Messages

In fact, the only criticism I've received is that I could have described the characters in more detail. Probably I could have, but one of my pet peeves is when you're reading a book and you get a picture in your head of a character, and then you turn the page and suddenly they have a moustache. That always drives me nuts. Am I the only one like this? One of the advantages of a book is that you get to let the reader use their imagination, so I try to do that every now and then. I'd be curious to hear what people's reading pet peeves are, actually. As both a writer and a fellow reader.

I'm inclined to completely agree with you, actually. When reading, I practically never pay attention to the descriptions of how characters or surroundings look; I just get engrossed in the story and let my imagination fill in the details. It seems as though a lot of people like lengthy descriptions, though, and I suppose this might have to do with having sensing rather than intuitive personality types. Oh well, you can't please everyone.

There needs to be a balance. On one hand, you need to put out a nice, polished product. On the other hand, you need to actually be able to finish it.

I've noticed that some people stop making their game because they're just not having fun with it anymore. I guess that's reasonable if, as a hobbyist, you don't care what others think of your work and are just doing it for personal growth reasons. However, if you actually want to get things done, it takes work. Sometimes, it's work you don't really feel like doing at the moment.

Personally, if I get tired of a project, there are a couple of things I do. If the project is in its beginning stages, I scrap what I have of it and start over, improving it. If I've already gotten really far on said project, I just try and finish it as soon as possible so that I can release what I have of it. I'm the kind of person who thinks game development is useless if you have nothing to show for it. Not that I expect everyone to agree or anything...

Then what is the "Theory" of evolution, at least when it was developed by Darwin developed it. Science deals with the present. One cannot prove evolution by experiment.

I didn't say that you could prove it; I said that you could confirm it. The theory of evolution is a theory because physical evidence has, to this date, not been proven to contradict it. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that it never will be contradicted in the future...)

I just played this game as well. From one Canadian girl to another, good job!

I haven't read the article yet (I will!) but, when I read this thread title, I thought you were gonna introduce a session of the game-making equivalent of a "24 Hour Comic Challenge".

Or NaNoWriMo, even.

But hypotheses don't become theories until they have become confirmed by actual experiments...

A question: when you people speak of "theories", are you actually talking about theories, or are you really talking about hypotheses?

You're referring to people who want to stop marriage altogether because it forces women into "traditional female" roles (cooking, cleaning, and bearing children) and men into "traditional male" roles (working, watching sports, scratching themselves)?Ã,  Shouldn't these people (all five of them) be for gay marriages because they don't promote these roles?Ã,  I guess I'm just confused at how your example applies....

It's not just about gender roles, but more about marriage and the couple form in itself being an institution associated with child-rearing, sharing property, and accumulating capital. Some queer people would argue that all gay marriage does is force queer relationships to emulate straight relationships in order to be accepted by society, when in reality, sexual experiences encompass much more than just a monogamous two-person form.

I had to do an essay on this subject for my "Sex, Gender, and Philosophy" class last term, and found this particular point of view quite fascinating. As for my own views, well, I think it would be easier just for everyone to have civil unions, and to leave marriage to the religious institutions.

For example, IÃ,  think the current hot topic regarding the mix of church and state is gay marriage.Ã,  There are no legitimate reasons that two people who love each other, but happen to be of the same sex, shouldn't be allowed to marry.Ã,  The reasons that people are voting such barbaric ideas into law are almost entirely based on religious beliefs.Ã,  And I'm not sure that the last sentence even needed the word "almost."

What about people who are against the institution of marriage altogether because it promotes heteronormativity? Are they acting entirely on religious beliefs?

Well, that all depends on what one defines the nature of God to be, now doesn't it?

2. Absolutely not. Law is about rationality; belief is about passion. The two don't mix.

Are you SURE about that? Does reason completely devoid of passion even exist? Can it?

Haha, Jake actually works at Telltale now, so I'll get to meet him too.

I myself had a phone interview, and I thought I did badly on it, but apparently I didn't. Maybe they're more lenient when it comes to interns or something. *shrugs*

A couple of months ago, I had an interview for an internship with Telltale Games, and Kevin Bruner asked me if I made my games with AGS. I was amused.

(In case you're curious, I did end up getting the job.)

Isn't "baiser" used for both kissing and screwing?

'french immersion' sounds great.

Well, it's this program that (to my knowledge) is unique to Canadian schools in which instead of taking just a French class, they force you to speak French in ALL your classes. It's fun times.

I'm a former French Immersion student, but unfortunately not a native speaker. Merde.

Maybe they're all joking about falling for it.

You forgot about SLUDGE! You monsters!

I'm sorry about that, OSquinky. I can't be sure, but I hope there's people out there for you with whom you'll be able to have sex with minimum discomfort. Or at least with as much discomfort as you'd enjoy.

Well, actually, I wasn't talking about myself specifically. But thanks for the thought!

I know it's not that clear cut for a lot of people. I think there are many people out there who are in more of a gray area...

Like me, for instance. I was pretty sure I was bi about five years ago, during a period when I got crushes on a couple of my female friends. However, that was until I realised that said crushes were way more emotionally-based than physically-based, and that I'm not really attracted to women's bodies to the same degree as I am to men's bodies. Then again, I sometimes wonder whether my fascination with men's bodies is due to curiosity; I don't have a penis so I ooh and aah at them, whereas I have boobs of my own so I don't see the big fuss about those. A part of me realises that it would feel just as good to have intimate physical with relations with a woman as it would with a man; my body, after all, won't be able to tell the difference.

So what am I, then, you ask? Well, I don't consider myself anything under the "queer" umbrella term, but I don't really consider myself "straight", either. To tell you the truth, I refuse to label my sexuality altogether, because it just isn't as big a part of who I am as it is for most people. Sometimes, I think that life would be a LOT simpler if we all had nothing but smoothness between our legs.