People who think disapproving of gay relationships/marriage is homophobic, who then turn around and say, "If I had relations with a girl who I found out used to be a guy, I would throw up."

You get to hate the homophobic, but it's okay for you to spew hateful nonsense about the transgendered?

Here's why I don't get it. When people say these sorts of things, they imply that they've had physical relations with them at least once - if not more times - and didn't notice anything they didn't like. But they later find out from a friend, relative, or someone else that their boyfriend/girlfriend used to be a person of the opposite gender, and this is what sets them off. (I've also heard real life examples that support this scenario as happening.) So you clearly are attracted to the person - that was never an issue - but back out because that person was born in the wrong gender and changed themselves?

They're clearly not the gender in question. And you are apparently pretty insecure about that gender to begin with. I'm not even talking about attraction - if you're not attracted to a gender, that's just how you were born. But if the thought of them makes you throw up... Well, you should probably get some therapy, stat, and feel better about yourself.

Now, I know that some transgendered walk a finer line between the two genders, but I think that's a little too subtle for these people to grasp. The people I'm talking about pretty much just know guy-who-used-to-be-a-girl and girl-who-used-to-be-a-guy, the very cut-and-dried type of transgendered person. Or that's what I assume from their poorly-worded remarks, anyway. If the line is so clear, who cares? If you're attracted to one, the past is irrelevant. Let's stop treating them like circus freak shows, and more like human beings.

In the long run, sure, it's something you're going to have to talk about. You should try to understand them as best as you can, if you love them. But if we're just talking about a one night stand and you vomit afterward?

Grow up. In more ways than one.

I've had this idea in my brain for months now, but drama in other RP communities has made me hesitate about going ahead on it. But I really want a constant place to RP, where there's just character interaction and odd situations, and where there isn't an absolute deadline. And since most of the places that allow that are for established franchises, which don't allow original characters, I thought it was a good idea to shake things up a little.

Hear me out.

Basically, I've always been a little bummed out by gaming and RPs where you have to leave a character once a campaign is over. Sometimes you don't mind, but sometimes they're like your kid and you don't want to give up playing them.

So I have an idea for an RP which is strictly for original characters, not necessarily from gaming; no Neos or Hannibal Smiths or Hellboys. Just characters of your own invention. I haven't decided if there would be a limit on how many characters you could have at one time, though I think it would be a good idea as it would force people to roleplay their better or more satisfying characters.

The characters could be from established franchises (i.e. you could play an original character from the Star Trek universe).

With that in mind...

Poll #1769078 This is just tentative fishing at the moment.
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 7

What format would you be most comfortable with?

And my second question is, would anyone be interested in co-modding with me if this idea goes anywhere?

Thirdly, does the idea actually leap out as fun to people? I have yet to come up with a fully-realized setting, but I don't want to put a large amount of work into it until I know there's at least a few interested parties.

Poll #1768142 I'm stuck on a title for my latest project, as usual.
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 5

Please check your first and second choices, if you would be so kind.

I'm always a little disturbed by how some people talk about "pests", be it cockroaches or mice or crickets or bigger animals like possums. (I myself refuse to call bigger creatures "pests", but many refer to them as such.) If you only heard it from them, you'd think pests were these hellbeasts that only exist to annoy us or terrify our wimmenz. Or knaw on our food supplies.

They're just little critters trying to scratch out a life. It's not their fault we've taken over everything. Can we try talking about them like animals, people, instead of these shadowy things that are out to destroy our senses of satisfaction?

I got even more angry when I took my last cat to the vet, when he was getting very sick, and the vet (who I never returned to) treated him like a slab of dead meat. Just because he was an ill cat. (Incidentally, that idiot diagnosed him as just "old." The next one did their homework and discovered the feline leukemia.)

I know I'm a minority when it comes to paying attention to the emotions of animals--some people don't think they have any whatsoever--but I thoroughly object to demonizing them. Or making them seem insignificant just because they weren't born human. The human race needs a swift kick to its ego's pants.

I'd like a pocket elephant. Probably not the creature you thought I was going to say, was it? But, here is my reasoning:

• They're pretty darn intelligent.
  
• A pocket-sized one would eat only, you know, a hay bale a day or something. That's downright manageable, compared to the full size versions.
  
• Their feces don't smell, and aren't much more than lightly processed grass.
  
• Think of the tiny little trunk! It would be adorable.
  
• They're artistic and soulful creatures who also like to play, and they get along well with other non-carnivorous species.
  

I dunno what I'd name him/her (probably her), but I'd rock the hell out of a pocket-size elephant.

I just realized. I have a "client." I can call them that and everything.

I feel all... responsible. I'm actually doing things, in my field.

It's a nice feeling.





This has been a useless post.

I just created a forum for a project of thespyder_1130's, and, in keeping with the spirit of eventually finding a forum service that doesn't suck, I found a new one to use. In the admin controls is a section on censored words, which I of course deleted in its entirety. But the list is amusing. Apparently, if you put one in and then an equal sign, it changes the language. It's like a freakin' game of forum Madlibs.

For hilarity's sake, I give you: the list of banned words, and their PC... 'alternatives.' (Whoever wrote this list loves the word 'thingy.')

( GIRL THINGY. )

And no, I can't sleep, why do you ask? *twitch*

Michael Keaton on Christopher Nolan's Batman:

A former Batman has some high praise for the franchise's current director.

"He's unbelievably great," Michael Keaton told Access Hollywood of Christopher Nolan, director of "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight." "He's the one who got it... he got it and he took it to a whole other level."

The star, who sat down on Saturday with Access at the junket for this summer's "The Other Guys," in which he'll join funnymen Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg, said he appreciated the franchise's current darker tone.

"That general direction was always where I thought that character and the story could go," Michael, who starred in Tim Burton's "Batman" and "Batman Returns," said. "He just did it brilliantly... That Heath Ledger performance [in 'The Dark Knight'] is unbelievable."

Of course you knew which direction it would succeed at. But you let Nolan do it. Of course.

People who come up after the fact and go "oh yeah, I knew that would work" just irritate me.

I almost wrote "The Woflman", which would have been a very different film.

My review is below. There are some spoilers, so if you don't want to get spoiled, I recommend not reading it.

( She exerts an enormous power, doesn't she, Lawrence? )

Overall: 3/5