Monday, November 22, 2010

D&D characters again

Funny how scores change over time ... Here's the most recent test. Compare with the old one here.

I Am A: Chaotic Neutral Human Druid (3rd Level)

Ability Scores:


Chaotic Neutral A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. However, chaotic neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.

Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Druids gain power not by ruling nature but by being at one with it. They hate the unnatural, including aberrations or undead, and destroy them where possible. Druids receive divine spells from nature, not the gods, and can gain an array of powers as they gain experience, including the ability to take the shapes of animals. The weapons and armor of a druid are restricted by their traditional oaths, not simply training. A druid's Wisdom score should be high, as this determines the maximum spell level that they can cast.

Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXX (4)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXX (8)
Neutral - XXX (3)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Evil ---- X (1)

Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Dwarf ---- XXXXXX (6)
Elf ------ XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Gnome ---- XXXXXX (6)
Halfling - XXXXXXXX (8)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Half-Orc - XXXXXX (6)

Barbarian - (-4)
Bard ------ (-2)
Cleric ---- (-2)
Druid ----- XXXXXXXX (8)
Fighter --- (-4)
Monk ------ (-21)
Paladin --- (-17)
Ranger ---- (0)
Rogue ----- (-4)
Sorcerer -- (0)
Wizard ---- XXXX (4)

Friday, September 24, 2010

The Bible - I figureds it out!

On the IMDb Richard Dawkins boards, in the topic "'Christians' who don't know the Bible", someone wrote about the Bible:

"as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and "improved" by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other"

to which my response was:

"So basically, the Bible is like Wikipedia. ;) That would explain a whole LOT of things."

And then I read someone's response to my message:

"The more I think about it, the more apt that analogy seems!"

Touché! <3

Not sure if I love or hate the Richard Dawkins boards on there to be fair, but hey... 's a laugh innit?

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Results are in: I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter

Did the Belief-o-Matic test again.

And yet again, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter, i.e. Unitarian Universalist. Just look up what the Beliefnet description of it is. It doesn't get more fence-sitting than that!

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Neo-Pagan (97%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (96%)
4. New Age (94%)
5. Mahayana Buddhism (92%)
6. Liberal Quakers (83%)
7. Secular Humanism (77%)
8. Taoism (73%)
9. New Thought (67%)
10. Hinduism (64%)
11. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (64%)
12. Jainism (62%)
13. Scientology (62%)
14. Nontheist (54%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (54%)
16. Reform Judaism (52%)
17. Sikhism (47%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (46%)
19. Baha'i Faith (35%)
20. Orthodox Judaism (26%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (24%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (17%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (15%)
24. Islam (14%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (7%)
26. Roman Catholic (7%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (6%)

» Take the Belief-O-Matic quiz again

Sunday, May 16, 2010

70 words a minute!

70 words

Typing Speed Test

"You type 406 characters per minute
You have 70 correct words and
you have 2 wrong words"

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Any trained body emerges above a wonder.

That being said, it's a nice and sunny day outside. Kitchen's a mess and will need sorting out but all in a day's work, eh?

Friday, April 09, 2010

Frankie Boyle makes controversial joke - O RLY? OMG no wai!

A woman went to a Frankie Boyle gig and got upset when he made jokes about people with Down's syndrome, because she has a five-year-old daughter with the condition. To anyone familiar with the Glaswegian stand-up comedian's style of humour, it really shouldn't come as any sort of surprise. In my personal opinion, if you go to see him live (which we'd love to do, but unfortunately his upcoming gig in Nottingham this October has been sold out for some time), you should expect to be offended in some way or another.

His style of humour is really dark and you're often thinking "OMG, did he say what I think he just said?" - just watch his first live DVD. I don't think "controversial" is a strong enough word. But that's why we like him so much, he'll make the sort of jokes no one else dares making. Yes, you might get offended in the process, but that's what you'd expect. If he poked fun of overweight people or Scandinavians or women who swoon over 19th century literary characters, sure, I might get offended. Would I make a fuss about it and report it to the media? No, because I knew what I let myself in for when I bought the tickets. Hell, it would be the reason I'd buy the tickets!

To say that she enjoyed the show up until that point and being full aware of how he makes fun of people just seems to be not just naive but... hypocritical. It's okay to make fun of other people, but when the joke's on you, it's not funny anymore? It's like ordering a Hawaiian pizza and then get upset because it has pineapple on it. It's what you expect of a Hawaiian pizza, and that's probably why you ordered one in the first place. To then turn around and say you don't like pineapple, well... I don't agree with it.

If she had gone to see a different comedian, fine, there would be a point in complaining. Russell Howard or Eddie Izzard wouldn't really poke fun at disabled people, because their stand-up careers aren't built on controversial and confrontational, dark comedy. Their styles are more light-hearted and friendly. If they had made a joke about disabled people, you'd wonder what the hell was going on and say "hey, that's not a laughing matter, I'll have you know!" Frankie Boyle, on the other hand, with quotes on Mock the Week like "Watching the Saddam Hussain hanging video made me realise there is probably nothing on the Internet I would not masturbate to." ...Well, umm... I think that sums up his style fairly well and what you're letting yourself in for. In his own words:
In general, my stuff tends to be more challenging than the other comics I'm on with. So if everyone else is quite crowd-pleasing, I'll come on and try to tense them up with material that they don't really want, so that I've got that edge of nervousness to work with. If you did a slick set every gig you'd never really develop, you have to be dead disciplined about mixing it up and not retreating into the same old material.

Full story: Frankie Boyle criticised for Down's syndrome joke (BBC)

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Should I stop loving something just because I disagree with the creator's ideologies?

Just read a blog comment about someone who wasn't sure she could still love and read Jane Eyre because of Charlotte Brontë's more or less blatant racism, which has put me into rant mode.

The thing is, we have to see these books from the perspective of the time they were written in. The Brontës expressed opinions which were common of the mid-1800s and not exclusive to them, but widespread in society. Antisemitism isn't a new concept - they had massacres of Jews in medieval England. Gypsies have always been seen with suspicion - they mended pots and pans and told people their fortune... and stole not just various goods but also children - or at least, those are the prejudices held against them.

Opinions change as society changes, and back in the day of the Brontës, racism was quite acceptable. Nowadays, it's not. Should we stop reading the old classics just because our society no longer supports the same values those classic authors held along with their society? I think that's wrong, and it's foolish. If we stop reading them, we miss out on learning about our past, and that's a big mistake. If we don't learn from the past, how can we prevent history from repeating itself?

We don't have to agree with the views being portrayed, but it's not as if we're making a political statement by refusing to read these books. If it were books written by a contemporary author who writes racist propaganda - yes, then make a conscious decision to not buy those books or read them, because buying them would be supporting their cause.

Refusing to read your favourite book, a book you've loved all your life, written like 160 years ago because all of a sudden you discover the author might have been a tad bit racist... What sort of a knee-jerk response is that? "But I don't want people to think I'm a racist!" Who'd accuse you of being a racist for enjoying Charlotte Brontë? If it was a question of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler - yes, by all means, go ahead and worry about how you will be perceived by others.

I'm sure I've seen similar worries on the IMDb boards, where Christian Buffy fans were wondering if they had to stop enjoying the show just because Joss Whedon is an Atheist. Or, "Can I read Harry Potter even though I'm a Christian?" COME ON! Just because you have your set of beliefs and your favourite show's creator or your favourite book's author happens to have beliefs different to yours, it doesn't mean you can't enjoy it! If it gets preachy and tries shoving a foreign ideology down your throat, fine, object. But the whole "I mustn't enjoy this thing which I've highly enjoyed for as long as I can remember just because I think its creator is wrong" is ridiculous.

I quite enjoy (some of) the Narnia books. They're classics, I've got the whole set and have read the series many times and seen the old TV-series and the new films. Do I have to stop enjoying them because CS Lewis was a devout Christian? No. I can find bits of the books preachy and dull because he's too heavy-handed with his enthusiasm for Christianity, but all in all, they're good fantasy stories for children. Do I have to love Richard Dawkins because he's a devout Atheist? I bloody hope not - he gets a bit too preachy too, not to mention he can be very condescending. In my book, go ahead and believe whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt or annoy others by doing so. By annoy, I mean try to convert, or in other ways trying to impose your belief system on someone else's.

There was something I saw recently, an article that was a few years old, where Dawkins objected to the Harry Potter books (which he hadn't read) because it would make children believe in things like witches and magic, which to him would be just as bad as if they went around believing in Jesus and the resurrection. Bit of a crowbar separation here, please? There is no Church of Holy Potter, it's a fictional character in a fictional story, and people know this. It's not a religion, it's a set of wonderfully imaginative books. Jesus and the resurrection, while we can debate whether or not that too counts as fiction or not, is a religion. Children are generally not born with belief in the ten commandments and such, it's imposed on them by their parents, and taught to be true, even though there is no empirical evidence of there being a god, and so on. Still, to say that both are damaging to children is a bit much.

Okay, that went off the topic completely.

To bring it back a bit, those who can't stomach Philip Pullman's amazing His Dark Materials trilogy because it's about "killing god" haven't got what the story is about, and have issues telling fiction from reality.

Erm, yeah. An illustration:

OMG, I'm going to have to stop enjoying artwork because Hitler was a painter!!! And I can never go to Austria, what if people think I'm a racist?! I really enjoy buying cheap and nice chocolate from Lidl, but that's a German company and I don't want people to think I'm a Nazi, so I can't shop there any more. I'll have to bin my two Cambria orchids that were got from there recently, because even though I used to think they're really beautiful, I can't like them now that I know Lidl is German. This year, I'll boycott the Christmas market around Market Square, because that's German too and if I don't put my foot down now, they'll burn the Reichstag and annex their neighbouring countries and next thing we know, there will be organised mass-murder!!

See what I mean? That's taking things way out of context, just like it is to stop enjoying Jane Eyre because you find out Charlotte Brontë was a bit negative about gypsies and had a character going off to India to be a missionary.

Rant over.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Big Five!

Awesome! I just noticed I had done a Big Five Trait test on Facebook! :D

Okay, Big Five is to do with personality traits and is something which we're currently reading about in my psychology course. Hence why I went "ooooooh!" when I found out I had done one ages ago... which I just updated.