Yesterday was fucking awful. Specifically between about 4:30 and 6:30. It's ok, I'll only do a little Katie moping, then I'll get to the point (the point is my reaction, so the moping is context). I told you that Katie came out to me a few weeks ago ("you" being the whole internet... fuck) well obviously, considering my feelings for her, it changed... nothing. You see the issue here? Well luckily we agreed that our "more than friends, less than a couple" thing, was not working before either of us (me) had a full blown breakdown. Unfortunately that meant discontinuing said thing. Have you ever tried to work out how much closeness you need to lose with someone you love is needed to maintain your emotional well being? It is not a fun thing to do, but it was needed so it was done.
Shockingly this put me in what is often known as a "bad mood" spectacularly bad in fact. However I've already cried over Katie once and I'm damned if I'm going to cry for the same reason twice in one lifetime (excluding Les Miserables of course) So instead my brain decided the best thing for it was to go fully in the opposite direction. Since yesterday evening I've been weirdly and inexplicably hyper, I'm surprised I haven't broken any more furniture around school. I must say, double biology in that twisted emotional state is a rather difficult task. I just wanted to carry on "flouncing" as Morbey insists on calling it.
A surprising little side effect of this temporary manic state is a (slightly weird) forwardness with Heather and Lucy, something I would to say sorry for while I'm slightly sane... However the background to my phone is not being changed any time soon.
Right that's all I have for you on manic responses to depressing events, at least without getting super serial. So goodnight my sweet little audience.
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Monday, 13 May 2013
A year and a half of total crap
This is my 50th post, I know mad isn't it!? We're coming up to 10,000 hits as well, hardly ground breaking but it's a strange thing to think that people across the globe from Britain to China, via Canada and the FYR of Macedonia have read the bullshit that pours from my mind onto my keyboard. So this is a simple little post to say thank you I guess. I like to think this is a place where I can be me, away from the real world, but I doubt I'd keep going if I had no readers.
I'm genuinely curious, why are you reading this? Don't get me wrong I'm grateful for every hit, but it hurts my brain to think that there are people thousands of miles away, people I will never meet, who read this little blog and get to see into my crazy mixed up mind. Like I said, I know 10,000 is nothing too special, but it's my (almost) 10,000 and it means a lot to me.
Anyway, that's all I have for you, not much of a milestone entry, but I only wanted to say thank you for reading my pointless little storied. Now, onwards to 100,000 hits and more!
I'm genuinely curious, why are you reading this? Don't get me wrong I'm grateful for every hit, but it hurts my brain to think that there are people thousands of miles away, people I will never meet, who read this little blog and get to see into my crazy mixed up mind. Like I said, I know 10,000 is nothing too special, but it's my (almost) 10,000 and it means a lot to me.
Anyway, that's all I have for you, not much of a milestone entry, but I only wanted to say thank you for reading my pointless little storied. Now, onwards to 100,000 hits and more!
Monday, 29 April 2013
Heterosexual Homosexualphilia
I'm coining that term to refer to a person who is only attracted to homosexuals of the opposite sex, a term made necessary by the fact it applies to me. If you've read my post Nothing Worth Saying, or you know me in the real world, then you'll be aware of Katie and how bloody wonderful she is... Well except for one small issue, I told her I loved her on Sunday morning (just after midnight) and so, just as happened last time I confessed my love for someone, she came out. It was almost the same comment, they both said they were "80% lesbian", which I'm now pretty sure translates as "100% lesbian but not totally come to terms with it yet"
Now you should be able to appreciate just how impressive it is that I've managed to hit 2/2 closet homosexuals, but I want to know just how probable it is, so lets do the maths... Oh come on! It's that or I get depressing and mopey. The maths is better right? Good.
So the current scientifc estimate is that 1.4% of women are openly lesbian and 7.5% report "same gender desire"
Obviously they weren't out when I fell for them so the odds of me meeting them while they were in the closet is 7.5%^2=0.5625% More exactly that's the odds of you picking two random women and them both being in Narnia.
Then we have the more difficult question of "what are the odds of me falling in love with them strongly enough to admit it?" Even if we assume everyone has an equal chance after a certain point, how close is that point? So lets assume some simple numbers.
An apparent formula for people you meet in life is "Your age X 365 + leap years you've lived through X 2" for an average of meeting 2 people per day. I'm not very social so lets loose the "X 2"
18X365+4=6574
half it to eliminate men=3287
now lets assume I only care for about 1/20 of those 3000 women, that the rest are just passing acquaintances, classmates and whatnot=164.35=164 no decimalising of women.
Again, I'm taking estimates here, but apparently the average is 4 real loves in a lifetime, now all 4 coming before you're 19 is insane, so we'll quarter it (giving my lifespan a rough estimate of 76). therefore the odds of me falling in love with any one person I know is 1/164=0.6097%
So multiplying the two together gives us a final estimate of 0.006097X0.005625=0.0034299%
That gives us a rough estimate that there will be somewhere around 240,000 heterosexual homosexualphiles in the world. That's an insanely small number, I'm almost proud to be one of them.
Now before someone like Jonny, or Katie actually, she said stats was easy, turns up to criticise my maths, I want it to be clear that there are a lot of assumptions and estimates going on. Reasonably there could be anything from 1 (that's me) to 2,000,000 of us in the world. Of course if there's a fundamental error going on, feel free to point it out.
240,000 out of 7,000,000,000 though, that's nothing really is it? It's half the population of Liverpool, spread over the globe, I very much doubt that any one in the same situation will ever read this, but if you are a heterosexual homosexualphile, you are not alone!
Now you should be able to appreciate just how impressive it is that I've managed to hit 2/2 closet homosexuals, but I want to know just how probable it is, so lets do the maths... Oh come on! It's that or I get depressing and mopey. The maths is better right? Good.
So the current scientifc estimate is that 1.4% of women are openly lesbian and 7.5% report "same gender desire"
Obviously they weren't out when I fell for them so the odds of me meeting them while they were in the closet is 7.5%^2=0.5625% More exactly that's the odds of you picking two random women and them both being in Narnia.
Then we have the more difficult question of "what are the odds of me falling in love with them strongly enough to admit it?" Even if we assume everyone has an equal chance after a certain point, how close is that point? So lets assume some simple numbers.
An apparent formula for people you meet in life is "Your age X 365 + leap years you've lived through X 2" for an average of meeting 2 people per day. I'm not very social so lets loose the "X 2"
18X365+4=6574
half it to eliminate men=3287
now lets assume I only care for about 1/20 of those 3000 women, that the rest are just passing acquaintances, classmates and whatnot=164.35=164 no decimalising of women.
Again, I'm taking estimates here, but apparently the average is 4 real loves in a lifetime, now all 4 coming before you're 19 is insane, so we'll quarter it (giving my lifespan a rough estimate of 76). therefore the odds of me falling in love with any one person I know is 1/164=0.6097%
So multiplying the two together gives us a final estimate of 0.006097X0.005625=0.0034299%
That gives us a rough estimate that there will be somewhere around 240,000 heterosexual homosexualphiles in the world. That's an insanely small number, I'm almost proud to be one of them.
Now before someone like Jonny, or Katie actually, she said stats was easy, turns up to criticise my maths, I want it to be clear that there are a lot of assumptions and estimates going on. Reasonably there could be anything from 1 (that's me) to 2,000,000 of us in the world. Of course if there's a fundamental error going on, feel free to point it out.
240,000 out of 7,000,000,000 though, that's nothing really is it? It's half the population of Liverpool, spread over the globe, I very much doubt that any one in the same situation will ever read this, but if you are a heterosexual homosexualphile, you are not alone!
Friday, 26 April 2013
The Myth of Selflessness
Is that not just the most cynical title you've ever read? Considering the title of my blog it's hardly likely that this is a problem for anyone now is it? If it is a problem for you let me know, so I can laugh at you. Now, to the cheery business of calling you all selfish cunts.
Selflessness is the act of performing an action that offers no benefit to you, and is in fact often detrimental to you, purely for the benefit of others. A fairly simple and certainly honourable cause to stand for, but think about this: if you enjoy acting selflessly, does the fact it makes you happy not therefore mean it can no longer be called selfless?
Maybe an example would help, so imagine yourself in this situation. Someone you care about texts you late at night, clearly in a bad mood. You stay up to try and cheer them up, but appear to be getting nowhere. Now you're losing sleep and almost certainly dragging your own mood down to try and help someone else, you're not the reason they're unhappy so have no obligation to help. It's a pretty selfless way to spend the night is it not?
So why do you do it? We all know the answer, it makes us happy to see the people we care about being happy. So when you go out of your way to make someone else happy, are you doing it for the sake of their mood, or your own?
You may come across as the loveliest fucking thing there is, but in reality we're all as selfish as each other. Don't get me wrong, you are still doing good, still helping others, but it is done for the sake of the person performing the action not the one benefiting from it.
Selflessness is the act of performing an action that offers no benefit to you, and is in fact often detrimental to you, purely for the benefit of others. A fairly simple and certainly honourable cause to stand for, but think about this: if you enjoy acting selflessly, does the fact it makes you happy not therefore mean it can no longer be called selfless?
Maybe an example would help, so imagine yourself in this situation. Someone you care about texts you late at night, clearly in a bad mood. You stay up to try and cheer them up, but appear to be getting nowhere. Now you're losing sleep and almost certainly dragging your own mood down to try and help someone else, you're not the reason they're unhappy so have no obligation to help. It's a pretty selfless way to spend the night is it not?
So why do you do it? We all know the answer, it makes us happy to see the people we care about being happy. So when you go out of your way to make someone else happy, are you doing it for the sake of their mood, or your own?
You may come across as the loveliest fucking thing there is, but in reality we're all as selfish as each other. Don't get me wrong, you are still doing good, still helping others, but it is done for the sake of the person performing the action not the one benefiting from it.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Nothing Worth Saying
I know I've said I'm opposed to writing out of a feeling of obligation, but it's been almost a month so I'm going to, sorry. The problem is, I really have (as the the title suggests) nothing to write for you. It seems odd as so much shit has happened recently, especially in Korea and the US, but I just can't seem to get into my normal angry ranting mood that powers those kind of post.
So I'm deeply sorry, but to explain to you why (not that you're likely to care) I'm going to make one of my rare personal life posts. I won't blame you if you just move on now, go read the post about Helena or the pope again, they're much more fun. Those of you still here, I owe you a cookie.
I'm pretty certain the lack of anger and therefore the lack of posts can be traced back to the only significant change in my life for... ages, damn my life is exciting. For those of you who I don't know in the real world (I have hits from all over the world, but no idea why this is) the change I speak of is the addition of something small, welsh and exceptionally pretty to my life... No I have not brought a lamb! It is of course a person, a female person so I'll stop referring to her as it now.
I know what you're going to say "But Marshall, any time you have any interest in anyone you turn into the lamb you didn't buy!" Well firstly can you stop going on about the bloody lamb? More importantly, I somehow seem to have bypassed that, fucking irritating to everyone, phase. Maybe all my crazy and seeming irrational fears had a logical basis, because I'm feeling none of them now. I am as obsessive as ever, but not in a dramatic downward spiral this time, but all happy and excitable, like a small child at Christmas, so that's definitely better, but probably still irritating to some people.
Well fuck, I'd promised myself this wasn't going to be a post about Katie, but it sort of is now isn't it? Ah well you know what I'm like. One of you reading this might even be Katie, although you shouldn't be because I told her not to read my blog as there's a good chance of political opinions that are... Oh what's the word?.. Oh yeah, correct.
And just like that it's the blog you came here for.
Because correct is the right word for left wing politics, being left wing isn't some vapid hippy ideal, nor is it a totalitarian socialist nuthouse. It is the logical and moral belief in equal rights and equal opportunities, in a society where the people who put the most into society get the most out, as it should be. Right wing politics is the great system of "them and us". The rich own the money and have the power, therefore only the rich deserve money and power.
I am not a communist or any form of leftist radical, all I believe is that everyone should have the chance to make something of their life based purely on merit.
It's the same logic that props up my republican ideals, no one should be born into a position of unquestionable power, monarchy is the perfect example of true right wing politics. You are born, you therefore have the right to be head of state. That is not logic, that is madness, why is it still in effect?
So in summary: Katie is beautiful and causes a lack of anger in most things, but generates anger at politics... also, the royals are all a bunch of pointless tax draining cunts.
So I'm deeply sorry, but to explain to you why (not that you're likely to care) I'm going to make one of my rare personal life posts. I won't blame you if you just move on now, go read the post about Helena or the pope again, they're much more fun. Those of you still here, I owe you a cookie.
I'm pretty certain the lack of anger and therefore the lack of posts can be traced back to the only significant change in my life for... ages, damn my life is exciting. For those of you who I don't know in the real world (I have hits from all over the world, but no idea why this is) the change I speak of is the addition of something small, welsh and exceptionally pretty to my life... No I have not brought a lamb! It is of course a person, a female person so I'll stop referring to her as it now.
I know what you're going to say "But Marshall, any time you have any interest in anyone you turn into the lamb you didn't buy!" Well firstly can you stop going on about the bloody lamb? More importantly, I somehow seem to have bypassed that, fucking irritating to everyone, phase. Maybe all my crazy and seeming irrational fears had a logical basis, because I'm feeling none of them now. I am as obsessive as ever, but not in a dramatic downward spiral this time, but all happy and excitable, like a small child at Christmas, so that's definitely better, but probably still irritating to some people.
Well fuck, I'd promised myself this wasn't going to be a post about Katie, but it sort of is now isn't it? Ah well you know what I'm like. One of you reading this might even be Katie, although you shouldn't be because I told her not to read my blog as there's a good chance of political opinions that are... Oh what's the word?.. Oh yeah, correct.
And just like that it's the blog you came here for.
Because correct is the right word for left wing politics, being left wing isn't some vapid hippy ideal, nor is it a totalitarian socialist nuthouse. It is the logical and moral belief in equal rights and equal opportunities, in a society where the people who put the most into society get the most out, as it should be. Right wing politics is the great system of "them and us". The rich own the money and have the power, therefore only the rich deserve money and power.
I am not a communist or any form of leftist radical, all I believe is that everyone should have the chance to make something of their life based purely on merit.
It's the same logic that props up my republican ideals, no one should be born into a position of unquestionable power, monarchy is the perfect example of true right wing politics. You are born, you therefore have the right to be head of state. That is not logic, that is madness, why is it still in effect?
So in summary: Katie is beautiful and causes a lack of anger in most things, but generates anger at politics... also, the royals are all a bunch of pointless tax draining cunts.
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Clara 'Oswin' Oswald
If you're reading this and my view of my reader is anywhere near accurate, then you've already watched the Dr Who episode "The Bells of St. John" (that's today's for those of you to stupid to think (which is of course non of you, but I have to be prepared for muggles to come along now and again)) If you haven't then go fucking watch it! Both to avoid the spoilers and so what I'm saying makes sense... Ok are we all caught up now? Good, let's proceed.
No wait, one more thing before we do. Do you think because Matt Smith is the youngest Doctor ever that someone high up decreed that the companions must be younger and hotter than ever before? I mean when they unveiled a leggy redhead in a policewoman's uniform I was pretty certain that was not to be topped, but then, well... this happened:
I mean seriously! She is properly hot. The only reason Jenna Louise Coleman is not on "the list" is because she's on both my father's and brother's, if there was ever something that you shouldn't share with your family, it's list entries (find the post "the Lovell list" to explain that)
Anywho, now I actually am going to get to the actual timey-wimey, nerdy-wordy things I came here to say. To avoid (or possibly create) confusion We'll be using this system from here onwards:
Clara=Victorian
Oswin=Dalek
Jenna=This episode (and series, but that's not relevant yet) (yes I know that's the actress's name but what other option do I have? "Oswald"? No, that's an old man's name! Don't be so silly)
The most obvious question the writers have made us ask is "Are Clara, Jenna and Oswin all the same person?" which obviously leads on to the more interesting "If yes, how is she resurrecting?" or "If no, what connects them?"
I know I came here to express my theories and thoughts about these questions, but I can't answer the first of them. She's met the Doctor for the first time 3 times now, but she never knew him beforehand. So this means that surely they're not one person being resurrected, otherwise Oswin and Jenna would remember the meeting Clara had with him wouldn't they? So they must be different people surely?
However, it seems that knowledge is passed between them. Clara is in the past and not a genius, Oswin is in the future and she's able to hack a whole dalek prison at will. Jenna, at the start of the episode, knows nothing about computers, she then gets uploaded, downloaded and all the other sorts of loaded (that sounds rude now I write it) and becomes a total screaming genius but modest and a tiny bit sexy, much like Oswin is. That implies some sort of consistent conciousness that allows knowledge to be passed down on a linear timeline. So maybe they are the same person but why is knowledge passed and not memories?
Besides, there are a few subtle differences between the 3 of them. Oswin's first name was, obviously, Oswin, Clara's middle name was Oswin, but then Jenna didn't recognise the name. How can a name flit in and out of the timeline for a person/people?
Let's be honest, I've answered nothing have I? I've just listed all the options. Well to quote Neil deGrasse Tyson and Jean Valjean "Sometimes, one must be content to love the questions themselves." "The truth is given to us all in our time, in our turn." So put the kettle on, put your feet up, and watch the pretty woman and the mad man in a box.
No wait, one more thing before we do. Do you think because Matt Smith is the youngest Doctor ever that someone high up decreed that the companions must be younger and hotter than ever before? I mean when they unveiled a leggy redhead in a policewoman's uniform I was pretty certain that was not to be topped, but then, well... this happened:
Anywho, now I actually am going to get to the actual timey-wimey, nerdy-wordy things I came here to say. To avoid (or possibly create) confusion We'll be using this system from here onwards:
Clara=Victorian
Oswin=Dalek
Jenna=This episode (and series, but that's not relevant yet) (yes I know that's the actress's name but what other option do I have? "Oswald"? No, that's an old man's name! Don't be so silly)
The most obvious question the writers have made us ask is "Are Clara, Jenna and Oswin all the same person?" which obviously leads on to the more interesting "If yes, how is she resurrecting?" or "If no, what connects them?"
I know I came here to express my theories and thoughts about these questions, but I can't answer the first of them. She's met the Doctor for the first time 3 times now, but she never knew him beforehand. So this means that surely they're not one person being resurrected, otherwise Oswin and Jenna would remember the meeting Clara had with him wouldn't they? So they must be different people surely?
However, it seems that knowledge is passed between them. Clara is in the past and not a genius, Oswin is in the future and she's able to hack a whole dalek prison at will. Jenna, at the start of the episode, knows nothing about computers, she then gets uploaded, downloaded and all the other sorts of loaded (that sounds rude now I write it) and becomes a total screaming genius but modest and a tiny bit sexy, much like Oswin is. That implies some sort of consistent conciousness that allows knowledge to be passed down on a linear timeline. So maybe they are the same person but why is knowledge passed and not memories?
Besides, there are a few subtle differences between the 3 of them. Oswin's first name was, obviously, Oswin, Clara's middle name was Oswin, but then Jenna didn't recognise the name. How can a name flit in and out of the timeline for a person/people?
Let's be honest, I've answered nothing have I? I've just listed all the options. Well to quote Neil deGrasse Tyson and Jean Valjean "Sometimes, one must be content to love the questions themselves." "The truth is given to us all in our time, in our turn." So put the kettle on, put your feet up, and watch the pretty woman and the mad man in a box.
Tuesday, 19 March 2013
Strangers on the Internet
This is going to rambley, I can feel it. Try and stick with me on this... Yes of course rambley is a real word, why would you even question that? Anyway, to business.
I'm not a fan of naming fandoms, in fact I'm not a fan of the word fandom itself, but I concede that they do make things neater. Especially on (the main focus of this post) twitter, where everything is neatly condensed into tiny snippets of information. It does make life easier to just look and see Belieber, Directioner, and all that other shite and just sit there going "nope nope, oh wait! Nope!" I'm sure plenty of them are good and interesting people deep down... well some of them, maybe, but if they care enough about awful music to make it that obvious, I'm not going to dig that far before giving up. Anywho, I came here to extol the virtues of these people (Fandom people, not beliebers) not complain.
I see people complaining about boring and generic tweets on a daily basis, but I never see the original problem. I got bored of pointing out that you only see boring shit from the people you follow, if you stop following them it all goes away. Related to this is people who feel obligated to follow everyone they know in the real world, I hate most of the people I know in the real world! I can see why people would want to avoid real world people on the internet, I only occasionally have to deal with Kelly questioning my... *sigh* fine I'll say it, Helenaist nature. If I had that shit on a daily basis I'd do what I know at least one other person I know has, get another account to be me on, and just be Marshall on the one I have now. I say at least one as the point of the second account is it stays away from people from the real world, so maybe there are plenty of them are out there.
Right, we may as well get to the point in the title now shall we? I follow 127 people on twitter and I'm followed by 102 (at least while I'm writing this) only 30 people (well 29, 30 accounts) are on both lists. This is because I follow people who I find interesting, whether someone follows me or not has no impact on my choice to follow them or not, even if they get pissy about me not following back. About 6 of those people make up well over 3/4 of my interactions. I've only met 2 of them and can only tell you what 3 of them look like, that is because the other 3 all have pictures of Helena Bonham Carter as their icons (The other one I don't know is Katie... We don't talk about why she's in my interactions). Now finally I get to make a genuine point! It doesn't matter that I may never meet these people, that isn't important. We share interests (no, not just Helena, not always) and the whole point of twitter is to connect to people you share interests with, not people you know. I spend a ridiculous amount of time on twitter and essentially none on facebook, because I'm much more interested in strangers I share interests with, than I am in acquaintances I don't give a shit about.
Basically, there is no reason to complain about what people tweet. There are so many accounts out there that you can have a perfectly full timeline that all interests you. Just unfollow the boring people and follow interesting strangers in their place.
I'm not a fan of naming fandoms, in fact I'm not a fan of the word fandom itself, but I concede that they do make things neater. Especially on (the main focus of this post) twitter, where everything is neatly condensed into tiny snippets of information. It does make life easier to just look and see Belieber, Directioner, and all that other shite and just sit there going "nope nope, oh wait! Nope!" I'm sure plenty of them are good and interesting people deep down... well some of them, maybe, but if they care enough about awful music to make it that obvious, I'm not going to dig that far before giving up. Anywho, I came here to extol the virtues of these people (Fandom people, not beliebers) not complain.
I see people complaining about boring and generic tweets on a daily basis, but I never see the original problem. I got bored of pointing out that you only see boring shit from the people you follow, if you stop following them it all goes away. Related to this is people who feel obligated to follow everyone they know in the real world, I hate most of the people I know in the real world! I can see why people would want to avoid real world people on the internet, I only occasionally have to deal with Kelly questioning my... *sigh* fine I'll say it, Helenaist nature. If I had that shit on a daily basis I'd do what I know at least one other person I know has, get another account to be me on, and just be Marshall on the one I have now. I say at least one as the point of the second account is it stays away from people from the real world, so maybe there are plenty of them are out there.
Right, we may as well get to the point in the title now shall we? I follow 127 people on twitter and I'm followed by 102 (at least while I'm writing this) only 30 people (well 29, 30 accounts) are on both lists. This is because I follow people who I find interesting, whether someone follows me or not has no impact on my choice to follow them or not, even if they get pissy about me not following back. About 6 of those people make up well over 3/4 of my interactions. I've only met 2 of them and can only tell you what 3 of them look like, that is because the other 3 all have pictures of Helena Bonham Carter as their icons (The other one I don't know is Katie... We don't talk about why she's in my interactions). Now finally I get to make a genuine point! It doesn't matter that I may never meet these people, that isn't important. We share interests (no, not just Helena, not always) and the whole point of twitter is to connect to people you share interests with, not people you know. I spend a ridiculous amount of time on twitter and essentially none on facebook, because I'm much more interested in strangers I share interests with, than I am in acquaintances I don't give a shit about.
Basically, there is no reason to complain about what people tweet. There are so many accounts out there that you can have a perfectly full timeline that all interests you. Just unfollow the boring people and follow interesting strangers in their place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)