Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Skar

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 128
31
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: April 21, 2009, 10:12:44 PM »
Quote
One thing that stands out is the repeated use of the word polygamy.  Polygamy is the terms for the criminal act of marrying more than one spouse.
Now you just look a little stupid.  Try looking up the definition of words like Polygamy before you castigate others for misusing the word.  I believe you were thinking of Bigamy.

The rest of your post is tortuous, it seems like much of it is tangential, and I had some trouble following it.  Given your misuse of one of the words at the root of the current discussion I can't give the rest of what you say enough credence to bother untangling it.

Polite suggestion: Write out your point and then condense it to 25o words or less.
That's not a rule of posting, just a trick I personally use to help my writing be more clear and concise.

32
Movies and TV / Re: Castle
« on: April 21, 2009, 07:59:15 PM »
Well, latest episode kicked some serious butt.  No particularly bad dialogue, they made use of the writer angle in a way that makes sense, the dirtbags acted pretty realistic.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  If they keep this up, they may come back.

33
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: April 21, 2009, 05:43:40 PM »
Sorry to double post but this is a separate topic and closer to the thread topic so...

Would I take a second wife?  No idea.  So much would have to change for that to become an option that the variables multiply far beyond my ability to guess at my own reaction.

Should taking a second wife be a legal option?  Again not sure but there's more to be said about that one. My main concern about making polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth legal would be the effect on society.  Would it strengthen our society?  Would it promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for individuals in our nation?  If we look at the nations on Earth that currently have legal institutions in place allowing for polygamy as examples, the simple answer would be a resounding "No."  By their example it would result in massive state-supported oppression of women along with a host of other effects anathema to a free society.

But there are many more differences between our nation and those that have legal polygamy than just the polygamy thing.  Perhaps those other differences are the cause of all the negatives.  No way to tell.  We can do thought experiments all day long and not come any closer to a real answer to the question, how would legalizing polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth change our society? 

34
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: April 21, 2009, 05:27:57 PM »
Seems to me that 'marriage' as an institution today has two components.  Religious and Legal.

I haven't heard any serious proponents of same-sex marriage insisting that religious institutions recognize their marriages. (I have heard it from wackos but I ignored them)  Serious proponents of same-sex marriage are after the legal consideration that our government extends to married couples: taxes, visitation rights, inheritance and so forth.  And folks who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds don't have a secular leg to stand on when objecting to legal rights for same-sex married couples matching their own under the law.

So it seems the reasonable thing to do would be to separate the two. Religious institutions have no more business handing out legal status as married couples to their constituents than the government has dictating what spiritual status a religion may confer upon its constituents.  Yes it would be sticky and a major change to how we function in our country but hey, when has that ever been a good reason not to do something right?

35
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: April 20, 2009, 09:27:46 PM »
An excellent solution Eleaneth.  My own mental struggles with the issue have arrived at pretty much the same place.

Unfortunately, in other forums, when I bring up the idea of removing government's role in 'marriage' altogether (leaving 'marriage' solely to religious institutions and 'civil unions' solely to government) I have met with frothy hatred from the proponents of same-sex marriage.  From what I've seen and been told with great force, same-sex couples "Don't want civil unions, they want to be 'married'"

I'm curious to the opinions around here.  What is the same sex objection to marriage=religious civilunion=government proposal?

I suspect in some of the cases I've run across it's nothing more than a desire to stick it to those hateful bigoted straights, hah, look at me I'm gay and MARRIED how do you like them apples?

Is there a more reasoned objection?

36
Movies and TV / Re: Castle
« on: April 14, 2009, 07:58:29 PM »
Just finished the latest Castle episode.  I may watch the rest due to misguided loyalty but I'll be very surprised if the show gets a second season.  The writing just gets more and more insipid.  The plots are OK, but the dialog is just terrible.  It's almost like the writers are turning the scene notes into dialog.

Scene opens on a small shop that has been trashed.  Beckett, Castle, two sidekick detectives enter the scene.
Beckett: "This place has been trashed."

Seriously?

37
Movies and TV / Re: Castle
« on: April 13, 2009, 05:08:20 PM »
Quote
So I watched ABC's other new cop show, The Unusuals, ... they don't rely on them at the expense of actual writing

Yeah.  I liked this one too. Very interesting.  Quite a chasm between the trailers and the actual show though.  I wouldn't have tried it out on the strength of the trailer.  Fell pushed me over the edge.  I'm glad.

38
Writing Group / Re: Flash Fiction
« on: April 10, 2009, 05:31:11 PM »
Implications.

Rafts of backstory information can be implied by what, immediately relevant, details you choose to describe.  Also, as ryos said,

Archetypes.

Things people in your audience will recognize and make instant associations with.  For example.  "Jake switched his hammer to his other hand in order to scratch under his hard-hat."  Hard-hat, hammer, scratching: single words that carry a ton of information about Jake and who he is.  They effectively stand in for several paragraphs.

That said, if your readers don't know what a hard-hat is, you lose a great deal.  So, finally,

Audience.

Know it.  Use that knowledge to write shorthand clues that play off of common experience and knowledge.
_____________

How's that for a random contribution from an unpublished (as of yet!) writer?



39
Webcomics & Free Stuff / Re: The Far Reaches Webcomic
« on: April 10, 2009, 05:52:43 AM »
Gonna have to disagree with you on the quality of the art there Reaves.  Schlock is an entirely different style, yes, perhaps even one you like less than the farreaches art style, but Howard's is by no means worse. Not by a long shot.  In fact, I like his better.

That of course is a skarpinionTM* One I will stand by.

*(not to be confused with a skarittudeTM which 'tudes I have been known to abandon on short notice)

40
Everything Else / Re: In Utah for a couple weeks
« on: April 08, 2009, 11:10:26 PM »
Oh, now that's just cold. Arctic even.  :o

41
Movies and TV / Re: Castle
« on: April 08, 2009, 08:41:17 PM »
Oh yeah? What about laser tag in a mortuary?  Ok, that'd be fun.  Graveyard?  No...that'd be fun too.  Hmmmm.  What about in an insane asylum?  Well, no that would be more fun than all the others put together.  WalMart? Huh.

I know, Laser tag with your grandparents on catwalks over giant pots of acid?  I suppose that would depend on how much you like your grandparents though...

Ok, Laser tag is always fun and cool. 

It must have been the dialogue that bothered me.

42
Everything Else / Re: In Utah for a couple weeks
« on: April 08, 2009, 08:31:52 PM »
I sit at a desk all day.  My phone sits there with me.  My wife is out and about.

Also, I was exercising a touch of hyperbole, overstatement of her technophobia if you will.

;-)

43
Movies and TV / Re: Castle
« on: April 08, 2009, 03:24:57 AM »
For me it's definitely the Firefly effect. I liked that show alot and I REALLY liked the character Nathan Fillion played, so, even though it's completely irrational, it spills over onto the Castle guy.

44
Movies and TV / Re: Castle
« on: April 07, 2009, 09:27:03 PM »
Episode 5:
** Spoilers ahead**

Well, another mixed bag this time.  They may have started a decent overarching plot with him looking at Det. Beckett's mother's murder file.  One of the perps outsmarted them in the interview room.  An interesting moral dilemma was presented.  All good things.

But they missed the boat on quite a few too.  No comment was made on the fact that the cop, Sloan, lazily let the murderer go free, putting the Grandfather in his difficult position.  When the Grandfather was explaining why a father 'might' confront his daughter's killer and extract vengeance I, personally, would have had him mention that the darn cops had had their chance to find and stop the killer and done nothing with it.  Especially because he'd already shown angst over that very thing early in the show.

I had a hard time believing the laser-tag game.  His daughter's too old for it.  And when Beckett shows up the daughter first asks who she is at the door and then talks about having met her at the signing.  Lazy.

I wouldn't be bailing on appointments to run home and catch this show at this point but I'll still watch the next one at my desk over lunch.



45
Everything Else / Re: In Utah for a couple weeks
« on: April 06, 2009, 05:04:53 PM »
Sorry Ookla.  I didn't get the messages until Saturday night while I was at drill.  My wife usually has the phone and she's a bit of a technophobe.  If it rings she can answer it, and sometimes make outgoing calls.  But that's about it.

Congratulations on the new job.  See you around. Sorry again.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 128