse than the average ones.

37 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

If I study well enough I can make the cut that makes sense for me.  Remember I'm opposed to letting other people make that diagnosis.

If it's only about yourself, it's not making a cut - it's just saying on which side of the cut you want to end.

37 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:
1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

My point doesn't actually deal with the messy and chaotic real world but the simplified world of EGS.

* Pandora is offended *

:)

Apologies to Pandora then.  Her world is simple compared to ours.

Not about the "simple" part. About the implication that her world is not chaotic enough.

... although, maybe she takes it as declaration that she is needed.

Or as invitation to our world.

(Also, I think it's true, although I wouldn't say it in front of Pandora. So I would also like to apologize.)

(BTW, simple and chaotic are not contradiction)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

According to some, he's already there. He supposedly said "Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." Doesn't seem to be talking, though.

But those humans who claim authority from God tend to get it even worse than the average ones.

God speaks in a voice that is often subtle and easy to mishear over the din of our own thoughts.  You kind of have to sit still and listen.  The learn how to listen.

Humans claimin authority from God have a hard time not getting God and their own egos mixed up.  After all if they have authority from God, God must think like they do, right?  It's a human failing not unique to religion.  It's a part of how power can corrupt.  Certainly anybody or any group who is afforded the ability to have whatever they say taken as the uncontested truth is vulnerable to thinking they're the voice of God.  Metaphorically if not literally.  Resisting the urge to politics by quantifying with examples. 
 

9 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

If it's only about yourself, it's not making a cut - it's just saying on which side of the cut you want to en

The only cuts needed are ones of definition:  What's out there and how can it be best categorized?  Where an individual falls is up to them.

11 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Not about the "simple" part. About the implication that her world is not chaotic enough.

... although, maybe she takes it as declaration that she is needed.

Or as invitation to our world.

(Also, I think it's true, although I wouldn't say it in front of Pandora. So I would also like to apologize.)

For us it's a thermodynamic fact.  Magic makes a mess of thermodynamics (among other things).

I'm not sure even Pandora would care for more interpersonal chaos however.  It isn't often fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

For us it's a thermodynamic fact.  Magic makes a mess of thermodynamics (among other things).

First law of thermodynamics states that total energy in isolated closed system will never change. Magic makes practical proofs that no system is closed. It doesn't NEED to break that law ...

7 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I'm not sure even Pandora would care for more interpersonal chaos however.  It isn't often fun.

Well, I don't consider it fun, but lot of people apparently do ... I'm not sure which case Pandora is.

It's true that in EGS, people are much more likely to solve interpersonal problems by talking than in reality, not speaking about those popular series I don't consider fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

It's true that in EGS, people are much more likely to solve interpersonal problems by talking than in reality, not speaking about those popular series I don't consider fun.

It's a wonder Jerry didn't host his own talk show, it'd be like another show where people chanted "Jerry! Jerry!" while people fought each other over who cheated on who but there'd be hammers involved. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Scotty said:

It's a wonder Jerry didn't host his own talk show, it'd be like another show where people chanted "Jerry! Jerry!" while people fought each other over who cheated on who but there'd be hammers involved.

What makes you think he didn't? ... oh, timeframe. Unless the "not finding the hammers funny" part happened very recently, talk shows didn't exist yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

What makes you think he didn't? ... oh, timeframe. Unless the "not finding the hammers funny" part happened very recently, talk shows didn't exist yet.

It is likely that Jerry grew out of the need to encourage hammerings before Jerry Springer started his talk show. I'm mainly saying that the opportunity was there if Jerry the Immortal wanted to take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The fact they are going on date. I mean, sure, neither of them are comfortable with calling it a date, but I don't think Sam would mislead Sarah if he wasn't interested in her. Compare this with Susan, who didn't mind spending time with Catalina, but immediately tried to make clear it wouldn't be date. Of course Catalina realized it quickly.

Oh, right, the "they are actually looking at something else than Elliots tracts of land" option.

Fair enough. I guess was reading to much into the statistic. Goodness knows I don't fit into any gender/sexualty categoy that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now