Would you believe I have not yet read anything by Matheson? I understand he was a contemporary of William Nolan and Charles Beaumont (both of which I have heavily read) and quite similar, and even an inspiration for Stephen King. I'll have to order his stuff in my next abebooks hunt.

  I reorganized my condo last night and made a wrap-around wall of books. For the first time in my life, I actually thought about reorganization according to color. My bed has white sheets, and my favorite chair has a white cloth, so I put the chair next to my bed and moved the brown desk out amongst the bookshelves. I can't believe I never thought of that before. In total, I have 9 large bookshelves. They are overflowing. And I have 200 books in storage that I don't want. I can't give them away, either. If I want to give a book to a woman, it has to be Twilight or something extraordinarily well-known. If it is not sex-oriented or sleazy in some way, then women are not interested. And men, they don't read. I'm something of an anomaly.

I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that if someone has sex before marriage, then they're "destined" to get divorced. In fact, I'm not sure where you get that notion from? OK, my guess (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you get this notion from your religion. The only people I've met that had the same opinions as you are those that are very religous individuals (not just Christians by the way). Now, I'm not saying they're bad people and certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the point is that people are different and just because they don't lead the same lifestyle you do, that does not make them cheaters/evil/or have various STDs. Likewise, how many prom queens have you known? If you want to hold off sex until you are married, that is perfectly your right and your business. I don't think it would be fair of people to criticize you for such a decision. Likewise, I question your notions, which by the way do not agree with statistics.

Definitely do, and let me know what you think. I Am Legend, is the first Matheson work I have read. However, I am familiar with his material from The Twlight Zone. He's definitely very talented, and has a wonderful imagination.

I don't know why I bother trying to argue points with people who aren't going to believe me or acknowledge my point of view, when they're just going to accuse me of bias, even though they themselves have an agenda they want to promote to the exclusion of others.

My views have been shaped by my experience; simple observation, really.

I have a couple of cousins who had partners they never married, and had children by them; both ended up either separating from their partner, or getting dumped.

I have a friend who was married for precisely the time of ONE MONTH before getting divorced. His girlfriend/wife had sex with him BEFORE they got married.

And then there's my co-workers; no matter what job I've worked (and I'm usually the youngest person wherever I work, with everyone else being from the Baby Boomer Generation) there's no shortage of people who're either currently divorced, separated, or on a marriage that isn't their first marriage. They always insist in shoehorning their grief into normal conversation; be it about their ex-spouse, the children they had by that spouse, or mentioning that they're on their second or third person (spouse), or about how they think their step children are dirt; I asked all of them if they'd had sex prior to marriage. The answer was always "Yes."

It's just really distressing for me to hear about no matter what. These people feel miserable with their lives, and it comes through in what they say, and how they say it.

They say that the divorce rate for married couples in the U.S. is 50%. That's half of all marriages! It's hard NOT to believe, in the face of everything I've heard and seen!

It kind of has me convinced that, no matter who I marry, they'd probably end up just marrying for sex - covering sex with marriage so they don't seem lewd - and then divorcing for money.

AS A GENERAL RULE, if you're the type to have sex out of wedlock, you're not the type to stick around! If you just want to have casual sex, you're not interested in a committed relationship! People who take that stuff seriously save it for marriage! There are exceptions...there are people who have casual sex, and then eventually find someone they end up permanently married to...but they're exceptions to the rule.

Playing devil's advocate here: I think it would be interesting to see stats on how many people who do the "wait until marriage" thing actually end up being the people who get divorced, since, ya know, they put off such a major part of human relationships until after they're locked into it legally.

So 50% of marriages end in divorce... that sounds like the canonical number. That also means 50% of marriages don't end in divorce. Now, you can't seriously believe that of the marriages that "stick", that nearly all those people waited until marriage to have sex? Just from the statistics, as 1:2 chance of having a "successful" marriage is pretty good! I'm not arguing with you that people who just want casual sex are not going to be marriage material, that I agree with. However, I disagree with many of your other statements. By the way, in this study, 95% of Americans have had sex before marriage. And guess what? They've been doing it for decades!!

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006 … index.html

The divorce rate was much lower in the 50s. Although this does not cover everything, the graph below will show how the divorce rate has climbed over the years. Yet, most people have always had sex before marriage... so what does that mean? That sex before marriage is not the reason for high divorce rates.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s … vorce.html

That said, I'm not trying to talk you out of your ways (which I take it are religious in nature). However, the reasons for high divorces are not due to merely having sex before getting married.

Oh my god, how delusional are you?

People that have sex before marriage and not end up getting divorced are the exception to the rule!?
"If you're the type to have sex out of wedlock, you're not the type to stick around!?" AS A GENERAL RULE!?

You are insane, and I'm not even going to dignify this bullshit with a reasonable response.

And before you start whining that I'm insulting you, know that you insulted me (and a lot of other people on this board, I presume) first by insinuating that I cannot be loyal to my wife because I've had sex with her before I married her.

Before running your mouth off like that, you'd better find some real numbers to back up your claims (or just use your common sense if you have any) or you're gonna rub a lot of people the wrong way, buddy, just saying.

Sorry if you feel insulted, that wasn't my intent. You're telling me I'm alienating you and everyone else here, but it's also a two-way street: I'm the one who feels alienated from everyone else who isn't me.

Really, it's just a general rule I've set for myself: Don't date girls who've previously had sex, and don't date girls from previously failed marriages; it never turns out well. Not for me, at least. But GOOD LUCK trying to find someone like that, right?

Don't mind me, I've just become really disillusioned with life and existence. It's just a lot of "My word, I didn't think you were like that!" Her: "What're you getting so upset about? You sound like my father..." lately...crazy kinky !@#$ that women, nay, people in general are into these days, the expectations that they have; they cover it up for a reason.

If it's any consolation, I don't necessarily go for hardcore Christian girls, either; they tend to be racist against all races that aren't White, even if the people in question have assimilated into the American lifestyle, and adopted Christianity themselves, and they also tend to be discriminatory against other religions; if I married (or even dated) one of them, they'd probably insist I lose the friends that I actually have.

I'm a very middle-of-the-road person; unfortunately, that's only the best position if you're intent on getting run over.

I think I'm just going to stop talking about this now. I'm gonna go listen to some music, and just chill out or something...

I always find it humorous to consider what would happen if marriage vows were enforced. "Till death do you part..." Imagine a world where, upon filing for divorce, you would be arrested and quickly executed.

I also like R.A. Lafferty's view on marriage. I've never stumbled upon any normal relationship in his writings. One man did get married and he did so by grabbing some woman off the street, and telling her they were now married.

Heinlein did the same thing in one of his novels. A couple got married by simply agreeing to get married, without witnesses, paperwork, etc.

I don't think that having sex before marriage (for the female) is indicative of how successful a marriage can be. But it can influence a man's decision, in interestingly opposite ways. One of the strangest things I ever heard another guy say occurred after a new female employee came to work....

"I'd like to f--- her."

"Why? She's pregnant," I stated.

"Because she fucks," he stated.

Ok. So some guys actively seek out women with kids, because it sort of guarantees that they will get laid.
Life can be really funny sometimes.

That guy, is a loser. Really, I don't use that term more than a few times a day when reading the news, but yeah, loser. When I read/hear people talk like that, I can totally understand where Dartannian is coming from. Mind you, I don't agree with many of Dartannian's notions, but a guy like that [the employee] has no self-respect nor respect for anyone else.

I was told by someone that understands relationships better than myself to observe how the woman treats other people and especially how she treats her parents, or what she thinks of them. If she has a low opinion of her parents, then she's probably not relationship material. I have observed and experienced nerve rattling evidence of this. I won't be bold enough to admit it's always true, but it's been eerily true in my experiences.

As an example, my brother's first marriage was a fiasco. The woman came from a family of abuse and drug use. She hated her mom and didn't seem to acknowledge she had a dad. One of her brothers had never had a job and somehow supported his drug habit. This was difficult information to uncover, due to her compulsive lying habit. My brother did eventually get the whole story and her compulsive lying got her in trouble with the law (by getting a restraint order against my brother and claiming he abused her in every way possible according to the checklist). Lying in court is big trouble, and unfortunately that's what it takes to uncover a compulsive liar.

Here's how I see it: How do you know if a woman is telling you the truth or not? That's the real issue, not this crap about having been laid or not. There is one way to check without getting in trouble. If she tries in any way to make you feel sorry for her. That should always be a warning sign, and remember it.

Nowadays, those men are called MILF hunters. I read that there are even GILF hunters. If you're intrigued by sexual oddities/perversions, then there is a good book for that. I was in a state of shock from beginning to end while reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/Billion-Wicked-Th … d+thoughts

My kind of world! Easy and simple!

I do appreciate the advice; it actually checks out in my experience, too.

And now for something completely different.

ANYWAY, so I have this tech job at this tech company (which will remain unnamed); the pay's decent (I'm able to make ends meet, anyway) and the commute's a ways, but the scenery on the way is kinda nice; a drive before work kind of psyches me up and motivates me for the day ahead.

Obviously, I can't tell you where the place is located, but if you're ever driving through a lush green forest on a two-way black asphalt-paved road, and pass by a security gate at the base of a small mountain, chances're that's the corporate drive leading up to my office.

The particular office for the company I work at is located on a small mountain; it's referred to fondly as "The Office on the Mount" by those of us who work there, and the campus consists of about 3 separate buildings. Literally, the buildings are located at the top of the slopes; the summit's pretty small. Keep in mind, this isn't even the company's headquarters; it's just one of their very many offices in the world.

I work in one room, around one table, with about 5-6 other people at a time.

There's only one problem with the job: THEY ACTUALLY HAVE AUTOMATED ROBOTS SURVEILLING US. They're those classic-looking robots, that have either roundish or squarish heads, and their bodies are either rectangular or trapezoidal in shape; they move around on treads. They also have arms.

And if it looks like we're goofing off, or sleeping on the job, they TAZE us. Not the kind of tazer that knocks you out, it's more like a cattle prod for humans; it just stings like getting minutely singed when cooking something. Still, it snaps you back to attention.

My point is, THESE ROBOTS ARE PROGRAMMED WITH ALGORITHMS TO RECOGNIZE IF SOMEONE IS "GOOFING OFF" OR NOT. Many times though, it's undeserved, and people have gotten tazed when they really WERE working or researching. The worst place to end up with one of these robots harassing you is in the bathroom. Y'know, 'cuz of the water? They'll also chase you away from the water cooler after a time. It's a "Loiter-free" workplace. And they disclose all of this before you decide to work for them. Of course, upstanding citizen you think you are, you don't think it'll be a problem.

Unfortunately, it reached the last straw for me yesterday. I got stung in the back of my waist while sitting at my computer, while I was trying to calculate the weight that a certain product would be able to withstand, and maybe figure out how to improve its frame, so it could sustain more weight.

I turn around, and I see "Clank" right there (that's my little pet name for 'im), so, do you know what I do? I grab him by his little orb-shaped head, and his body and arms start flailing and wiggling underneath him, but he's not able to connect me with his tazer when I hold him at arm's length.

I take him to the stairwell, and you know what I do? I f***ing toss him down one flight of stairs. Just ONE flight of stairs. *Clash!* He stops moving, and there are just sparks pouring out of him. I totally just DESTROYED company property. And you know what? I DON'T CARE. At least, that's what I thought. Just as soon as I'm able to understand what I just did, I see the shadow of a LARGER robot coming up from around the corner of the stairwell.

I get out of there, so the robot doesn't see what I look like, and I get back to my room. I don't say anything to anyone. Assumingly, the same robot that was coming up the stairwell eventually enters our room. I think it was the same robot. Everyone else is busy working, and doesn't notice him. Within my peripheral vision, over the top of my computer monitor, I can see him: He's one of those dark grey ones, who's about taller than any of us; he parks himself behind one of my co-workers. And then he gestures at me, as if to say, "I'm watching you," he does that thing where he points at his two eyes, and then points both fingers at me. These robots have achieved self-sentience. Some of them, anyway. Somehow, it knew it was me. It can't see around corners, but it knew it was me. And then he leaves the room quietly without saying anything. Interestingly enough, these robots don't report back to management if they find someone goofing off; they just sting them, and leave it at that.

Afterward, after some time, my "workplace bestfriend" approaches me, and tells me he knows what happened. About the smashed robot, and the larger robot that has my number. He hands me what looks like a police-grade flash light; it's one of those heavy ones that's half the size of a baseball bat. But, secretly, it's actually a tazer that would disable any of the surveillance robots! Apparently, all my other co-workers, ALL of them, secretly carry these around with them, and zorch any robot that dares harass them. I always wondered why some robots just seemed to bit standing around, doing nothing. As far as management has been concerned, the robots just fritz out from time to time and stop working. Apparently, only their arms are insulated from electrical shocks, since they use tazers, but their bodies are not.

My "workplace bestfriend" tells me to sit in the back corner of our room from now on, away from the door, so everyone else can look out for me. One of these days, though, we'll definitely have to zorch big dark grey.

...

[Highlight] And then I wake up and realize it was just a big bad stupid dream.[/Highlight]

(C) 2012 Dartannian Panthereo IV

just tell Skynet that you quit already...

Has anyone ever done any letterpress? I just recently finsihed a letterpress piece (one sheet) I did for a friend. I'm not sure why letterpress is so fun? It takes far longer than doing anything by computer, but it does look far better than what you get from a normal printer. Also, there's the fact that it's 100% hand-made, and in fact it is your hand that made it! These days, anything done by letterpress is high-quality. Of course, decades ago everything was done by letterpress, but today it's only for fine books and private presses. Thought I would share the love...

On pre-marital relations:

Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first? Just because it's a new car doesn't mean it will perform up to your expectations. Some gently used pre-owned vehicles have all the bells and whistles you need, and you can take comfort that they know how to hug the road and properly take corners. As long as their service history is accurate and they've passed their routine maintenance exams, pre-owned vehicles often offer much richer driving experiences than their factory sealed counterparts.

What I'm about to say, you may find offensive (I don't mean to be), but it's probably one of the few things I'm willing to say definitively and without exceptions: Comparing women (or people in general) to automobiles (or other material things in general, but especially machinery) is one of the most misogynistic and sexist things a man/woman/person can do. It objectifies a person like a doll/toy/plaything/something that's designed to be controlled and manipulated to its user's will. And all of everyone here say I'm misogynist/sexist, but I certainly don't think like that.

Sex just isn't much of a thing for me. If you're really, truly in love with the person you're dating/married to, sex will come naturally, easily. I really don't feel the need to find out if a girl is "good at sex" before making my decision to marry them. If you can't trust a person enough in order to marry them, if you can't trust them enough to depend or rely on them, why, then, would you trust them to treat the most sensitive biological parts of your body with respect?

The fact is, I felt pretty damn objectified when the girl I had been dating said I was "just ONE of her guys," when I'd found out that she had, and still is, having sex with multiple different guys. That's what she said to me. "You're JUST one of my guys." As if she just pulled one of us out of a file when she wanted us. As if we're expendable, replaceable; if one doesn't work, another one will. It's one thing to tell a person that you're still dating around (or sexing around), but another completely different thing to make a person think that they've gone steady with you. And when you find out they really are just sexing around, and that they've been hiding that from you, they treat it like it's no big thing, and treat you like some kind of judgmental shmuck if you have a problem with it. How can you can me a judgmental shmuck when you deliberately deceive me?

And she basically completely lost interest in me when I told her that I don't do pre-marital sex. I can't help feel sex being pushed on me, and the notion that it's EXPECTED of me, that I especially resent. Fact is, I'm more interested in a functional relationship in which I have someone else I can actually depend on, talk with, and commiserate with, if necessary. I see sex getting in the way of that. In this politically correct, feministic society we live in these days, us men have been taught to back off with sex and not expect it; why, then, should women expect it, then?

A roommate I once had asked me if I'd ever had sex once, of course I told him no, and he told me that I was probably smart for keeping my "V card," and went on to tell me that, once a person has sex, they crave it, and are like a drug addict looking for their next fix until they get it, and until they next time they crave it again. This, of course, just reinforced my notions of abstinence.

Don't misunderstand, though: I don't look down on people who "live a sex life," but I definitely feel other people's pains that result from them trying to live vicariously. It'd just be difficult for me to share that close an encounter with a woman, and not become emotionally attached; I become emotionally attached enough without sex. I know it's the same way with many other people, too. I hear their stories practically every day.

And not just emotional scars. Emotional scars, I don't think, can be scientifically or empirically proven; but the way some people have sex, they're doing lasting, permanent damage to their own bodies, and those of their partner. But so long as you're doing it to the person you're married to, and it's consensual, at least that damage is being isolated, and the person is willing to tolerate the damage for the pleasure...for the time being.

Vampirism is just one helluva metaphor for secretly having a really strong sexual libido in spite of a society that looks down on it; I think vampires and vampirism have become so popular in recent pop culture, because sexual inhibition is not only prevalent these days, but very publicly prevalent; common people flaunt their "sex lives" like celebrities do.

So, y'see, my ethical code when it comes to sex isn't determined just by some seemingly arbitrary code limited to any religion.

According to a genetic study, 80% of all women have successfully reproduced, while only 40% of all males have reproduced. Source: A Billion Wicked Thoughts

I'm not an expert on genetics, so I will just have to trust the results. In the far past, this was probably very true. A great deal of males were probably killed before they could reproduce (through warfare) or restricted from women by more powerful men. Humans were more like other mammals, in which one male would reproduce with many females.

Philip Jose Farmer felt that the whole vampire phenomenon was a racy sex story, so he wrote some pornographic vampire novels: Image of the Beast and Blown (They are probably better than any vampire story in existence. I can say that without having read them, based on the quality of his other fiction.)

Well, there's a reason that, when you see a group (pack?) of deer, there's only one, maybe at most, 2 males (the ones with the antlers) while the rest are all females, and the second male is probably the next up-and-coming male; it's because the male deer fight and kill each other for the right to reproduce, thereby leaving only the strongest male with the best DNA (alpha male) and therefore greatest survivability and greatest possibility of creating the best offspring possible, thereby guaranteeing the continuation of the species into the future.

Humans have primal instincts like that, too; I'd swear bullying only exists, because that's men fighting amongst themselves to find the alpha male. In other words, it's all for the sake of sex. Sex and violence go hand-in-hand with each other, as well as with one's survival instincts. Unfortunately, all of that results in conflict. That which continues our species into the future is also the same thing that might kill off our species.

Only thing is, as humans, we're capable of realizing this and preventing it.

I'm kind of thinking of going back out to an old mine site called Old Rochester (here in Nevada).  I drove out there last year and checked out all the old mine shafts and stopes.  Most stopes or tunnels if you feel air coming out of them, then theres an exit....I drove my truck up the mountain to a stope, no air coming out, but it was large enough to walk through (the rock was competent all through the stope).
So I walked to the end of the stope to find mostly pyrite...yay!

As you enter this old mine site it's settled in a valley you see old shacks where people used to live, old barns, old waste dumps.  I went inside all of them but one had old newspapers plastered on the walls....only the corners were left, I tried to find a date but couldnt.  Most of these shacks were built in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

The thing is there was a fire about month ago in Old Rochester.  I wish I brought my camera when I went there the first time.  But from what I hear everything got burnt down.

So I might go back out there next weekend to see what happened.

Congrats to NASA on a successful Martian landing for Curiosity! The car-sized lab appears to be working great, and I can't wait to see images! Far more exciting than the Olympics, in my opinion. I'll be following NASA and hope others do too. Curiosity's goal by the way, is to search for life. Some scientists believe Mars likey has or had "primitive" life (ie bacteria) in its early history, and perhaps some bacteria still survives in the soil. If bacteria (life) is discovered on Mars, I really wonder how all the religious fanatics will respond? This could be one of the greatest discoveries humans have ever achieved! By the way, my personal opinon, there is definitely intelligent life in our galaxy (let alone the Universe) other than us.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html

Mars is basically a smaller version of the Earth, so I think it's likely we'll find bacteria. From what I've been able to piece together, Mars leaked all of its hydrogen fairly rapidly, which left oxygen free to poison everything. That's why the planet is red. Water did flow, but not for very long. If Mars had had the same mass as the Earth, then we probably would have War of the Worlds for real.

That is an interesting question. What would the consequences be if two planets in the same solar system both produced intelligent life?

Venus is actually closest to Earth in terms of mass and initial composition. However, Venus is too close to the Sun to support life as we know it. Mars, is too far away from the Sun. Also, the fact that it has much less mass is a problem as you noted. However, Mars may still have water underneath the topsoil, and as you said, maybe there will be bacteria. Now, if Venus was a bit farther from the Sun, in that case, it could have developed life, and then maybe we would be able to visit Venusians! How exciting that would have been... however, it is not to be. Alas, poor Yorick...

we're fostering another bunny from the shelter. this will be a monthly thing.
http://www.binkybunny.com/FORUM/tabid/5 … fault.aspx

Nice! Always good to support your local shelter, and the bunny is super-cute!

Wait...so I can't shoot it?  That would save a lot of trouble you know. j/k, I don't want to hurt anyones feelers.

Lately I've been having considerable difficulty remembering when I played certain games, which I need to know to write my essay. I had a long discussion with a friend at work as to when we beat the first Tomb Raider (he couldn't remember). I also couldn't remember when I beat Tomb Raider II. However, I remembered something interesting while trying to fall asleep. I had played the Tomb Raiders on my 35" Sony, which was a CRT 480i set. I did not play them on the new 480p set I bought with the money I made from the ebay user valentwang.

I figured that if I could find when I sold those cd's to valentwang, I could force a limit on when I beat the Tomb Raiders. It took a while to find the feedback, but I made the sales in Nov. of 2001. This means I beat Tomb Raider I and II before November of 2001, because I had bought a 480p set at that time, which I primarily used for Gamecube games.

I haven't been having any problems with Nintendo titles after the NES era, since I almost always bought those on the release dates. I just look at gamefaqs and I know when I played it. It's not that easy with PlayStation titles, since I didn't get a PS until 3 years after its release.

As for NES titles, knowing the launch dates is not that helpful, because I didn't know the launch dates as a kid. I never got NES games as they were released, unless through some coincidence. I could've played a NES game after it had been on the market for 2 years and thought it was brand new; I had no way of checking.

This essay is turning into a big deal now, since I've written 29 pages so far (23,000 words).