Mozilla Calendar, free alternative to MS Outlook Calendar
Shirky: the future of p2p filesharing
Kim Stanley Robinson’s utopian fiction
Rituals and culture in Christian history
Homosexuality and totalitarianism in Canada
The Ecology Psalm
Alzheimer’s & Grace
60 responses to “”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
excessive post #n: far be it from me to rebuke you on your own blog, matt. So I won’t tell you off for giving all the signs of someone who runs at the instant his views are challenged or he isn’t understood.
Hans: good thoughts.
John: I was going to go for a walk and think of something insightful & witty reply to #43 after doing the dishes but got this nasty pain in my belly and it’s a sign. Ginger tea and time for bed. I tried quite hard but couldn’t see things from your point of view. I thought about explaining mine in more detail but then I thought about the small likelihood of us agreeing. And then I wondered what would be so good about us agreeing? I recommend laughing.
matt, i have a tongue that isn’t under sufficient control. I apologise unreservedly for comment 51. And I will do better in the future.
goodness, everybody had a lot to say about that topic. i wish i had something more insightful to offer, but i’ll just hang out with jono in the random facetiousness corner.
I like pink clouds
What – random faecitiousness? How dare you compare my comments to a pile of crap. For those who do not understand my wisdom, I’m actually trying to help identify the fine line between life (real conversation) and pseudo-life (msn, blogs, not real conversation)
Can hook in/concretise less proximal conversation methods by including them in face-to-face conversations.
Yes but face to face will always convey a meaning not present in pseduo life
yeah, so online talk is fragile easily broken by sarcasm facetiousness and you can connect online convos to real life by including them in real life convos.
NO! This contradicts my theory of semantics and terminology.