More useless info.
So, I slept late, even though I intended to sleep early last night. I just kept on going on Wikipedia, then went to discussing the interpretation of a gigue by Bach, and discovered those interesting things I posted about last night, and...whatever. Went to bed at 4 am. I've gotta fix that before the semester starts, so I don't run into the same problems as I historically have.
So, I've been thinking about character themes for the role-playing game I'm making. So far, here's their status:
The protagonists:
NOT YET: Christie, Jenna, Estellus, Lauren, Rohan, George, Jareth, Erica, Matt, Marc, Daniela, ?Sarah, Jessica, Steph, Nicole, Cid, Buster, ?Ruth, Sam, Andrew
Glenn: chosen, but not decided
Chris: chosen, but not decided
Meredith: fully composed, orchestration possible later
Zell: under development
Ginger: chosen, but not decided
Erin: chosen, undergoing revision
Cristina: chosen and decided
Sara: fully composed (first version)
("?" means that I'm not sure if the character will be used.)
The antagonists:
Dr. Kain: (theme a) fully composed, (theme b) chosen (initial battle theme chosen, but revisions needed)
Gen. Donald Golbez: chosen; revision under consideration
Cendy, Serge, Zeal: two choices under consideration
Dick: not yet (will be based on battle theme, which is chosen)
other antagonists: not even developed yet
Yeah, I know, I have a LONG way to go before this game even starts to materialize.
In the news: looks like both Taft and "Taft" are in trouble. I remember finding William Howard Taft (the late former President and Supreme Court Justice) rather admirable, so I was reading the article, and found how the Taft name was praised for being associated with conservatism and ethics. (And being tarnished by the current Taft, of course.)
Which actually reminds me of the question: what IS conservatism (or "conservativism", as I used to misspell it)? What does it mean to be a conservative? I was suddenly reminded of that 60 Minutes article about that guy who wants to drill all over Wyoming for methane, and drill all over, property owners notwithstanding. He gives a pittance of compensation to the cowboys on whose land he's dumping his huge machinery and through which he's taking his trucks. AND, to add to the brazen arrogance, he even wants to re-nickname Wyoming the "Methane State" instead of the "Cowboy State". Now, I don't know much of anything about Wyoming, apart from the fact that it has 3 electoral votes, is out west, is named the Cowboy State, and usually votes Republican in presidential elections, but still...personally, I'd side with the cowboys. Just because this oddball realizes there's money to be made by drilling on other people's land for methane doesn't mean he should. Unfortunately, I remember hearing (don't hold me to this; I'm not sure about it) that a few courts have been ruling in favor of the arse. (And how dare he throw to the winds years upon years of cowboy culture, in relabeling the state after his own enterprise.)
And I still have beef with the recent Eminent Domain ruling from the Court.
Okay, enough politics in this post.
Oh yeah, after reading Wikipedia's article on Silly Putty, I've got to wonder...if it were invented in Coney Island, could they have "killed two birds with one stone" and called it "Silly Coney Putty"?
[end bad pun]
On another note, sometimes I ask myself, is it okay to aim for more than one girl at once? So far, I've taken it as a moral rule that I should only aim for one girl at a time, and even if not a matter of ethics, what if two were to respond favorably? Thing is, though, I sometimes also wonder if I have too many 'checks' in place for myself. After all, I'm short, unattractive, unassuming, non-"manly", and I'm pretty sure that my appearance safely falls outside of categories like "cute", "hot", "bishonen", or "handsome". (Please inform me if I don't; anonymous e-mails from root are valid as long as there's some clue to your identity. Actually, lol. This is more of a "rhetorical command", but you're welcome to have fun.)
Of course, I could increase my chances by "aiming plurally", but on the other hand, there's still the ethical question. Just because something expedites a result doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do, or that it won't cause negative consequences later. But then, on the other hand, I seem to end up being slow and too cautious at this.
Speaking of ethics, I hope that I'll get lotteried into STS.011 next term.
Ah, first lesson at parallel parking today. And first time I'm starting to think of a use for thickly sponge-padded walls, outside of the stereotypical usage in a mental asylum. Because it's too hard to see if you've yet crashed into the theoretical car behind or in front of you.
Highlight of the day: reading about a chemical reaction that is inhibited by 'mass action', and writing "MASS ACTION LAWSUIT" in the margin of the book. Yay for nerd jokes. I love nerd jokes. Do you?
(Runner-up: big'ase, carrase, humanirase, flyingase, oopsase, settinplase, shoolase, allyurbase, belongtuase, losingfase, stufuase, ecossase, pansyase, candyase, smileyphase, surplase, erase, misplase, hawnucrase...)
So, I've been thinking about character themes for the role-playing game I'm making. So far, here's their status:
The protagonists:
NOT YET: Christie, Jenna, Estellus, Lauren, Rohan, George, Jareth, Erica, Matt, Marc, Daniela, ?Sarah, Jessica, Steph, Nicole, Cid, Buster, ?Ruth, Sam, Andrew
Glenn: chosen, but not decided
Chris: chosen, but not decided
Meredith: fully composed, orchestration possible later
Zell: under development
Ginger: chosen, but not decided
Erin: chosen, undergoing revision
Cristina: chosen and decided
Sara: fully composed (first version)
("?" means that I'm not sure if the character will be used.)
The antagonists:
Dr. Kain: (theme a) fully composed, (theme b) chosen (initial battle theme chosen, but revisions needed)
Gen. Donald Golbez: chosen; revision under consideration
Cendy, Serge, Zeal: two choices under consideration
Dick: not yet (will be based on battle theme, which is chosen)
other antagonists: not even developed yet
Yeah, I know, I have a LONG way to go before this game even starts to materialize.
In the news: looks like both Taft and "Taft" are in trouble. I remember finding William Howard Taft (the late former President and Supreme Court Justice) rather admirable, so I was reading the article, and found how the Taft name was praised for being associated with conservatism and ethics. (And being tarnished by the current Taft, of course.)
Which actually reminds me of the question: what IS conservatism (or "conservativism", as I used to misspell it)? What does it mean to be a conservative? I was suddenly reminded of that 60 Minutes article about that guy who wants to drill all over Wyoming for methane, and drill all over, property owners notwithstanding. He gives a pittance of compensation to the cowboys on whose land he's dumping his huge machinery and through which he's taking his trucks. AND, to add to the brazen arrogance, he even wants to re-nickname Wyoming the "Methane State" instead of the "Cowboy State". Now, I don't know much of anything about Wyoming, apart from the fact that it has 3 electoral votes, is out west, is named the Cowboy State, and usually votes Republican in presidential elections, but still...personally, I'd side with the cowboys. Just because this oddball realizes there's money to be made by drilling on other people's land for methane doesn't mean he should. Unfortunately, I remember hearing (don't hold me to this; I'm not sure about it) that a few courts have been ruling in favor of the arse. (And how dare he throw to the winds years upon years of cowboy culture, in relabeling the state after his own enterprise.)
And I still have beef with the recent Eminent Domain ruling from the Court.
Okay, enough politics in this post.
Oh yeah, after reading Wikipedia's article on Silly Putty, I've got to wonder...if it were invented in Coney Island, could they have "killed two birds with one stone" and called it "Silly Coney Putty"?
[end bad pun]
On another note, sometimes I ask myself, is it okay to aim for more than one girl at once? So far, I've taken it as a moral rule that I should only aim for one girl at a time, and even if not a matter of ethics, what if two were to respond favorably? Thing is, though, I sometimes also wonder if I have too many 'checks' in place for myself. After all, I'm short, unattractive, unassuming, non-"manly", and I'm pretty sure that my appearance safely falls outside of categories like "cute", "hot", "bishonen", or "handsome". (Please inform me if I don't; anonymous e-mails from root are valid as long as there's some clue to your identity. Actually, lol. This is more of a "rhetorical command", but you're welcome to have fun.)
Of course, I could increase my chances by "aiming plurally", but on the other hand, there's still the ethical question. Just because something expedites a result doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do, or that it won't cause negative consequences later. But then, on the other hand, I seem to end up being slow and too cautious at this.
Speaking of ethics, I hope that I'll get lotteried into STS.011 next term.
Ah, first lesson at parallel parking today. And first time I'm starting to think of a use for thickly sponge-padded walls, outside of the stereotypical usage in a mental asylum. Because it's too hard to see if you've yet crashed into the theoretical car behind or in front of you.
Highlight of the day: reading about a chemical reaction that is inhibited by 'mass action', and writing "MASS ACTION LAWSUIT" in the margin of the book. Yay for nerd jokes. I love nerd jokes. Do you?
(Runner-up: big'ase, carrase, humanirase, flyingase, oopsase, settinplase, shoolase, allyurbase, belongtuase, losingfase, stufuase, ecossase, pansyase, candyase, smileyphase, surplase, erase, misplase, hawnucrase...)