I -- wow -- umm... hello.

I feel somewhat compelled to introduce myself a bit, having never actually had a conversation with you, Chris. But -- since you've friended me you probably know whatever I would have written anyway.

I found your journal back around Valentine's Day -- when you mentioned whatever weird match-making thing LJ had created. I was totally confused, as Aja had only given me a code that week, and was desperately trying to find my way around. And for some reason, I kept returning to your journal, just for interesting little tidbits with your life, figuring that given the nature of LJ no one would mind random people getting snippets of their thoughts.

I never dreamed that anyone who didn't know me would ever read any of the nonsense I post. I feel -- oddly flattered, I think.

Is it out of sorts for me to attempt some sort of "conversation" now? If so, no intrusion is intended -- I assure you. At any rate, enjoy your new friends list!

(Reply) (Thread)

I know I owe you an apology. :-)

I very fondly remember receiving your extremely kind comment at the time. It was so complimentary that I wanted to do justice to it in my reply and it sat in my inbox with the other LJ comments that I mean to get around to replying to at some point when I got into the right state of mind to do so. (Most of the rest are for j4, who habitually raises lots of excellent points that need far more thought in their replies than I am frequently able to give. Sorry, Janet.) However, I never did. This would be sad whoever had inspired it, but is especially ungrateful considering just what a kind thing you had said at the time.

It's also taught me a thing or two about how well, or otherwise, I can take compliments; I didn't realise I was this blasé about my friendships and realise that this is rather too poor a trait to leave unremedied. I have also been similarly less-friendly-than-I-should-have-been to black_dog over the years and still feel a little guilty about it. I'll also admit that it was coming across your comment again that was part of the inspiration to do this now rather than in another couple of weeks.

Getting to know new people through LiveJournal is inherently good and only to be encouraged!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Apology absolutely not necessary, though gracelessly accepted.

Mainly because of this: I'll also admit that it was coming across your comment again that was part of the inspiration to do this now rather than in another couple of weeks. I'm glad that my fairy dust particles were good for something related to you, anyway!

Looking forward to chatting with you in the future.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Just out of curiousity, are you joining/already in the great riddle race? When I started it, the first people I thought about were leiabelle and you.

(Reply) (Thread)

I'm not sure which one you're referring to. :-) The only recent discussion of a riddle race I've seen has been this one. NB, looks to me like the comments in response contain spoilers, so tread with care.

If it's that one, then I tend to take Peter Sarrett's opinion on these matters as nigh on gospel - if he hasn't found much fun in it then I'm probably not likely to. Peter has a brain the size of which compares favourably with small asteroids, uses it analytically and writes extremely well. (Incidentally, you can find his board games weblog and his general chat weblog as syndicated feeds which can be followed on LJ: thegamereport and static_zombie respectively.) He's also a very nice guy in person - extremely imaginitive, a wild sense of humour and very generous with his time and effort. On the downside, he works for Microsoft. Doesn't it make you sick, really?

In general, I tend to prefer logic puzzles to riddles, or at least self-contained games where I know I'm going to find out the answer naturally in a few hours/days/weeks if I don't get it myself. :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, those are the riddles to which I was referring. Also, thanx for the tidbit of info on your preferences. I had always lumped logic puzzles and riddles into the same catagory prior to this post =)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I solemnly swear as your new LJ friend to not spoil OoTP. :P
And yes, your first paragraph made sense. I just had to re-read it a few times. ;)

(Reply) (Thread)

:-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I wouldn't be being completely honest if I didn't tell you that I've set up some Friends list filters and may not read every post of every person on my Friends list - indeed, this move is at least partly intended so that there are some LJs previously on my friends list (almost all communities and RSS feeds) that I now won't see so often - but I do read the new thirty-one of you often enough that it's probably worth my while to add you to this extended Friends list. Make sense? No? Never mind.

As one of the less interesting members of your "pre-additions" friends list, I can tell you with complete confidence that it probably won't hurt anyone's feelings that you don't read every entry. I'm sure most of us are mature enough to understand that it takes a lot of time to read posts from 120 different people. Hell, I sometimes have enough trouble keeping up with the two dozen or so that I currently do. And in the end, it's more important that you keep us informed of the always-interesting happenings in jiggery_pokeryland, as that's the reason you're on most of our LJ-friends lists.

(Reply) (Thread)

You're cool - I feel confident that I can have a good argument with you. :-)

There is an argument with which I have some sympathy that if you list someone as a friend then you can reasonably be expected to at least pay eye service to all the articles they write. After all, that's how it works when you only have a few people on your friends list, so it shouldn't be any different when you have many people on your friends list. If you're not paying them full attention, should you make it look like you are to them?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You're cool - I feel confident that I can have a good argument with you. :-)

There's a whole Monty Python skit that could be said right there :^)

There is an argument with which I have some sympathy that if you list someone as a friend then you can reasonably be expected to at least pay eye service to all the articles they write. After all, that's how it works when you only have a few people on your friends list, so it shouldn't be any different when you have many people on your friends list. If you're not paying them full attention, should you make it look like you are to them?

The flaw in your argument is that you can't infinitely increase your LJ time because you can't infinitely increase your internetting time. You also can't necessarily double your time on LJ just because you double the number of LJ-friends. I agree that if you add someone as a friend, you should read most of what they read, but you can't be expected to read everything.

The purpose, in my mind, of having friends lists is twofold. One purpose of it is political and LJ-sustaining, which combine into one purpose for some reason. I wouldn't have found LJ if it not were for friends, and without them I wouldn't have become an addict. Much of the politics of LJ is taking the step to specifically list people you are friends with and people who you become friends with... in a "these are my friends" sort of way.

The other purpose of friends lists is the sharing aspect. I can allow some people to see entries while disallowing others at the same time, one of the major advantages to the LJ system. I can see all of the posts, if I so choose, that my friends allow me to see, all on one page.

I'm actually curious about ways that you can look like you're paying full attention to your LJ-friends, aside from leaving well-placed comments. More importantly, I'm curious about how you can look like you're not paying full attention. Granted, I sometimes get pop quizzes from LJ-friends on AIM, but those are unique, few in number, and likely not relevant in your case.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Afraid I wasn't at the Oxford meet with Cassie - was doing puzzles instead. It wasn't very satisfactory.

I started reading your LJ when it was mentioned that you might be coming up to Mac200bage last month; sorry you couldn't make it in the end. Fingers crossed that we get to meet at some other event soon.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I own a couple of copies of MAD magazine, doubtless originally purchased by my Dad dozens of years back. As usual, more jokes miss than hit, but one feature therein which always amused me was "when he sayeth... he really meaneth...".

There is, shall we say, an alternate interpretation of my first paragraph which reads "Half a dozen of you were being a bit boring really and I don't want to read you any more. On the other hand, I don't want to get into a de-Friending bitch-fight. Instead, I'm going to keep you Friended and let you think I read your journal when I don't - plus I'll confuse matters by adding 31 more journals at the same time, so at least you've got good company in wondering whether I'm really reading you or not."

That's the uncharitable version of things and, as usual, the truth is somewhere between the two extremes. Think on - and if you don't like this uncertainty then do feel free to de-Friend without any loss of face or honour. Mind you, at least I'm pointing out that this alternate reality might exist; who knows who else that lists you as a Friend has filtered you out and just isn't admitting it?

Ever paranoid,
Chris

(Reply) (Thread)

Let me reassure you that I'm too worried about where all the dragons have gone to fret about whether I am or am not on the right or wrong side of a Friends filter which may exist or not, possibly. I won't say which dragons, just in case. But there are definitely dragons whose whereabouts concern me.

That may be the weirdest thing I've ever written, at least outside of my own LJ.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So how paranoid should those of us who read your LJ and occasionally comment but are not on your revised Friends list either feel? (How's that for a nice knockabout sentence?)

Heheheheh.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, at least you know for certain where you are :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)