So i have nothing to write about, but simply felt like writing. In other words, this is bound to be a very rambling and uninteresting post.

i have recently acquired a facebook account. Facebook is so far beyond myspace that i wonder how so many can compare the two as being part of the same category of equalish sites like xanga and livejournal are. Unfortunately, in being so far above myspace it poses a far greater threat to the sanity and productivity of its users than myspace ever dreamed of being. A person can spend long hours, working throughout the night, in the discovering of more friends, the looking at of more photos, the reading of more messages, comments, and notes, the poking and drop kicking and food fighting of more people, and the list goes on. For what purpose? To what end? "i can't believe i found that person! i should message him and catch up." Why? How many friendship can a person really keep up with? And if you actually know the person in real life wouldn't it be better to hang out in the real world? To actually talk to the person instead of just exchanging messages? And yet i am still sucked in, captivated by the thought of clinging on to old friendships, spending even greater amounts of time with current friends, and even snaring new, better friends.

i am not against friendships by any means. i'm not even entirely against friendships maintained solely through virtual means. i just think a person can only have so many friends and still count any of them as "friends". Friendships are designed to grow and eventually die. Trying to cling to every friend you ever had will only stretch your resources thin and not allow for the birth of new friendships or the strengthening of current ones. There is a reason people tell you to choose your friends wisely. It is because you must actually choose. (i'm rambling, but i warned that i would)

It is generally considered that a friend is someone you know well, someone you talk to and hang out with. Yet there is another definition which, perhaps, leads to much better friendships than simply talking and hanging out. That is that a friend is "a person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade." (dictionary.com) Thinking back across my relatively few years it seems that my strongest friendships have been ones that belonged to this definition. The "struggle or cause" part varies, maybe we took a hard class together or endured band camp together or maybe we just fought and cheered for the victory of the same team, but the definition still holds true. And if this theory is accurate logic would follow that the way to make new friends, or even "catch up" with old ones would be more along the lines of joining a cause together than messaging, poking, and just general hanging out. This is not to say that a friendship cannot exist and be sustained by these methods, as i can think of one friendship now that has lasted for over a year so far based solely on messaging of various types, but i would not consider this person to be one of my best or closest friends (no offense).

So anyway, just some random thoughts from facebook to friendships. i have now satiated my desire for writing and can now move on to even less productive forms of time occupation.

So i'm back in Georgia for the next week and a half..... i don't think hills and curves have ever looked so good. A person can only take so many cornfields, though the speed limits are pretty nice out there. =P .....Worldview was insanely awesome, even more so than usual. i think i used up most of my summer sleep reserve though....... i had a great Fourth of July. ......Now i think i'm going to go to bed. Sorry for the rambling..... If you're going to be around give me a call and we'll get together sometime.

The world is filled with ignorant people who think they know stuff. Simply the fact that people are ignorant is not really a major problem. Everyone is and always will be ignorant to some extent because no one can know everything. The problem comes when ingnorant people try to hold on a discussion or even worse, a debate, when they know little to nothing about the topic. Everyone likes to feel important and smart, and they think that if they can get their opinion out everyone will suddenly realize that they were right all along. "You're the genius who saved us all from stupidity and if you hadn't come along we'd probably still be floundering in the dark with impossible theories wanting for you to come and save us with your infinite knowledge." Too bad you got even the most basic facts wrong. Too bad you haven't done any homework and all your grand theories are based on what your mother told you when you were five (right after explaining Santa Clause) or what you read online (like that ad telling you you'd won a million dollars and a new phone).*

So what is an intelligent, fairly well-educated person supposed to do? Do i go through the forums pointing out all the holes in their arguments? Do i show them my much sounder and better founded theories only to be spammed with hate comments by those who refuse to be educated? Can i even explain all i would have to say in 500 characters or less? Or do i leave them to fight it out with insults rather than reason so nothing is accomplished? Can anything be accomplished even if reason is used, or are people too set in their stupidity? Is there any hope for educating the world?

i love to debate and fight and argue, but the internet brings a whole new level of stupidity and hate. But then maybe that just makes a person appreciate an intelligent debate with a friend face-to-face even more. A debate where both parties know how to think and articulate and have a decent background in the topic. A debate where insults are recognized as being futile and stupid. A debate where both sides want to find the truth and are willing to admit when their side is no longer defensible. But even if that time never comes, and an agreement is never reached, both sides can still be friends.



*i'm not knocking mothers or the internet just the stupid people who believe everything they're told.

i went to see pirates three today. i was going to see the midnight showing, but then i found out that there was an eight o'clock showing. The purpose of seeing the midnight showing was to be the first ones to see it and to watch it with all the crazy fans. An eight o'clock showing would defeat both purposes. So why didn't i go to the eight o'clock showing? i'm against the whole idea of eight o'clock showings. The movie is advertised to come out on May 25 yet the first showing is a eight on May 24. That's just not right. It should  come out on midnight of opening day not the day before opening day. So i avoided Thursday night showings all together, saved some money, and went to the last matinee on opening day.

The movie was scheduled to start at 5:30. i don't think it actually started until six. That's a half of an hour spent watching commercials. Now, in general i enjoy previews. i like to see what's coming out and decide which ones i want to see in theaters, which ones i want to rent, and which ones i want to avoid at all cost. But a half hour is a long time. That's half of the average tv show today and used to be a third of the length of the average movie (which brings me to another point that i will discuss later). i spent $6.25 to watch a half hour of commercials. Why do i do this to myself? A few conversations with friends about the movie right after it comes out? i'm beginning to think it's not worth it. Especially when that half hour only extends the three hours you've already committed to sit through. Which brings me to my main complaint about movies today.

Why does a movie need to be three hours long? The first three hour movie i remember going to was The Fellowship of the Ring, and everyone made a big deal over it being three hours. "Make sure you go to the bathroom before hand!" "Don't buy any drinks!" But at least with The Fellowship of the Ring they had three hours worth of material. The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy was based off The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, and those are some good sized books. As it was they cut out a lot of parts that didn't directly progress the plot (Tom Bombadil for instance), and, as far as i know, only embellished the romance between Aragon and Arwen. But now it seems to be the style to have movies of increasing length even when there is only enough material for a ninety minute or two hour movie. Why the change? My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the transition from VHS to DVD as the main consumer movie format is to blame. With DVDs people started putting deleted scenes and a wealth of other junk into the consumers' hands. Then someone thought, "Hey, since we're giving them the deleted scenes anyway, what's the point of deleting them in the first place?" And so died the fine, beautiful art of editing. Movie makers are spared the expense of having a cutting room and the emotional heartbreak of losing their favorite scenes.

"We have forty-five minutes of sword fighting with no real purpose or plot progression." "But i love that shot with Elizabeth stabbing that guy!"

"We spend half the movie figuring out who's betraying who." "But it adds tension and besides, you have to admit that's a great shot of the Chinese pirate."

"We have twenty minutes of Jack talking to himself in the locker." "But i can't bear to cut any of it."

So quantity takes the place of quality, and Hollywood hopes the education experts got it right when they said the average retention of audio/visual content is only 20%. And if they were right, and an audience naturally remembers the best 36 minutes of the movie, then Hollywood just might continue raking in the cash. Personally, i'm finding that the Riverstone Theater is not really comfortable enough for three hours.

Only TWO MORE HOURS of school left!!! of course it's with mrs. roper but whatever. it's the last two hours of that class ever!

So i pretty much had the best weekend ever. (a little late i know, but i've been busy) We didn't do anything in school on Friday (as has become the usual in the last few days of school) and we played another totally awesome game of Ultimate. We actually had too many people at one point in the game, though it was really only a problem cause they weren't really there to play so they just hung out in the middle of the field talking. Obstacle Frisbee! But yeah so it was hard-core most of the time and insanely fun.

Then after we were done playing Ultimate we were just standing around trying to come up with something to do so Rick invites everyone over to our house for all night video games! It was really cool! and in addition to the usual Halo and SSB Zea brought his Wii and i finally found a video game that i can beat my brother at! It was even more crazy cause i was beating him at boxing which, in real life, he would totally kick my butt. Once everyone was tired of playing video games and falling asleep, Rick Daniel and i stayed up till about 6 talking about philosophy and stuff. it was so much fun! yeah i'm a nerd i know.

So i was completely dead on Saturday cause i tried to stay up and make it a normal day instead of just going to bed and sleeping like i wanted to. But then on Sunday Caroline had a pool party at her house which was mucho fun. My first real swim of the season! (New Year's and Spring break don't really count cause it wasn't summer yet) Then i got drafted into helping Caroline with her history video but it was fun. i got to feel special and smart even though i suck at dealing with macs cause i hardly ever work with them.

Then on Monday (not part of the weekend i know but still cool) we spent lit class doing gymnastics behind 200 hall. i can (sort of) do a cartwheel! And i learned how to do a handstand but i can't balence it at all.

i love the end of school.