Ironbound

Idk. I too just show up to mess with the chain. Micky.

That's partly why I developed that kind of writing. It's not meant to be easily legible to others so they'd leave me alone back in school, instead of trying to borrow my notes and never return them or try to convince me to show them what I was writing during exams. Unfortunately my teachers were also unable or make out what I wrote in some instances. That's probably why I make at least a half-assed effort to make it legible, like in example 1. Also I pity you. There's all the world of difference between a mere tool and an instrument. It seems obvious what the pen is to you.

What The Haberdashery I never thought people would think my writing would be nice; heck, I'm the first to admit it's actually terrible! It only looks okay at first glance because all the letters are parallel, but try deciphering and you'll see most are an indeterminate squiggle!

And I show up to mess all your predictions up. Hee. Micky.

Disclaimer: my dad's a doctor. And a bureaucrat in government. Figure to yourself the double dose of inherited scrawling. Actually my handwriting is decent enough to look at, if a bit thin, if I make a special effort, but even then it's not that good once you start looking at the trees instead of the wood. My usual notes, though, are beyond help.

I'd not pass judgement upon something I don't have any knowledge of just by a glance at a Wikipedia article. But on surface, it seems to me to be an outdated notion that certainly would not be appreciated in the global world today, where the individual and not the collective is evaluated on his own merit for almost everything in life. Also, I must point out here that the concept of doing nothing is poisonously regarded as a wasteful or negative thing by several people, and this stems from the Western attitude towards it: nothing or emptiness is seen as a lack, a discontent and an idle avoidance of responsibility or choice. The compulsion of society is on the 'doing', which is a constant addiction that pushes people into hectic, swarming ants in a life they make for themselves to be an inherent race. This addiction is as toxic as any other in society, but is largely ignored because society praises it. Doing nothing is synonymous with feeling alive in the 'now' if the moment, since social notions of 'activity' emphasise on 'effort' which is 'useful'; such usefulness is always future oriented and takes away from the now, not to mention that 'effort' is not the same as 'efficiency'. Too often we toil ceaselessly and mindlessly towards a thing we do not enjoy or understand, like a hamster on a wheel, sacrificing the pleasure of living in the moment. I'm not saying action is bad or ambition undesirable. Far from it. But the man who takes time to sharpen his saw is more adept at chopping wood than one who merely rains blows upon it relentlessly and mindlessly. The concept of nothing in Indic culture (remember, we were the chaps who came up with Zero, and how important is that concept!) is known as Sūnnyata, and refers to a state of emptiness as one of clarity, unbiased interaction and introspection with the true nature of things in the present. Doing nothing, then, is a mental discipline and practice which revolves around the concept of 'just doing' something [like observing one's breath, sitting and meditating, performing Yoga, or observing nature, or even a seemingly mundane experience like eating food or bathing, which is transformed into a mentally quieting and almost spiritual experience] without distraction, without any thoughts or worries about anything else, past or future. The mind and body need to do nothing, from time to time, not just because we aren't a machine that can continue endlessly [mere sleep is not enough of a rest as is, we cannot continually keep at anything. It is neither healthy nor desirable] but to actively perform tasks that only happen in a stimulated period of rest: building neural networks, processing and updating memories, understanding logics and invigorating the psyche. It has been proven that periods of inactivity, even boredom, is healthy for the brain, as it stimulates the subconscious via an 'incubation' effect, to widen the pool of creative ideas. Lotuses bloom in stagnant water, not in ever-churning rapids. It is not easy to properly and productively do nothing. It is not merely a strategic break from work, such as with a sleep or rest; it's an art of mental discipline which is key to the health and calmness of spirit of mind and body. Why do you think there is a profound importance given to mental discipline and focus in the science and art of practices such as Yoga or Zen meditation? They are not just a series of aerobic exercises, but a spiritual practice deeply ingrained with the idea of doing nothing, nothing but focusing on nothing. It is not a waste of time, it is a very profound application of it that is deeply beneficial. It is not a lack; it is contentment; not an avoidance of choice but a conscious, potent choice. It is unfortunate that modern society is heavily inspired by, even hell-bent on, the Industrial Revolution philosophy of the West: "Work hard so you can earn more and buy things." Given this context, I ask again: Do you still think doing nothing is a negative idea?

No harm in wishing twice; happy birthday, and wishing you a great year ahead.

I'd disagree with your answer to my earlier question. To quote Harlan Ellison, you're not entitled to your opinion; you're entitled to your educated opinion. Nobody's entitled to ignorance. Also, the burden of proof should lie on the person making the (outrageous) claim, not on other people to dispute them, to use Bertrand Russel's logic. Google about the cosmic teapot. So yes, in continuation, people have the right to judge. But people also have the right to not care a damn about unsubstantiated claims or accusations. Do you believe the doing of nothing to be a negative idea in general?

No. There is no excuse or exception. Would you say that people are entitled to their opinions, however ignorant or objectively false they may be?

That question is qualified, since the mere fact that the person in question is difficult to reach out to and unwilling to accept criticism is not a deciding factor to determine whether or not I make attempts to communicate with them; rather, other reasons, such as whether I care about that person, or about the project at hand that necessitates his cooperation, and the circumstances at hand, those are the stimuli that determine the nature, timing and extent of efforts I make to secure such person's appropriate action, or otherwise offer help, mentoring, etc etc, and, depending again on the level of concern I have for the situation, I am prepared to go the necessary distance and beyond. The difficulty of getting through to a person is no concern to me if it must be done or if I am reasonably assured that I can meaningfully obtain a positive result out of the endeavour. But I don't believe I can practically arrive at an answer to your question under an assumption of ceteris paribus. However, assuming for the sake of this question that we are in a hypothetical situation, I would prefer to not waste effort upon a deliberately obstinate or irrational person, if there is no personal vested interest of mine in ensuring that he complies or obeys, or if no purpose is served out of the endeavour either to the benefit of someone or something I am interested in. I am not one to probe into the concerns of, or insert myself into, the issues of others, nor do I feel particularly compelled or moved to solve every problem or console every person I come across, even should they concern me, unless I believe the objective to be worthy of the effort in some reasonably certain manner as the case may be. I do value truth and objective clarity more than cooperation for the sake of cooperation; I'm not 'go with the flow' unless there's an excellent reason for doing so. If, in a purely hypothetical scenario without any personal bias or interest of yours, you are presented with a situation that would manifest itself in an unfavourable result, but, with your intervention, could result in a less unfavourable (yet still negative) result, would you take the initiative to involve yourself and implement the change?

No. Schooling in general was plain sailing for me, academically as well as socially. I was consistently a brilliant student, and while I generally preferred a certain distance, I had (and still have) my circle of close friends, and more than the fair share of extracurricular activities and achievements. My character certainly evolved, and significantly at that, but at various stages throughout, attributable to various events within and outside school. There was nothing that I can recall that's especially significant about high school, for me to consider as being more major than any other motivator throughout schooling. Do you believe that truth is more important than cooperation in a team effort?

No, you shall be blessed with my august presence instead. Juu?

Nah, the only Flying move he needs is Roost :] That was some valuable information I gleaned today. Admittedly the only new thing I learned was about your history with Roost, but still. Important thing to make a note of. Praise Spear Pillar. Oh, and, I'll nominate Baz.

Once, in elementary school, I failed a paper on general knowledge. My interests at the time were very narrow, limited mostly only to the natural world, and though my knowledge of such subjects was far deeper than could be expected for a kid (indeed, I knew more about animals and plants than many adults could be expected to know about); I was completely ignorant of almost everything else. I didn't even know the capital cities of the neighbouring states in my country or the names of the car models that I saw daily on the roads but never bothered to learn about. Failing that general knowledge paper was the closest I ever came to failing a subject proper, but it certainly made me aware of how a narrow focus is inadequate. Since then, I've made a conscious effort to be interested in, and consequently gain at least a little knowledge about, everything and anything that presents itself to me. I think it was a very important milestone for the development of my state of mind and attitude towards life. Have you had any such important failure, that contributed to a significant development in you?

Your question is indistinct. Life's only meaning is also its greatest meaning, and the only one of its varied interpretations that isn't subjective to each individual organism: to live it and to be alive. So yes. Did you imply that human life is to have a purpose beyond subsistence and biological functions of survival and reproduction for the individual self? That man should have some altruistic motivation for life?

I live in India, where capital punishment is not banned. However, it is reserved by the Supreme Court for the "rarest of rare cases", which are actually very rare (and very justly merited) so, from a practical standpoint, yes, I'd rather it remained a threat that existed to loom over the heads of potential criminals, if anything. That said, while many who live deserve death, many who die deserved life. Can we give it to them? We mustn't be too hasty to deal out death as punishment, not just because of the moral dilemmas that ensue, but because, from a very pragmatic point of view in statecraft, excessive use of capital punishment erodes its gravitas, and also numbs the public awe and fear of the thing. It may even spark open revolt or rebellion from certain segments of society, and even if their protests are ill-informed and guided by that vague sentiment of public sentiment for 'human rights' (though it can be argued that people who deserve capital punishment usually commit crimes that destroy their humanity), no government should brook revolt or rebellion against its policies if it can help it. TL;DR: yes, capital punishment, if it isn't already permitted, should be, but only in exceptional cases to remain an effective judgment and deterrent to crime. Should incarceration be the 'go-to' punishment dealt out for crimes?

No Does this thread have to ask bland questions?

Honourable mentions: Magearna, Steelix, Excadrill, Skarmory, Bisharp, Reuniclus, Rotom, Kyogre, Kartana, Ferrothorn, Heatran, Bronzong, Aegislash 10. Empoleon 9. Registeel 8. Scizor 7. Deoxys 6. Genesect 5. Celesteela 4. Starmie 3. Porygon-Z 2. Metagross 1. Magnezone Not much has changed since last year. I still prefer concepts revolving around alien, machinelike, inorganic lifeforms, (therefore, largely Steel and Psychic types) with a preference for abilities like Analytic, Clear Body, Download, Technician, etc. The only notable change is that I have found me a new ride in Celesteela. Worthy as Skarmory was, a giant alien spacecraft is much more thematic than a plucked prehistoric turkey.

Wynaut Should questions here only be about non-serious, potentially inane or banal things?

The chap with the jumpy GIF that doesn't loop right

American spellings, tch. I'm banning Temp, not the rest of you.

Not really, which is why I've been largely inactive on the forums for quite a while now, save the rare times (like now) when I don't have anything better to do and feel mildly curious about what goes on in the few parts of this place that I used to frequent. Do you think state-funded elections are a good idea?

Lug-Rough Skin

I already rated yours. Nice but paradoxically both vague and overcomplicated.