Pocket Plane Group
Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: jester on October 08, 2004, 05:57:42 PM
-
comments on this?
Love and romance in the world of Massive Multi Online Role Playing Games
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/3733164641785841/
.....at least we will always have Mos Eisley”. (aaawww what an ending) :)
-
bog help me if i ever become a true [con/fan]dork. it's bad enough already. i kind of prefer it when my partner's indifferent to these particular escapist shenanigans of mine.
-
My husband has absolutely NO interest in gaming, and that is just fine by me.
-
When we did play the same games, we almost never quested together. We just had two different styles of play... I always wanted to take my time and loot everything along the way he just wanted to get to the end... which just led me to yell at him a whole lot. :p Never did the ingame romance thing though.
-
I met two of my sig others through gaming: Connie through pool and Nathan through Diablo. The pool was real life.
It's a great way to have a starting bond.
-
Well let's see. Of all the craziest things I met my wife via the internet with IRC (Diablo was pretty much the only online game you didn't have to pay for at the time.) We've been together for nine years, married for six. When it comes to gaming, if it has co-op multi-player then we'll play it. We usually hook up the Diablo II. Most of the time we come up with strategies by talking across the room. Forget the in-game typing crap. Whose got time for that? Actually, now that I think about it, we're quite like minded when it comes to gaming. The only argument we ever have is "Hey, I kicked that barrel first, the money is mine." or "Did you kill that guy? I don't think so, give that back!"
Never did the ingame romance thing though.
Why bother? I just disconnect the server. I prefer the out-game romance better.
-
I'm no' much of an MMORPG fan myself, and neither is my husband. When we do play videogames together, normally it's *for* the competition or cooperation, depending on the game. Kinda kills the point of playing 'together' if you're off doing your own thing, doesn't it?
-
I have always been fascinated by the qualities of human interactiom in respect to different levels of reality. What makes someone you sit in a diner with more real than an online chat partner? How much does the relationship suffer when it is only on a telephone? If you get to know people more thoroughly by the way they handle game situations (I took a class in that once at uni), how can you say that the 'real life' acquaintance is more real?
-
depends on situation doesn't it?:)
someone u only know from chat or telephone can be nice, but there aren't much talks of going out together somewhere or do something else what ever suits your liking..
neither do u know how your (girl)friend is in in real life..
and in real life when u see a person in real cirscumstances it would be much better to really know a person not only from chat or telephone
* you don't see someone expressions or emotions in chat or telephone*(save for webcam and smilies)
but then again what do *U* understand of life? :D
-
What makes someone you sit in a diner with more real than an online chat partner?
Nothing, they are both people. But with the person in the diner you could have a hell of alot more interaction. Plus, thery're there.
How much does the relationship suffer when it is only on a telephone?
Usually, alot I would imagine. Especially when long distance bills are involved. Cha-ching! And eventually topics of conversation will thin out.
how can you say that the 'real life' acquaintance is more real?
That's self explanitory.
-
Usually, alot I would imagine. Especially when long distance bills are involved. Cha-ching! And eventually topics of conversation will thin out.
Well, that's what the internet is for. It's free. Also, why would topics of conversation thin out any more than they do in person? Life keeps happening.
how can you say that the 'real life' acquaintance is more real?
That's self explanitory.
No, it's not.
-
No, it's not.
They're there.
Life keeps happening.
But not always at a 'fast-pace, white-knuckle, in your face' way. Well, not for everyone anyway. I've had conversations die down to:
:)
:)
:pirate
:)
:D
;D
8)
-
someone u only know from chat or telephone can be nice, but there aren't much talks of going out together somewhere or do something else what ever suits your liking..
Imagine any kind of interaction that involves dialogue other than the question where to go to next. Most things are not so far apart and sometimes it can even be a more profound conversation that way. Whatever suits your liking could be a gaming exchange or taling about records, colours, stuff.
neither do u know how your (girl)friend is in in real life..
You mean looks like. :) If you see somebody talking on camera, you immediately would assume that the voice and the face belong to the same person. ('The truth about cats and dogs' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117979/). This filter is disputed as evolutional tool sometimes. Just like the smell or scent. Many other things you could find out just like during any other pastime. Reaction to compliments, dreams or turnoffs. Perhaps you are not into redheads, but discover that that girl is your perfect match. Soulmates even. :)
and in real life when u see a person in real cirscumstances it would be much better to really know a person not only from chat or telephone
* you don't see someone expressions or emotions in chat or telephone*(save for webcam and smilies)
Interaction is different and seeing is believing, but is it *knowing*?
What makes someone you sit in a diner with more real than an online chat partner?
Nothing, they are both people. But with the person in the diner you could have a hell of alot more interaction. Plus, thery're there.
Actually funny that with cellphones swamping Europe it is a lot easier to talk to somebody on the phone for hours than to sit in a cafe without them answering their calls. (Which should be a giveaway anyway I have to agree. :D). Being there in the sense of emotionally open and present is often questionable even for people who spend a lot of time next to each other.
how can you say that the 'real life' acquaintance is more real?
That's self explanitory.
After Final Fantasy had been released people talked about replacing real actors by CGI. Well, I claim that most actors are virtual in the sense that their existence in RL is just a lazy assumption we make. (Apart from the fact that I am not bothered, if Brad or George are CGI). I enjoy the films and never get to meet them.
More real? Sure there are different levels of intimacy, but apart from sex, which is still kind of silly on the net (I am not talking about all the other stuff around that), there is a lot of human interaction for the cubicle dwellers. Perhaps Dilbert is the god of some niche in this universe? During the day he/she works a regular job and their collegues have but a vague idea of what they look like on the inside, but in their free time they dream up untold stories and live up to their creative potential. Perhaps that dull guy next door turns out to be one of the most imaginative people you know. After you met him in a game... or at the fight club. :) Every platform gives different opportunites to different people.
-
No, it's not.
They're there.
Not enough of an explanation, sorry. I don't forget about people when they aren't directly before me, and I don't think you do either. I know that every single person I meet online is a real person, though some hide behind personas.
Life keeps happening.
But not always at a 'fast-pace, white-knuckle, in your face' way. Well, not for everyone anyway. I've had conversations die down to:
:)
Then conversations will die down in person, too. There is more to do in person, but frankly if I can't find something to talk about with someone most of the time, I'm not going to be interested in them anywhere.
Meeting someone online has its risks, but so does meeting someone in person (and especially at bars or clubs, yech). And online, you have a lot more time to really get to know what the person's ideals and interests are, and you don't have your body interfering and telling you someone is wonderful for you just because you've got the hots for them physically.
-
Then conversations will die down in person, too. There is more to do in person, but frankly if I can't find something to talk about with someone most of the time, I'm not going to be interested in them anywhere.
No comfortable silences?
-
You only have comfortable silences when you know the other person really well and trust them.
Silence is the true test of a real relationship - does it wither without being constantly maintained, by speech/conversation, or can it tolerate periods of silence? Without contact/speech/conversation there can be no relationship, obviously.
I don't believe in soulmates. I think you get lucky, and a relationship works. My partner and I are different personality types outwardly, we don't like the same books/movies/TV/games/sports/obsessions - and we've been together 11 years.( Don't underestimate the physical. I think it's quite important.) The question in any relationship is can you go across the bridge spanning the gulf between you and that other person? Will you like them when you get there? Will you make the effort to maintain the bridge? Sometimes understanding each other and liking each other is enough.
Friendship works via speech, but I don't think other relationships can.
-
So would you say it's impossible to develop a romantic relationship over the Internet, say--if only friendship works via speech?
-
Of course being able to maintain a comfortable silence with someone is important. But if you find yourself unable to think of things to say to each other, how can you even begin a relationship? Verbal communication and interesting conversations are more important to some people than others. They are extremely important to me. In fact, when you say "friendship works through speech, but I don't think other relationships can," I don't quite understand. Speech (and the written word) is how we communicate. Without the wonderfully complex communication possible through human speech and writing, we would be monkeys. Even my cats understand the words I say (some at least). Obviously, we can pick up other things from people when we're in the same room with them -- or we think we can.
People are attracted to different things. There are people in the world who look for a very physically attractive mate, and that is it. (An extreme example, of course.) However, people who are primarily attracted by intelligence, ideals, common interests, sense of humor, and other mental qualities, are more likely to find a happy relationship on the internet than others. Personally, I could not handle a partner who had completely different interests than me and who didn't share my most important ideals. (I know this because I tried it, and it was horrible.) Others can, and enjoy those differences. I would never claim that their relationships couldn't possibly work just because I know that type of relationship could not work for me.
So, basically, relationships started and maintained (for a time) on the internet can work very well for the right people, and be disastrous for the wrong people. You can remove "the internet" from that sentence and it still works.
-
some philosopy
:D
isn't it all about your values of life and what u do with it?
-
As far as I'm concerned, romance/love is pretty much friendship with some sex drive tacked on. The internet takes away that sex drive, so romance doesn't really work for me. Bit simplistic, eh? Now, I don't want to risk devaluing anyone else's relationships, so this is perhaps one of the few occasions where I'll let people claim greater experience by virtue of being older than me. However, that's how it looks to work from where I'm standing.
-
You can remove "the internet" from that sentence and it still works.
*dingdingdingdingding*
"it's just like magic!"
relationships and closeness indeed cannot be invalidated simply by dint of their media/format.
Being there in the sense of emotionally open and present is often questionable even for people who spend a lot of time next to each other.
word to that. firsthand, secondhand, i can confirm that on all three hands, and contrast it with some of my deepest, longest-standing friendships (several of which started on bulletin boards and strengthened for up to four years before any faces-to-faces-to-names...)
...I claim that most actors are virtual in the sense that their existence in RL is just a lazy assumption we make... I enjoy the films and never get to meet them.
as an actor (only one non-stage project, admittedly, but "the principle of the thing, yada yada") i can vouch for that claim - even on stage (with a few experimental exceptions), suspension of disbelief is and always has been key. (always exceptions, like people who are hard-wired for oral tradition [not to sound dirty :-[] and have no use for the fourth wall, who treat a performance like pure communication (with some entertainment mixed in) and send messages of their own to the performer. (those are one of the peoples with whom it is... difficult... to watch a movie in the cinema.)
and speaking of suspension:
...online, you have a lot more time to really get to know what the person's ideals and interests are, and you don't have your body interfering and telling you someone is wonderful for you just because you've got the hots for them physically.
not to undermine a well-made point, but add on the counterbalance, which is that online, notwithstanding most webcam usage or "check my modeling portfolio site"s... one's body (and/or imagination) can 'interfere' with just about anything in this context, at just about any time, with or without substance to back it up (although the imagination might have to 'help' the body on that score)...
-
Meeting someone online has its risks
Tell me about it, I got married. 8)
Not enough of an explanation, sorry.
It works for me.
Without contact/speech/conversation there can be no relationship, obviously.
That's true. All I can say is at the time I met my wife there was no such thing as chat with voice. Typing only. Then the huge phone bills. But the time came when there was enough talking and time to get to the doing part of the relationship. The 1200 mile gap had to be closed. And it did.
I don't forget about people when they aren't directly before me, and I don't think you do either.
Yes I have. Either that or age is taking toll on my memory.
-
So would you say it's impossible to develop a romantic relationship over the Internet, say--if only friendship works via speech?
At some point, for a relationship to be classified as a romance, doesn't there have to be physical presence? Physical contact? Sex?
What makes a relationship between two people more than friendship? Sex and intimacy. Sex and love.
We can't possibly say a relationship without sex/sexual attraction is a romance.
when you say "friendship works through speech, but I don't think other relationships can," I don't quite understand.
When you love another adult person without having sex with them, the relationship you have is a friendship. It might be deep and intense and satisfying, but it's a friendship. Friendship can be maintained through words.
To have a sexual relationship with someone you need to be having sex with them. (Please, no-one try to suggest that cyber-sex counts. ::)
To have a love/partnership relationship requires presence, proof and deeds. Words alone do not maintain a love/partnership relationship.
-
well ain't sex one of the most important things when u have a partner? :D
and romance via internet... omg:/
you can care someone via internet but really love him/her..before u can love someone u need to get her to know in real life
some attitudes can't be seen from screen
-
Saying "love requires" anything is very arrogant. It is completely possible to love someone without that person loving you in return. There are as many different ways to love as there are people. The only people who know whether a relationship works and whether the love in it is true are the people in the relationship. Eral, if I were to apply my requirements when it comes to love to your relationship, it wouldn't meet them. I wouldn't do that, because I am not you.
Sex is important, but don't overestimate its importance. You can have a great sexual relationship with someone without being in love with them, and you can be in love with someone without a great sexual relationship. OK, maybe you can't, but don't apply that to everyone. Long distance relationships are suboptimal, but they are every bit as real and true as any other relationship, and considering the trial by fire they undergo, the ones that survive are a hell of a lot stronger than most.
-
The idea that romance requires sex is very limiting. There are lots of people in the world who aren't physically capable of sex. By your* argument, that would mean they are also incapable of being in love, or having someone be in love with them.
*This is obviously not a reply to the person it's posted directly after. I could have quoted one person, but it is a reply to more than one person.
some attitudes can't be seen from screen
Unless you can read minds, there are always some attitudes you can't see.
-
penny number one: chaste affairs aren't put down because they're impossible.
penny number two: they're put down by people who either don't grasp them, or find them too challenging. (or have no empathy for the choiceless impotent/damaged/traumatized)
EDIT: how do you say [strike][/strike] in this necko'th'woods?
-
The idea that romance requires sex is very limiting. There are lots of people in the world who aren't physically capable of sex. By your* argument, that would mean they are also incapable of being in love, or having someone be in love with them.
*This is obviously not a reply to the person it's posted directly after. I could have quoted one person, but it is a reply to more than one person.
kish i didn't sex is a must have i said it was very important to a relation there have been some test and sex is indeed important *BUT* it surely isn't needed to keep romance going or love
and sure u can love someone even if he/she isn't incapable of love you can love a person from his attitude personalty or the like
some attitudes can't be seen from screen
Unless you can read minds, there are always some attitudes you can't see.
and with attiudes i mean some things u see in real life..for example when your partner is confronted with a problem in real it's nice to see how he/she confronts it
or handles things, you don't see those things on screen
and besides you surely can't love a person from behind screen before knowing/seen her/him in real life
for example u can find an actor or actress atractive you see only the outside, does it mean that u can fall in love with her/him? by only seeing outside?
or for internet only seeing some lines and text and maybe webcam seeing the person?
love is seeing the person and seeing the inside all around and if u ever gonna make your mind living with eachother u SURELY can see differences in atitudes
and if u still can keep it up loving him/her the like then u can say it's really love
you can't base it on one thing
-
I say requires (not to be arrogant, don't be rude and snotty, Neriana) because love has to be expressed. And received. It's two-way, or it's a failed emotion.
People who are physically incapable of sex are not incapable of being in love or being loved, but they are not going to express their love in the most satisfying way. Perhaps they find other ways to express it. Or else, they get to be involved in friendships, not romances.
What's romance? Excitement, being in love, pheromes or whatever they are. Come on. There's got to be sex for there to be any fun in a romance.
No physical contact= friendship. I didn't say a bad relationship or one that doesn't work. Do you want to say sorry and be friends again?
-
I say requires (not to be arrogant, don't be rude and snotty, Neriana) because love has to be expressed. And received. It's two-way, or it's a failed emotion.
People who are physically incapable of sex are not incapable of being in love or being loved, but they are not going to express their love in the most satisfying way. Perhaps they find other ways to express it. Or else, they get to be involved in friendships, not romances.
What's romance? Excitement, being in love, pheromes or whatever they are. Come on. There's got to be sex for there to be any fun in a romance.
No physical contact= friendship. I didn't say a bad relationship or one that doesn't work. Do you want to say sorry and be friends again?
So you're telling anyone who is in a long-distance romantic relationship, "What you have is actually a friendship. What you think it is doesn't matter--I know better. Don't be offended, that's not the same as saying it's a bad relationship." And you see nothing arrogant about this? Someone else is being rude and snotty?
I...doubt you'll be receiving any apologies anytime soon.
-
I ask a genuine question here, out of curiousity: What IS the difference between love and friendship?
-
With all the jokes out there about marriage = nosecks I imagine there's some truth to them. so does that mean these people are no longer involved in a romance?
There's nothing concrete about what a romance MUST or CAN'T have...well, except restraining orders perhaps
-
marriage is not inherently linked with romance. an unfortunate plenty of marriages don't have any romance left in them, and a few might never have had any to begin with.
the catch22 [of a sort] is that marriage has a very serious, intense connotation (to those who even consider it, at least), and even some marriages that begin in a romantic spirit are embarked upon merely for the sake of the intensity of the feelings between the two, but with some potentially crucial perspective lacking. [plenty of people won't approve of "analyzing" such things from within a partnership/couplehood/whathaveyou, and i'm not the one to gainsay them. yet i observe, and likely subserve often enough...]
some people expect service which they [sometimes immediately] fail to earn.
[too many people expect obedience that nobody deserves.]
some people move in together too soon.
some people have sex too soon.
some people have sex too late.
some people meet in elementary school and never stray or look back and live full happy lives with or without children or pets.
and naturally, foresight is never 20/20. except for kassandra's, of course, and look where that got her.
What IS the difference between love and friendship?
friendship's a pretty easy one, ne? but love is so bandied about, with such a huge spectrum of association and expectation... well, let's just hope nobody attempts to give a definitive answer - just a lot of personal ones would be nice (and i 'spect what you were 'specting in the first place). (it's too bad that the religions that go on about it the most are riddled with either aliens [hare krsna] or hypocrites [xtians]... actually quakers are pretty close to the genuine mark, from where i'm standing)
to me, love is a deeply warm, heady and inspiring draught of acceptance, appreciation, and affection.
i also find that it intermingles with attraction, devotion, obsession, desperation, ecstasy, idiocy, bravery, and a host of others, sometimes so subtly that they are mistaken for the same thing [party 3 sees 1's love as desperation, while 1 sees their own obsession as love, e.g.].
in my life, first, second, or third hand, it's too often a tough call.
-
@difference love and friendship?
Friendship is in the heart, love goes (also) much deeper. :P
See Harry and Sally for details....
-
'when harry met sally' (to which you might not be referring?) is one of my favorite movies of the '80s, but not because i agree with its pat answer(s).
-
Love goes much deeper *giggles*
-
It's possible to feel romantic about someone without feeling sexually attracted to them, but it might depend on your definition of romance.
-
So you're telling anyone who is in a long-distance romantic relationship, "What you have is actually a friendship. What you think it is doesn't matter--I know better. Don't be offended, that's not the same as saying it's a bad relationship." And you see nothing arrogant about this? Someone else is being rude and snotty?
I...doubt you'll be receiving any apologies anytime soon.
No, I'm not actually. I'm saying what I think. It's my opinion. You seem to think to think I am attacking you personally. I'm not. And you and Neriana are being rude.
That last comment was meant to be light-hearted. But I see that you do not see this as a discussion.
-
It's possible to feel romantic about someone without feeling sexually attracted to them, but it might depend on your definition of romance.
holy wow is that the FOOTROT FLATS dog???
not that i should be utterly shocked, i knew there were some of my favorite co-nationals floating around here already...
now i'm going to dig up grandad's "saltbush bill" collection again!
*topic self-policing*
you're absolutely right on both counts.
-
well if it's about "YOUR" definition than you could just scrap the thread :P
everybody has his own definition about things so lay close and some don't
and how can u say my definition is better than yours?
-
I say requires (not to be arrogant, don't be rude and snotty, Neriana) because love has to be expressed. And received. It's two-way, or it's a failed emotion.
People who are physically incapable of sex are not incapable of being in love or being loved, but they are not going to express their love in the most satisfying way. Perhaps they find other ways to express it. Or else, they get to be involved in friendships, not romances.
What's romance? Excitement, being in love, pheromes or whatever they are. Come on. There's got to be sex for there to be any fun in a romance.
No physical contact= friendship. I didn't say a bad relationship or one that doesn't work. Do you want to say sorry and be friends again?
O, so all the stories of unrequited love or non-consumated love gotta be friendships... mine, mine... Forgive me, but your utilitarian 'shag or it's not love' approach amuses this old-fashioned romantic.
-
well if it's about "YOUR" definition than you could just scrap the thread :P
everybody has his own definition about things so lay close and some don't
and how can u say my definition is better than yours?
you may or may not be responding to me, but no matter to whom you're responding, you resound with the vibrant defensiveness of youth. who has said anyone's definition is better than anyone else's? that the question would likely produce a wide variety of answers was a point i was making, and i haven't seen anyone refute that point, or claim that they have love and friendship sussed for the whole planet.
however, and in fact dovetailing back to online vs face-to-face... it is regrettably frequent that the lack of access to body language, interpretation of inflection and such, results in people making assumptions about tone. some things can obviously be implied, hamhandedly[e.g. >:(] or otherwise, but especially in the realm of the translation of poster-intent, it's my theory that inference is far, far, far more common than implication.]
but regardless, we will all blow off steam as we see fit, consciously or otherwise... so don't let's forget those deep breaths, my synaptic siblings... :pirate
-
Contradicting someone is not being "rude and snotty", Eral. Especially since you were saying, "I know what everyone else feels better than they do, and it's my way or nothing." Telling someone their relationship cannot possibly be love is deeply offensive, and claiming that you can't have love without sex is contradicted by the literature and experience of millenia. Further, love is never a "failed emotion", whatever that means. Emotions are emotions, how can they "fail"? As Victor Hugo wrote, "To love another person is to see the face of God." Love is never "failed", it's expansive, humanizing, liberating. It can be deeply sad or joyous, and often both at once. Not getting what you want from someone when you love them doesn't mean your love is not true. It just means that the relationship does not work, and cannot work if the other person doesn't love you, and it's time to move on. That love is not wasted because it didn't "buy" you sex. In fact, if that's how someone looks at love, as something they need payment for, they've got some big problems.
Sim: Define love, eh? Well, poets and philosophers through the ages have tried, I don't think I can do any better. I would call it extreme generosity of spirit, partially, I guess. Friendship + sex does not equal love; think of all the friends who fool around with each other but don't have Relationships and are not in love. In my experience and that of everyone I've discussed it with (which is like 2 other women my age, so take with blocks of salt), if you know you're in love, you are. If you have to think about it, you're not. So basically, when you feel like you've been hit by a Mac truck, there ya go. I do know that love isn't enough to make a relationship work on its own.
-
...if you know you're in love, you are. If you have to think about it, you're not.
furthermore, genuine extant feeling can be dispelled by forced or excessive thought. 'thought' in this context, i'm assuming to be the questioning, occam's razor (or anyone else's razor, really) type of thought.
. I do know that love isn't enough to make a relationship work on its own.
true. the way the love is - 'processed'? - is the Work. (not to get overly gurdjieff-y)
i need to work on my vocabulary.
-
It is indeed the Grey Ghost. :)
Eral was not saying that sexual attraction is required for love, she was saying that sexual attraction is required for romance. If you love someone and yearn for them sexually, you are feeling romantic about them, whether that is requited or not. If you love someone and don't yearn for them sexually, you are feeling love for them - but not romantic about them.
So in a way (let me know, Eral, if I'm reading incorrectly) the point being made is that you may have love without the romance, whether that be love between friends or love between a ye olde couple that doesn't have access to viagra. The love without the romance is just as valid, true and worthy as that with the romance - but it's still not romantic.
PS I disagree in the case of the ye olde couple, but that's because I'm a sentimental fool.
-
Romance is not reliant on sex. QED.
-
So in a way (let me know, Eral, if I'm reading incorrectly)
That "guest" bit means that a "romance and sex" thread has claimed another poster. Yes, folks, we can all be proud. This is why future "romance and sex" threads will likely come with large-type warnings that they may lead to heart palpitations and gastric distress and should not be read by anyone.
-
Alas poor Eral, we knew you well! Unless I'm reading this wrong, were you may happily disregard my post!
-
@Jason's warning tag on romance threads:
Actually it deviated a bit from the article I wanted to discuss which of course everybody had a look at just like the odd readme you browse now and then. :P
Edit: typo
-
Carp.
And Jester, the article was cute. Well, that part you quoted was cute. :)
-
in my obtusion, i cannot see what makes 'carp' more appropriate than 'bugger'.
in this context. ::)
-
I like Dilbert. ;D
'Carp' more correctly expressed what I feel. 'Bugger' was a little too boofy in this instance. For your own safety, don't try trawling my mind. :)
-
For your own safety, don't try trawling my mind. :)
much obliged for the warning, but i think i'll waive all rights and protections. :pirate (you can always *not answer*!)
-
Heh. In that case, it's best to quote Westley at you - "Gently!" ;D
This must be my cultural exposition thread.
-
Heh. In that case, it's best to quote Westley at you - "Gently!" ;D
"there will be - no survivors... come for you'soooooooooooouuuuul." :pirate
This must be my cultural exposition thread.
well, there's precious little *australian* culture [correction: post-colonial farm and city culture. although i suppose that's redundant in a way, since 'australian' isn't exactly aboriginal] that i haven't been exposed to - although i am at least ten years behind on that score... but give it a whirl, especially from the NT or WA angle... or a zinger from [the] dreamtime?
obviously with an inherent 'gaming couple' theme... ::)
-
Actually it deviated a bit from the article I wanted to discuss which of course everybody had a look at just like the odd readme you browse now and then. :P
I read it, and to a small extent I've lived it. I just didn't feel like commenting at the time.
I met a lady in a chatroom once upon a time. She, myself and another chatroom friend got into playing Diablo. We worked great as a team; he was the warrior who fearlessly charged into the fray, she was the rogue with the sharp eye and quick bow, and I was the sorcerer with the lightning and fire. Sometimes a lot of resurrecting went on; humor was always present. There was a little bit of roleplaying romance, with the warrior occasionally telling us to get a room, but not much. After all, we already had a chat site and instant messaging. Alas, she passed away (in RL) shortly after Diablo II came out, and that was that.
While playing Diablo II, I've seen married couples split up and I've seen single people progress to the point of marriage. Most people get stuck somewhere between.
I haven't played any of the MMORPGs, but I have no doubt of what goes on there. Spouses who are bored are always on the lookout for that refreshing romance with a new person. Lonely single people figure it's a fun, and safe, place to hang out and look for love. With the anonymity of the internet, you never really know who you're talking to, and you don't have to reveal yourself to others if you don't want to. Sure, most people tend to be honest, but there are alway those bad eggs, and I feel sorry for anyone who falls for their deception.
These days I keep my close friends local, as in less than two hours away by car. I'm finished with long-distance relationships, in games or otherwise. My fiancee doesn't play computer games, and that's fine with me.
-
OK. I have finished crying now. I would like to second Reverendratbastard's suggestion that we play the ball, not the person.
Could we not descend to snide comments and casting nasturtiums on the intellectual and moral judgements of others? That would be so much nicer. Neriana and Kish, you both need to go to the thinking chairs, and calm down. Neriana, you are right, contradicting others is not snotty and rude. It's the other statements that are the problem. I have had to speak about put-downs before this, and how they are unacceptable. I hope I am not going to have to hand out another behaviour proforma. That would be so disappointing. Ashara, you may want to consider carefully before you ascribe beliefs to others that they do not actually hold. Alarielle, your statement is unfinished. Please say why you think that. It would be so much more interesting.
Thank you Cliffette, for understanding my point. Yes, that is what I was saying. It's my opinion based on my experience. I expected the conversation to continue along the lines of "I think you are wrong. This is my experience, and it contradicts yours." Which is how I thought we conduct discussions here. After all, aren't we here to discuss our different viewpoints?And not to slag others for holding a different view?
Rev, you are making DANGEROUS statements about Australian culture there. Troublemaker. Luckily, there appears to be only two people whose hackles can be raised by your inflammatory comments. You may think I am going to refer to our vigourous arts and drama communities- ha! ha!- I most certainly am not. How can you say that when we have Kath and Kim? (Completely off-topic, I know, but the off-topic has a fatal lure for me. And given the necessity for cigarette label-type warnings on this thread, perhaps it's a good thing.)
-
well, there's precious little *australian* culture [correction: post-colonial farm and city culture. although i suppose that's redundant in a way, since 'australian' isn't exactly aboriginal] that i haven't been exposed to - although i am at least ten years behind on that score... but give it a whirl, especially from the NT or WA angle... or a zinger from [the] dreamtime?
obviously with an inherent 'gaming couple' theme... ::)
You're discounting STEVE IRWIN?!?!
Thank you, thank you, thank you. :)
Oh, and here's something for all the gaming couples, from Tripod (you'll have to register):
http://sanity.destramusic.com/promos.asp
-
Hmm, well I've never really played online games, except for one attempt at my brother's house playing Ultima online and finding it confusing. The only interaction with another player I had was someone trying to lend me a horse (which I couldn't work out how to facilitate anyway :)) and then finding out they were a young teenage boy from Japan(the other player, not the horse!). It was all too weird for this old married woman!
My husband and I play computer games together a lot, we also pen and paper roleplay frequently. We have some characters in our roleplaying that we started years ago that now are grandparents and have extended families and dominions. :) I could not imagine having a spouse that I did not share computer and other game playing with.
Oh and Reverendratbastard, if you are in the states now then you haven't missed any develpment in the last 10 years of Australia's culture. Australia is an American franchise now. We have homeless people, the working poor, right wing religious groups forming political parties and Starbucks. ;)
-
Eral: QED. I have had romance without sex. I'm guessing Alarielle has too, and Ashara, and... well, everyone I've known well enough to know about their romantic lives has, with the exception of my cats, as far as I know. (And I think one of them just may have romantic feelings for that big black tomcat who keeps coming to the window...) Books on the subject include the works of Shakespeare and Jane Austen, among many, many, many, many, many others. There are as many different romantic relationships in the world as there are people in them, because no two people view a relationship in exactly the same way. There are as many different ways of loving as there are people in the world. Being a 28-year old woman who has had plenty of romantic and sexual relationships in my life (not necessarily overlapping), I am perfectly qualified to say that I know what is love for me.
-
Three people who can be offended. :D
We have Starbucks? This can't be! Where? (Please don't say Melbourne, the home of good coffee. I'll have to move.)
KIrving, your list is depressing in it's accuracy.
But we do have Leunig and Tandberg and John Clarke, as well. All is not yet lost.
-
Alarielle, your statement is unfinished. Please say why you think that. It would be so much more interesting.
My statement is finished. Statements, by their very nature, do not require explanation or reasoning. :)
I have had romantic relationships without sex, and I have had sexual relationships without romance. The two do not go hand in hand. That is my opinion. :)
-
:)
-
Three people who can be offended. :D
We have Starbucks? This can't be! Where? (Please don't say Melbourne, the home of good coffee. I'll have to move.)
KIrving, your list is depressing in it's accuracy.
But we do have Leunig and Tandberg and John Clarke, as well. All is not yet lost.
You told me not to say it so close your eyes for a moment or skim quickly over the next sentence. Yes, in Melbourne. :( There is one on Chapel Street, no less! I was horrified when I saw it and found myself crossing to the other side of the street and glaring. I then went to one of my favourite coffee haunts on Glenferrie Road, sipped on a long black with perfect crema and realised that all is not lost. :)
Ah...Leunig, his regular contiribution to The Age is one of the only things to get me through this year. A bright light holding back the dark shadows of conservatism. :)
-
On Chapel St! :o How is this possible? Shouldn't there have been a violent revolt against it in the streets? Has Chapel St so lost its sense of itself that it allowed this corruption?
It will never happen in Brunswick St. Smith St.
-
Rev, you are making DANGEROUS statements about Australian culture there. Troublemaker.
what are you gonna do - revoke my citizen-by-extraction certificate? that's a permanent document dammit. 8) :-ban
seriously tho - i may not have worded that properly (i often do that when i cram a huge parenthetical/bracketthetical/whatever in the middle of a not-exactly-simple-to-begin-with sentence), but what i was saying was that there is very little post-colonial-city-and-farm australian culture to which i haven't been exposed. *not* that that is all there is to "australian culture" (hence the subsequent even-more-sentence-cuisinarting afterthoughts.)
besides, why would i want to be making any enemies in the old country when i might be visiting in a few yrs? :D ;D 8)
-
[there is very little post-colonial-city-and-farm australian culture to which i haven't been exposed. quote]
Now that KIrving has pointed out to me the depths to which we have fallen here, don't worry, we'll be kind to you when you get here. If you have already been exposed to these horrors all your (young?) life, you deserve all the kindness you can get.
At least we know the good coffee places.
-
I will preface my comment by stating that I have only read page three of the comments and the possibility that I might be missing something is likely.
1) Platonic Romances - In my observations they have always seemed like a cop out at best and sleazy at worst. I am sure platonic romances may also be attributed to indecision.
2) Kath & Kim - An explanation would be nice. How come this show is the number one show in Australia?
3) Starbuck's - I will maintain that Starbuck's has the best cafe mocha in my area (we have a 1/2 dozen painfully earnest and correct coffee shops in my area) when of course it comes with two extra shots of of espresso.
-
Cause Kath and Kim is awesome of course! :D or are awesome...awesomeness is the key at any rate
-
Kath and Kim is a painfully funny depiction of two Australian women. They are caricatures, yet horribly, hilariously real. Everyone has heard/seen/knows one. It's a celebration and brutal assassination of middle(lower?) Australia.
Starbucks may be all that to you, but for us, they may be the thin edge of the wedge. Will Mario's and the Unversity Cafe and Pelligrini's be gone before we know it? America already owns our TV, please, don't take Moccopan from us. And Grinders. And Cafe Mio. (I'll stop, before I start to sob wildly.)
-
And this is all on-topic because coffee is romantic. And Kath and Kim are a couple of game women. :)
I tried.
@Regullus: How can a platonic relationship be sleazy? I understand the cop out part. :D
-
Though I admire your inventiveness,Cliffette, I have to say I think it's a lost cause trying to get back on topic. I think Jester has noticed his thread has been hijacked. Luckily, he is a man of broad and tolerant understanding, or he would have complained way before.
-
How can I complain in the face of such an outright flattering statement? Deviation is a big part of the fun, I guess. :D
-
I realize now that I should have read the entire post before commenting.
@Eral - Well, I did not say that Starbuck's was "all that" just that the cafe mocha was the best in my area. Also thanks for explaining Kath & Kim, I thought it had to be satire.
@Cliffette - When I think of platonic romances I think of several that I have personally observed, or been told about it. All of them have shown at least one of the people involved (and in some cases all of the people involved) in a less than flattering light.
A common type is that of the person who gets an ego boost from someone having a romantic interest in them. They are in essence using the person for self gratification and have no intention of permitting the romance to develop past a certain point. This type is usually involved with another person.
For me, using someone for self gratification and self aggrandizement with no care or respect for their feelings is a tad sleazy.
I have other tales of but all are tawdry and not terribly nice.
That said, obviously, people may develop deep and important relationships over long distances, that do not necessarily involve sex, and these relationships may be fully satisfying to all parties.
-
we'll be kind to you when you get here. If you have already been exposed to these horrors all your (young?) life, you deserve all the kindness you can get.
frankly, they never compared horror-wise to the hideousness of american-style jingoism. yes, young, haven't been down for almost 11 years, used to be an annual trip for 1-4 months, both sides of the family grew up there (mum's in albury/wodonga, dad's in melbourne, some scattering to sydney, vacation in robe, and dad&stepmum just retired to kybong (gympie area)). tapered off through high school while all of my older cousins vowed and bred.
At least we know the good coffee places.
this will be key.
-
And this is all on-topic because coffee is romantic.
It is! This is why they play Barry White during Bonsbreak at my Starbucks. Can't get enough of your love, babe! I remember how smitten I was the first time I visited Not-Mr.-Bons's place. I remarked over the titillating array of presses, brewers and grinders in his kitchen, then he seduced me further by promising, "Yeah, and there's a Starbucks around the corner, in case of a caffeine emergency." It was like he knew my secret soul!
-
That is so romantic. And practical too.
At this point we need to decide if we are going to further divert to coffee stories or "how I first fell in love" stories. Anyone else with both?
-
How I first fell in love with coffee places: :D
The good thing about coffee places in Vienna is that they hoard all sorts of newspapers and let you sit there and read for virtually no money. Viennese Coffeehouses serve roughly 5-25 variations of coffee and loads of cakes. Enter Starbucks and many similar franchise concepts in its wake. Being very late in adapting to trends (that is what people come here for and visit old buildings) the local places were largely caught off guard and did not care. Starbucks is very expensive here, but it is fancy enough to warrant the price. The only thing I really like about the American system is that they really cater for special eating habits. As I do not drink milk, I enjoyed my first soy lattes with the glee a rescued sailor would feel when he sips his first rum again after sitting on a rock forever. I enjoyed takeaway coffee only in NY as they have all these markers on the cups (and use them) and I urged everybody in the office to get a different kind to get in some variation. Usually it was not even warm when it reached the offices. :( I still find coconut flavoured coffee gross.
Eral, as much as I thought you were actually going for the latter, I had to pipe up and give my coffee house speech. :)
-
Alright, I'll start. Well, come second. But mines better! (damn you Jester!)
How I fell in love with Coffee.
Now, I was just a young boy, embarking on his teenage years through life. We'd gotten a computer recently and games of course. Now, it was the weekend and the parents were out for the weekend, so I decided 'Lets stay up all night playing games.' Now, I'd heard about this coffee, rumour had it it was good stuff but I, being my shy and apprehensive self, was nervous. There she sat, in the kitchen waiting for me to go over and brew a cuppa. She waited, pretty much all night while I hammered away at the Shivan fighters and generally had a great time. Enter morning, I've just POUNDED the Shivans great destroyer into oblivion, a hard nights work. Now my mind turns to other pursuits. I still have something called a Sleeping pattern at this point, and I don't want to lose it.
So, I nervously make my way over, turn the kettle on, get out a cup, put in some milk, sugar and now I'm up to the coffee. I prise open her lid ever so delicately, reverantly putting it down on the table. I pick up the spoon (This is a different spoon, the sugar has its own spoon! The luxury!) and cautiously plunge it into her black grainy depths, delicately lifting out the caffinated goodness. I've heard the effect she can have, but I'm pooped! A full, laden spoon will be my breakfast drink...except I was snacking all night so it's not really breakfast...I pour that on top of the milk, the Kettle starts whistling, obviously excited by my nervous movements, the perv. I go over, get the kettle and pour in the hot water, combining the coffee, sugar and milk with itself to make the glorious drink known as coffee.
I stir it around, letting the grains fully disperse among the pale white goodness, eventually turning the light brown we all know is the colour of ambrosia. I remove the spoon, sucking it clean before flinging it to the sink, where it can rest after its caffinated embrace. Taking the mug delicately in both hands, I hope that it's not too hot and gently sip from the mug, no the Chalice, for any container of such a beverage could be nothing less. From there on in I know that coffee is the one for me while I delicately sip the coffees hotness into myself.
-
Veloxyll, not instant!!! :o But it's true, you do start there.
Jester, I think "how I fell in love with coffee/houses" is a perfect continuation of this thread.
I wish I had a story with romance, but I don't. It was really only with the first cup that I said, "ugh, this must be Lavazza" (about four years ago?)that I realised living with an Italian had changed me utterly, and now I have an automatic coffee machine and have serious conversations about flavours of coffee with friends. It's a long way from that first cup of dry-cleaning fluid that Nescafe tries to pass off as caffeine.
-
yeah, it had to start with instant. If I had to grind the coffee myself that'd be another paragraph or two of text, and I don't know if my creativity could go that far.
*isn't going to mention he still drinks instant coffee cause it's cheap and stuff*
-
;D COFFEE SUCKS!! ;D
-
*Sighs nostalgically* We chewed on coffee grains while in the university to keep awake... those were the times....
-
;D COFFEE SUCKS!! ;D
no, i think you might want to keep [mov]ing...
*menacingly hefting doorstop krups*
-
i never drank coffee til i started working shifts (hospital). now i am hooked on it. except starbuck's, which i find to be bitter and terribly over priced!
-
i never drank coffee til i started working shifts (hospital). now i am hooked on it. except starbuck's, which i find to be bitter and terribly over priced!
I agree, Starbucks coffee is far too strong and generally yucky. Living in Exurbia Hell, that's all we have around here in the way of coffee shops. I miss Oren's Daily Roast in New York City.
-
my favorite is Gevalia, but its pretty expensive too and youcan only get it mail ordered. we used to get it at work. Border's bookstores has good coffee , but Barnes and Noble useis starbucks
-
A friend of mine drives across town for an hour in order to get the coffee that he likes, for the cheapest price.
He goes to a wholesaler, and gets Cuban, Ethiopian - coffee from everywhere. He brought some with him last time we all went away for the weekend. Not one of us said, "You're crazy. Driving for an hour?" It was more like, "What is the name and address of this wholesaler?"
It sounds like we should start organising relief mission/coffee drops to Exurbia. Will coffee beans get through customs these days?
-
They can if you use catapaults or cannons. I'd probably favour a cannon of some sort, you get much better range! :D
-
depends how much powder you can spare; catapults don't need fuel...