Here is the Penn State Sex Scandal Jerry Sandusky Full Interview that everyone wished they had seen. Sandusky served as an assistant coach for his entire career, mostly at Pennsylvania State University under Joe Paterno, and was one of the most notable major college football coaches never to have held a head coaching position. He received Assistant Coach of the Year awards in 1986 and 1999. In November 2011, he was arrested and charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period.
Seriously. What's wrong with that man?
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Bass Compressor
A compressor is a device, (pedal or rackmount) that decreases the dynamic range of a signal by lowering the gain above a certain threshold. Make sense? Didn't think so. If you want the best explanation regarding what a bass compressor does, read the linked article.
I've always had a bass compressor in my arsenal of gadgets. They can be incredibly useful, but a bass compressor is a tool. If you're using it to fix problems with your playing levels, you're using it wrong. You can fix that with your fingers and your ears. Use a bass compressor to enhance your playing, not mask your mistakes.
I've always had a bass compressor in my arsenal of gadgets. They can be incredibly useful, but a bass compressor is a tool. If you're using it to fix problems with your playing levels, you're using it wrong. You can fix that with your fingers and your ears. Use a bass compressor to enhance your playing, not mask your mistakes.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Southwest Boarding Pass
Don't get me wrong. I love Southwest Airlines. The prices are good. The service is good. The flight attendants can be downright funny at times. But, man, I can't stand their boarding procedure. Cattle calls are just not fun, even when you're flying alone. It's a pain in the neck for families, though.
Unless you're in boarding group A, then the chances are very good you may not be able to sit with your wife and children. That's not good for the family, and it's not good for the other passengers. Kids need to be tended to, but when a mother and father are not sitting with their kids, it's just not easy.
There is a solution, though. You can get your Southwest Boarding Pass processed automatically from your own computer using free software. They just charge a couple of bucks per reservation number. Now you don't have to stress about being on the web exactly 24 hours before your flight to do a web check-in. Just leave your computer on with this software running, and Bob's your uncle!
Unless you're in boarding group A, then the chances are very good you may not be able to sit with your wife and children. That's not good for the family, and it's not good for the other passengers. Kids need to be tended to, but when a mother and father are not sitting with their kids, it's just not easy.
There is a solution, though. You can get your Southwest Boarding Pass processed automatically from your own computer using free software. They just charge a couple of bucks per reservation number. Now you don't have to stress about being on the web exactly 24 hours before your flight to do a web check-in. Just leave your computer on with this software running, and Bob's your uncle!
Monday, August 23, 2010
Mosque at Ground Zero - Publicity Stunt to Start Dialogue?
I am presenting the theory that the proposal for the Cordoba Project (mosque and community center near Ground Zero) was not sincere and that it was essentially an attempt (if you will) of global trolling with the current results being precisely what they wanted (and a good thing, IMHO). I've only had the theory a few hours, so there may be big holes I'm missing. I have no way of proving it short of an admission, so I don't have 100% certainty. My theory can be mostly* falsified if the project actually gets built.
The Goal
Think about it for a moment. What is the one thing that has happened as a result of announcing this project? It has brought "Islamophobia" to the forefront, a term used in the press release by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, one of the two backers behind the project.
The announcement has forced people in all walks of life to confront religious bias. It has forced people who would otherwise have remained silent to speak out against prejudice against Muslims. It has forced a conversation where non-Muslims are pointing out that it's a "peaceful" religion and that most Muslims disassociate themselves from the extremists. It has weeded out politicians that some will call bigots. It has reinforced to Americans freedom of religion.
Essentially, it has brought the discussion of Islamic-American relations to the forefront better than even the most expensive ad campaign, and it hasn't cost a dime.
They Can Still Look Good
And what happens if they choose not to go forward with the project?
The man behind the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, does not seem like an idiot. In fact, he seems fairly intelligent, well informed, and politically savvy. Therefore, I simply cannot imagine that he didn't see this firestorm coming. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think, "Building a mosque and Islamic center where debris from the 9/11 attacks landed? Yeh, that's gonna go over well." I have to believe he knew full well what would happen.
At least one Muslim cleric has spoken out that it would be "insensitive" and be like rubbing salt in the wounds, which good Muslims should avoid. Surely others told him this as well, and as an expert, I would expect him to at least predict this reaction from his constituents. I did, and I'm not brain scientist. Therefore, not only did he go down this path knowing that many non-Muslims would object, but he proceeded knowing that his fellow, mainstream Muslims would object at some level.
In this article, by Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, it reads, "the proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran." Could Imam have not seen this coming? I find that hard to believe. You would think, at least, he'd have the wherewithal to run it by guys like that.
In the ASMA article it says one of the backers, Khan, "finds herself somewhat shocked at everything that is going on." The modifier "somewhat" is interesting and indicates that it wasn't really a surprise (notice that word wasn't even used).
So, I offer that this project was announced knowing full well the firestorm that would result. It's no smoking gun - there isn't one.
Exhibit B: It Doesn't Look Like They Can Pull it off
How serious is the project? After all, it is estimated to require $100M. Before I would announce such a project, I would have a funding plan in place and have money in the bank already. You know, something to tell people that I'm serious.
Well, according to their (Cordoba Initiative) IRS Form 990 as of 2008, they had $18,000 in net assets. They received $80K in contributions in 2005, none in 2006, $15K in 2007 and none in 2008 even though this project, according to AMSA, has been in the works for years. This non-profit is basically Imam and a couple of people doing their thing. There's nothing wrong with that, but to put it in perspective, the JREF, a non-profit that promotes critical thinking, pays the founder, Mr. Randi, twice as much in a year than this group has received in donations over four years. The only way to donate to the Cordoba Initiative is through a generic PayPal button that can be set up in about 10 minutes.
Simply put, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that his group is capable of raising any significant capital. Their filing mentions two upcoming projects (as of 2008), neither of which had anything to do with this rather huge undertaking, so I question the notion that his project has been in the works for several years.
Their "partner" is the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which is another non-profit. It, too, was founded by Imam. I can't find any information on their financials. I will note, however, that on their "In the Press" page there is nothing between July 9, 2004, and July 16, 2010. There, they tell us that fundraising won't really start until they get approval for the landmark. The lack of "news" would indicate to me that they really don't deal in a lot of money.
Basically, the two primary parties, two small non-profits run by Imam, behind the project have not demonstrated that they are even remotely capable of raising this kind of money. They lack the experience, and they have not demonstrated that they have a reasonable start.
That doesn't mean they can't do it, of course. However, there is no evidence that they can. Again, this is not conclusive evidence, but it certainly doesn't support what I could consider a big objection to my theory, which is that this project has a good chance of getting the required money.
Exhibit C: No Mosque Needed
I also question the inclusion of a mosque. As people have pointed out, there are mosques already in the area. As I pointed out, one of them is undergoing expansion and renovation in downtown Manhattan. Their goal is a mere $800,000, and so far they have raised $1,426. This makes me wonder about the ability for Imam to raise $100,000,000.
My point is that they had a choice about including the mosque. Ostensibly, we're told, one was needed. I think that's debatable. I don't know enough to form a solid opinion, but it would seem to me that if another mosque were "really" needed, that one group wouldn't be struggling so hard to expand theirs.
So, why add a mosque to the mix when it seems like none was needed? Again, not conclusive on its own, but it makes me wonder why one was added considering the firestorm that was sure to result.
Exhibit D: Is it Really About Togetherness?
Ostensibly the project is about building bridges and bringing people together, but I don't see any non-Muslim backers or that input was solicited from any other groups. I could be wrong, but Imam's websites would surely mention it, right?
If the project is about togetherness, then why not contact the major religious organizations around the country as well as other groups interested in the same goals? After all, it would greatly increase funding opportunities. At the very least it would have helped public relations to make a joint announcement with other leaders at their side ready to bring a message of peace and reconciliation to their followers.
Now, if they didn't include a mosque, I'm sure there would have been backlash, but I argue not nearly as much. They could have worked together with other faiths and added multiple churches in addition to the mosque. Probably there would be some backlash, but not as much (opinion, of course). However, by having other faiths involved it would have been handled much better with (say) Jewish, Baptist, and Catholic leaders poised at the ready to send a message of cooperation.
I question that this project was about togetherness, and I question that something as simple and obvious as involving other faiths was not done, even if just for public relations. It's just one piece of evidence that could be interpreted many ways.
Exhibit E: Drawing Lines in the Sand
If you read the ASMA press releases about the subject, they are not the least bit conciliatory. In fact, in one press release their concluding sentence ends with, "it's hard to believe the project can be stopped." There are no comments about working with people to reach an understanding. I read that article as drawing a line in the sand, not as it says in the Cordoba Project Mission Statement, "thinking outside the box about international and intercultural conflict resolution also means thinking introspectively about each side's place within its own historical narrative with a view to devising internally oriented solutions."
They don't seem to be saying all that much at all, and what they do say is sure to tick off some people. It seems to me like they are, in a subtle way, allowing a little air to feed the flames. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to fall right in line with my theory.
ConclusionIf I'm right, I think the guy made a brilliant move. It has started an incredible dialogue while at the same time drawing out those who are "Islamophobes." It forced the President to pick a side and forced politicians to reveal something about themselves. It was guaranteed to make people talk and force those who quietly tolerate religious bigotry to speak out. From a Machiavellian point of view, I'm all over it.
And the funny thing is, if you read the Cordoba Project's page entitled Why the Cordoba Initiative, what has happened so far is exactly in line with their stated goals.
Now, let the slings and arrows fly.
* I said mostly falsified, because I could still be right, but Imam could change his mind or unexpected things could happen that would mean the project should proceed. However, based on just what I've presented here, I'd call my theory busted if the project proceeded as planned.
The Goal
Think about it for a moment. What is the one thing that has happened as a result of announcing this project? It has brought "Islamophobia" to the forefront, a term used in the press release by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, one of the two backers behind the project.
The announcement has forced people in all walks of life to confront religious bias. It has forced people who would otherwise have remained silent to speak out against prejudice against Muslims. It has forced a conversation where non-Muslims are pointing out that it's a "peaceful" religion and that most Muslims disassociate themselves from the extremists. It has weeded out politicians that some will call bigots. It has reinforced to Americans freedom of religion.
Essentially, it has brought the discussion of Islamic-American relations to the forefront better than even the most expensive ad campaign, and it hasn't cost a dime.
They Can Still Look Good
And what happens if they choose not to go forward with the project?
- Well, the die-hard bigots will be happy, but there's little chance of winning them over anyway. Call it a wash.
- Moving up the continuum, those "less bigoted" (let's call them "wary" of Muslims) may see it as a gesture of goodwill.
- Those who object on behalf of those who feel "hurt" by this will cluck their tongues and say, "I'm glad they saw how insensitive they were. Maybe they are not so bad after all."
- Those mainstream Muslims who considered it insensitive will approve.
- Those who genuinely thought it was a good idea can console themselves that it was just "too soon" and maintain a feeling of superiority that they were rebuffed.
- The extremist radicals might get pissed, but the Cordoba group would be happy about that. That's a win.
The man behind the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, does not seem like an idiot. In fact, he seems fairly intelligent, well informed, and politically savvy. Therefore, I simply cannot imagine that he didn't see this firestorm coming. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think, "Building a mosque and Islamic center where debris from the 9/11 attacks landed? Yeh, that's gonna go over well." I have to believe he knew full well what would happen.
At least one Muslim cleric has spoken out that it would be "insensitive" and be like rubbing salt in the wounds, which good Muslims should avoid. Surely others told him this as well, and as an expert, I would expect him to at least predict this reaction from his constituents. I did, and I'm not brain scientist. Therefore, not only did he go down this path knowing that many non-Muslims would object, but he proceeded knowing that his fellow, mainstream Muslims would object at some level.
In this article, by Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, it reads, "the proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran." Could Imam have not seen this coming? I find that hard to believe. You would think, at least, he'd have the wherewithal to run it by guys like that.
In the ASMA article it says one of the backers, Khan, "finds herself somewhat shocked at everything that is going on." The modifier "somewhat" is interesting and indicates that it wasn't really a surprise (notice that word wasn't even used).
So, I offer that this project was announced knowing full well the firestorm that would result. It's no smoking gun - there isn't one.
Exhibit B: It Doesn't Look Like They Can Pull it off
How serious is the project? After all, it is estimated to require $100M. Before I would announce such a project, I would have a funding plan in place and have money in the bank already. You know, something to tell people that I'm serious.
Well, according to their (Cordoba Initiative) IRS Form 990 as of 2008, they had $18,000 in net assets. They received $80K in contributions in 2005, none in 2006, $15K in 2007 and none in 2008 even though this project, according to AMSA, has been in the works for years. This non-profit is basically Imam and a couple of people doing their thing. There's nothing wrong with that, but to put it in perspective, the JREF, a non-profit that promotes critical thinking, pays the founder, Mr. Randi, twice as much in a year than this group has received in donations over four years. The only way to donate to the Cordoba Initiative is through a generic PayPal button that can be set up in about 10 minutes.
Simply put, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that his group is capable of raising any significant capital. Their filing mentions two upcoming projects (as of 2008), neither of which had anything to do with this rather huge undertaking, so I question the notion that his project has been in the works for several years.
Their "partner" is the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which is another non-profit. It, too, was founded by Imam. I can't find any information on their financials. I will note, however, that on their "In the Press" page there is nothing between July 9, 2004, and July 16, 2010. There, they tell us that fundraising won't really start until they get approval for the landmark. The lack of "news" would indicate to me that they really don't deal in a lot of money.
Basically, the two primary parties, two small non-profits run by Imam, behind the project have not demonstrated that they are even remotely capable of raising this kind of money. They lack the experience, and they have not demonstrated that they have a reasonable start.
That doesn't mean they can't do it, of course. However, there is no evidence that they can. Again, this is not conclusive evidence, but it certainly doesn't support what I could consider a big objection to my theory, which is that this project has a good chance of getting the required money.
Exhibit C: No Mosque Needed
I also question the inclusion of a mosque. As people have pointed out, there are mosques already in the area. As I pointed out, one of them is undergoing expansion and renovation in downtown Manhattan. Their goal is a mere $800,000, and so far they have raised $1,426. This makes me wonder about the ability for Imam to raise $100,000,000.
My point is that they had a choice about including the mosque. Ostensibly, we're told, one was needed. I think that's debatable. I don't know enough to form a solid opinion, but it would seem to me that if another mosque were "really" needed, that one group wouldn't be struggling so hard to expand theirs.
So, why add a mosque to the mix when it seems like none was needed? Again, not conclusive on its own, but it makes me wonder why one was added considering the firestorm that was sure to result.
Exhibit D: Is it Really About Togetherness?
Ostensibly the project is about building bridges and bringing people together, but I don't see any non-Muslim backers or that input was solicited from any other groups. I could be wrong, but Imam's websites would surely mention it, right?
If the project is about togetherness, then why not contact the major religious organizations around the country as well as other groups interested in the same goals? After all, it would greatly increase funding opportunities. At the very least it would have helped public relations to make a joint announcement with other leaders at their side ready to bring a message of peace and reconciliation to their followers.
Now, if they didn't include a mosque, I'm sure there would have been backlash, but I argue not nearly as much. They could have worked together with other faiths and added multiple churches in addition to the mosque. Probably there would be some backlash, but not as much (opinion, of course). However, by having other faiths involved it would have been handled much better with (say) Jewish, Baptist, and Catholic leaders poised at the ready to send a message of cooperation.
I question that this project was about togetherness, and I question that something as simple and obvious as involving other faiths was not done, even if just for public relations. It's just one piece of evidence that could be interpreted many ways.
Exhibit E: Drawing Lines in the Sand
If you read the ASMA press releases about the subject, they are not the least bit conciliatory. In fact, in one press release their concluding sentence ends with, "it's hard to believe the project can be stopped." There are no comments about working with people to reach an understanding. I read that article as drawing a line in the sand, not as it says in the Cordoba Project Mission Statement, "thinking outside the box about international and intercultural conflict resolution also means thinking introspectively about each side's place within its own historical narrative with a view to devising internally oriented solutions."
They don't seem to be saying all that much at all, and what they do say is sure to tick off some people. It seems to me like they are, in a subtle way, allowing a little air to feed the flames. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to fall right in line with my theory.
ConclusionIf I'm right, I think the guy made a brilliant move. It has started an incredible dialogue while at the same time drawing out those who are "Islamophobes." It forced the President to pick a side and forced politicians to reveal something about themselves. It was guaranteed to make people talk and force those who quietly tolerate religious bigotry to speak out. From a Machiavellian point of view, I'm all over it.
And the funny thing is, if you read the Cordoba Project's page entitled Why the Cordoba Initiative, what has happened so far is exactly in line with their stated goals.
Now, let the slings and arrows fly.
* I said mostly falsified, because I could still be right, but Imam could change his mind or unexpected things could happen that would mean the project should proceed. However, based on just what I've presented here, I'd call my theory busted if the project proceeded as planned.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Craigslist Posting in Phoenix
Craigslist can be an effective marketing tool, but you have to do it right and do it consistently. I post a number of ads in the Craigslist Phoenix as well as a few other areas around the country. I create great looking ads using HTML so that I can integrate photos and artwork, especially your logo.
I post all of my ads by hand and vary the time of day to reach different people. I monitor the mailbox used for the ads and forward responses. Because I do this for a number of clients, I get to see all fraudulent responses (they send the same message to each of my clients), so I don't forward those to you, which saves you time and potential loss.
After the first month I will give you an analysis of how many times your ads are viewed. If your business is appropriate for different categories, I will vary the categories and then tell you which categories are the most effective. Sometimes it's hard to guess where people look for different businesses.
My standard fee is $50 per month for posting a single ad per day, seven days per week (the optimal rate I have found). There is a three month minimum to start. The minimum term is in place because I don't bill for designing and creating the different HTML ads, which must be done by hand (CL only allows a limited subset of HTML). I don't charge for making changes to the ads unless you want the whole thing completely redone (never happened before). It also covers the analysis of ad view statistics. If you want me to give you the data for other months, I typically do that at no charge provided you don't want it too frequently. My experience is that the first month is typical of any other month.
I post all of my ads by hand and vary the time of day to reach different people. I monitor the mailbox used for the ads and forward responses. Because I do this for a number of clients, I get to see all fraudulent responses (they send the same message to each of my clients), so I don't forward those to you, which saves you time and potential loss.
After the first month I will give you an analysis of how many times your ads are viewed. If your business is appropriate for different categories, I will vary the categories and then tell you which categories are the most effective. Sometimes it's hard to guess where people look for different businesses.
My standard fee is $50 per month for posting a single ad per day, seven days per week (the optimal rate I have found). There is a three month minimum to start. The minimum term is in place because I don't bill for designing and creating the different HTML ads, which must be done by hand (CL only allows a limited subset of HTML). I don't charge for making changes to the ads unless you want the whole thing completely redone (never happened before). It also covers the analysis of ad view statistics. If you want me to give you the data for other months, I typically do that at no charge provided you don't want it too frequently. My experience is that the first month is typical of any other month.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Internet is Real Life
eff, this *is* real life. The vBulletin software is just the medium, just like a telephone or letters through the mail. Sure, people behave differently than they might in a one-on-one situation, but people behave differently in all types of situations. That's just human nature. The reality is that people fall in love and make bitter enemies over the Internet. I'm sure many of the people who donated money to the Lancasters had never met them in person, but their feelings and reactions were no less real.
You can't have it both ways. I've seen you dismiss people with "it's just an Internet forum" before, yet at the same time I've seen you take things very personally. You can tell us it's not worth "taking up arms" over, but the same thing applies to you and the mods when it comes to enforcing the Membership Agreement. Either we all take it seriously or we don't.
You complain about the mods feeling "attacked" for having their authority challenged and their judgment questioned. Well, get over it. That's life. If you or the mods can't take it, step aside and let those better suited take over. There's a rule in place to deal with personal attacks. If you or the mods feel personally offended by some of the questions, try sitting on the other side of the fence and having the mods tell you that the words you wrote don't mean what they say, and then get suspended for it. Later, try to have a discussion about it here in FM and have the mods close the thread without really answering your question. Oh, and if you dare mention it again, watch yourself get suspended a second time. I guess "it's only an Internet forum" applies to the members and not the mods.
Being a mod is a hard job, of that there's no doubt. However, it is what it is. When you're given power and authority, it will be challenged and questioned. When you have power and authority over skeptics - people who by their very nature question everything - it's going to happen even more. Many here are quite intelligent and skilled at debate. They don't give up their positions easily. That's just the way it's going to be.
I don't know what you expect by offering a forum to discuss moderation issues, but I don't see anything here that's unexpected in the least. The Membership Agreement as it stands is well equipped to handle the debates here without any special rules. The only thing special about this forum is that the mods are expected to monitor it. As has been suggested many times before, when the mods are through engaging the membership in a thread, post a mod box saying as much instead of closing it.
What you fail to understand is that people generally don't like to be silenced. Skeptics, many of whom thrive on debate, don't react well at all to it. If they feel aggrieved or that they are being treated unfairly, it becomes especially upsetting. Yeh, I know, it's only an Internet forum. Fine. Then let it be an Internet forum and let the members discuss things among themselves instead of closing threads. I bet you'll have a lot fewer cases of people going off-topic with their beefs because they will no longer feel silenced. Do people "game" the system on the rest of the board? Why do you think that is?
Your dismissive and insulting attitude towards some members contributes to the problem. You seem to find it very easy to wave your hands and accuse people of childish playground antics or deliberately "gaming" the system. You should really stop to think about how you could be wrong about that. Take me as a case study. Start with my first posts in FM over a year ago and follow my progression from "modette" to "gamer" with an open mind. I'll gladly accept an accusation that I take things too seriously (though I would argue that I take it no less seriously than Darat), but I'm offended that I'm accused of doing this for my own amusement.
You can't have it both ways. I've seen you dismiss people with "it's just an Internet forum" before, yet at the same time I've seen you take things very personally. You can tell us it's not worth "taking up arms" over, but the same thing applies to you and the mods when it comes to enforcing the Membership Agreement. Either we all take it seriously or we don't.
You complain about the mods feeling "attacked" for having their authority challenged and their judgment questioned. Well, get over it. That's life. If you or the mods can't take it, step aside and let those better suited take over. There's a rule in place to deal with personal attacks. If you or the mods feel personally offended by some of the questions, try sitting on the other side of the fence and having the mods tell you that the words you wrote don't mean what they say, and then get suspended for it. Later, try to have a discussion about it here in FM and have the mods close the thread without really answering your question. Oh, and if you dare mention it again, watch yourself get suspended a second time. I guess "it's only an Internet forum" applies to the members and not the mods.
Being a mod is a hard job, of that there's no doubt. However, it is what it is. When you're given power and authority, it will be challenged and questioned. When you have power and authority over skeptics - people who by their very nature question everything - it's going to happen even more. Many here are quite intelligent and skilled at debate. They don't give up their positions easily. That's just the way it's going to be.
I don't know what you expect by offering a forum to discuss moderation issues, but I don't see anything here that's unexpected in the least. The Membership Agreement as it stands is well equipped to handle the debates here without any special rules. The only thing special about this forum is that the mods are expected to monitor it. As has been suggested many times before, when the mods are through engaging the membership in a thread, post a mod box saying as much instead of closing it.
What you fail to understand is that people generally don't like to be silenced. Skeptics, many of whom thrive on debate, don't react well at all to it. If they feel aggrieved or that they are being treated unfairly, it becomes especially upsetting. Yeh, I know, it's only an Internet forum. Fine. Then let it be an Internet forum and let the members discuss things among themselves instead of closing threads. I bet you'll have a lot fewer cases of people going off-topic with their beefs because they will no longer feel silenced. Do people "game" the system on the rest of the board? Why do you think that is?
Your dismissive and insulting attitude towards some members contributes to the problem. You seem to find it very easy to wave your hands and accuse people of childish playground antics or deliberately "gaming" the system. You should really stop to think about how you could be wrong about that. Take me as a case study. Start with my first posts in FM over a year ago and follow my progression from "modette" to "gamer" with an open mind. I'll gladly accept an accusation that I take things too seriously (though I would argue that I take it no less seriously than Darat), but I'm offended that I'm accused of doing this for my own amusement.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
