The Old and the Young

Q: If an old man and young boy are drowning, and you are only able to save one, which one do you save?

A: Whichever one is closer.

It is often the popular answer to save the young boy because it is assumed that the old man has already lived out the potential of his life. This claim is built on the foundation that the boy is capable of being useful and does not entertain the possibility that he may accomplish little or nothing in his lifespan. If the latter is possible, then there is no reason to favor him based solely on his youth. His potential worth is relatively unknown.

It must also be considered that the content of their characters should have no bearing on their rescue. If both or none are of a noble/ malicious nature, then it is supremely difficult to determine who should live based on moral standing. One comes to the realization that one cannot fulfill the capacity of an omnipotent judge. Therefore, only life is important. Saving one life out of two is all that needs to be achieved.

Dissecting an Apology

Diplomacy can be as heartfelt or as Machiavellian in nature as you wish it to be; personally, I would choose the former, although I have encountered an equal amount of the latter. For examples, these conciliatory letters from a sorority and fraternity apologizing for racial insensitivity will be utilized. While the authenticity of regret the letters supposedly contain will not be questioned, one should recognize that the rhetoric that appears in them can be wielded as one desires; it is not a prerequisite to be truly remorseful should you attempt to write a similar document.

The link containing the aforementioned letters can be found here, on page 97:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:RcYz7FMVt_UJ:www.pb.uillinois.edu/Documents/participreports/2006/UIUC%25202007%2520IBHE%2520Report%2520r.pdf+university+of+illinois+tequila+and+tacos+apology&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The letters, as shown in Attachment B as the sorority one being the first, will be reprinted here for reference:

Page 97

Attachment B

Delta Delta Delta Statement

October 25, 2006

Delta Delta Delta would like to extend our sincerest apologies for the social event that

took place on Thursday, October 5, between our chapter and Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity.

During the event, a group of our members represented a minority culture in a negative

way. Tri Delta was founded on the idea of being "kind alike to all," and as a whole, we

use this principle to guide us as we strive to adhere to high moral standards and strength

of character. Such cultural insensitivity is absolutely not what we represent as a chapter,

and we are truly sorry that our actions have hurt such a vital part of our campus. Please

be assured that we are working to correct the matters of ignorance and insensitivity that

led to our hurtful actions. We have also been in touch with Adele Lozano at La Casa

Cultural Latina, and she and her office have been invaluable resources to our chapter.

Our hope is that we can turn this negative incident into a positive force for change. We

firmly believe that an open dialogue on issues of diversity will prevent such an event

from happening in the future and aid us as we work to reclaim a legacy that makes us, our

national organization and the campus community proud.

Delta Pi Chapter of Delta Delta Delta

Zeta Beta Tau Statement

October 25, 2006

The Men of Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity sincerely apologize for the insensitivity of some of

its members during a social exchange with Delta Delta Delta Sorority on October 5,

2006. Some members engaged in stereotyping and the other members did not step

forward to intercede. For both the action and inaction, the members are truly sorry.

Diversity training and cultural sensitivity instruction is now a permanent part of our

Brotherhood Education program. The Chapter has already scheduled the University's

Program on Intergroup Relations. In addition, chapter leaders have contacted the Director

of La Casa Cultural Latina, Adele Lozano to arrange for workshops and to provide a

forum for interaction. We have work to do both inside the chapter and within the campus

community.

The chapter realizes the importance of a diverse population on this campus and in this

society. While the Latino Community is particularly offended, we realize that our actions

were disturbing to all right thinking people.

Brandon Keene

President, Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity

University of Illinois

Starting from the beginning of the first letter is the sentence, “Delta Delta Delta would like to extend our sincerest apologies for the social event that took place on Thursday, October 5, between our chapter and Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity.”

In the case of an apologetic letter, it is increasingly important to apologize within the first paragraph if not the first sentence; one would do the same speaking to someone face-to-face when making amends.

The second letter follows the same rule: “The Men of Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity sincerely apologize for the insensitivity of some of its members during a social exchange with Delta Delta Delta Sorority on October 5, 2006.”

Both letters begin with the same standard of identifying the problem, when it occurred, who was involved, etc.

Note the similar phrase they both use: “sincerest apologies” and “sincerely apologize.” Again, this example does not prove or disprove the authenticity of the writers. It does, however, suggest that constructing letters of this nature will generally use key phrases that are widely known. These types of phrases are repeated constantly in various manners, so much so that the general public can recognize them at will. The objective of using these terms is to evoke a collective emotional response; one does not simply recall the phrase but also the feeling of all the previous apologies that contained them. Using these phrases is standard practice, and one should remember such repeated expressions.

The second sentences are also alike. “During the event, a group of our members represented a minority culture in a negative way” is written in the former letter, and “Some members engaged in stereotyping and the other members did not step forward to intercede” appears in the latter apology.

The offending party is construed as numbering no more than a few members. An aberration, not a systemic problem. Whether or not the actual number was more or less than “a few” cannot be ascertained from the lack of information given to the reader, so a comparative, non-numerical figure is employed. Doing so allows both institutions to salvage their reputations and indirectly protect the identities of said offending party.

The fraternity performs better in the second sentence because the second half places an equal blame on the rest of their organization. By criticizing both “action and inaction,” the writer conveys the entire group's complacency in the matter. A perceived act of humility if you will.

“Please be assured that we are working to correct the matters of ignorance and insensitivity that led to our hurtful actions.” This sentence is the most important part of the first letter. If you intend to apologize for a grievous error, promise that action will be taken. If you are unsure of what you will do and are still deciding a course of action, or if you are disingenuous and are not actually going to do anything, be vague and general. The aforementioned sentence describes that they “are working to correct matters;” there is no specific outline of tasks that are going to be performed, so no accountability can be applied. They are “working,” and that is all the letter needs to expound upon and all the reader needs to know. To be fair, the letter does mention the group contacting a leader in the Latino community, but even that is somewhat of a generic statement.

“We have also been in touch with Adele Lozano at La Casa Cultural Latina, and she and her office have been invaluable resources to our chapter.” The second part “...and she and her office have been invaluable resources to our chapter” can be inserted or removed depending on whether one deems it necessary. It is a gesture that attempts to laud the merits of the person or persons with whom you want to create an accord with. When writing your own letter, judge whether or not this is necessary. If you do decide to add such a statement, remember to not praise too enthusiastically as it will appear feigned. Omitting it does not contribute or remove anything from your writing.

The part written above describes La Casa in a strange but unobjectionable way; “invaluable resources” is a flattering assertion that is oddly inappropriate in this context, but it sounds positive, so it remains undetected to the untrained ear. One could write, “We have also been in touch with Adele Lozano at La Casa Cultural Latina, and she and her office have reciprocated our attempts to resolve this matter,” or something to that effect. Such a sentence is more descriptive and less broad.

By contrast, the secondary letter promises specific actions:

“Diversity training and cultural sensitivity instruction is now a permanent part of our Brotherhood Education program. The Chapter has already scheduled the University's Program on Intergroup Relations. In addition, chapter leaders have contacted the Director of La Casa Cultural Latina, Adele Lozano to arrange for workshops and to provide a forum for interaction.”

Doing so eliminates vagueness and projects a sense of confident initiative. On the other hand, it runs the risk of promising more than what can be accomplished. Luckily, the promised actions written therein are largely immeasurable, nor are they complex to undertake. Take note of both strategies and decide which is appropriate for a certain situation.

The closing paragraph of the Delta Delta Delta apology begins with, “Our hope is that we can turn this negative incident into a positive force for change.” The writer portrays the incident as a learning experience, a frequent assertion amongst similar letters. It is labeled as a means for maturing the character of the sorority, though such a transformation could have easily been accomplished without engaging in questionable behavior beforehand.

Both end paragraphs include an emphasis on promoting the cause of “diversity,” which is the specific word they use. They mention grander views by claiming they will not only seek to rectify racial insensitivity within their ranks but also within the campus itself. A noble sentiment, although one that is likely to go unrealized.

On a side note, I find it unintentionally humorous that “right thinking” is inserted in the sentence, “While the Latino Community is particularly offended, we realize that our actions were disturbing to all right thinking people.” It is unnecessary to add that phrase unless the author perceives a distinction between idiocy and racism. His cause would be assisted better if “all people” were utilized.

In conclusion, I believe that the fraternity's apology is less generic, though the sorority's is as adequate for its purpose. Both letters would be sufficient to placate the average reader, but for those who seek a structurally sound use of semantics, the fraternity's would be more suited for addressing those concerns.

Lucky Number 129

When I was in third grade, my teacher played a simple game with the class one day. It involved guessing a number. The rules were that she could not tell us the number she had picked, but she could verify if it was within a certain range. For example, if a person asked if the number was under 500, she could confirm this fact but not divulge anything else. Eventually, the right number would be revealed by trial and error.

The game got to a point where the number was determined to be between 120 and 130. I raised my hand at this point and ventured a guess of 129. There was a look of surprise on her face, and she revealed that the number she had written down was indeed 129. “You got it on the first try,” she said.

One may come to the conclusion that my guess was of pure chance. After all, the odds of guessing the right one on the first try are not terribly low. I did, however, have distinct reasons for choosing 129 that were not random.

To understand my methods, one must first analyze the mindset of my teacher as I did. I assumed from the beginning of the game that my teacher had a condescending viewpoint of children. To clarify, she probably believed that the knowledge of her students was limited. Whether or not she was correct is immaterial. What matters is that this is likely the general perspective of all teachers; it is not wrong to do this, as teachers must have confidence in themselves in being the administrators of their classrooms.

Considering this fact, I assumed that she would not pick what I refer to as typical digits. For example, children often favor certain numbers. The most obvious choice between 120 and 130 would be 125. 125 is in the middle of the range and also has the number 5 in it. 125 acts as a halfway point and the anchor between 120 and 130 that provides stability in a child's mind.

Students are also taught to remember multiples of 10. For example, 10, 20, 30 and so forth. Multiples of 10 are the easiest to remember and the first answers to be considered in a youth's brain. Taking this into account, I eliminated 120, 125, and 130 as answers.

Despite these omissions, there are a still quite a few possibilities. I, however, ruled out all even numbers because even numbers are “clean” in a particular sense. To state the obvious, they are never uneven. Multiplying even numbers and adding even numbers will always result in even numbers, which generates a “clean” quality to a young student. Because even numbers are easier to manipulate than odd ones in terms of calculation, students are attracted to these numbers. By this belief, 122, 124, 126, and 128 must have a low probability of being the right numbers.

The remaining numbers were 123, 127, and 129. From this cadre, my chances of estimating the right one increased but were not assured; if I guessed randomly at this point, I would have only a 33% chance of guessing correctly.

Further deliberation was needed. My final decision can be understood by observing the nature of 129. As mentioned before, a child regards counting numbers in either an even form (2, 4, 6, 8, etc.) or as a multiple of 10 (10, 20, 30, 40, etc.) as standard practice. The realm of odd numbers is detestable to a child that is taught order and conformity. Odd numbers flirt with equilibrium but never attain it.

9 is the least likable because it is the closest to being both an even number and a multiple of 10; 3 and 7 are close to being even numbers but are never capable of being a number as strong as a multiple of 10. Out of these, I believed the teacher would pick 129 because she would think that 9 is the least favorable number for children. Therefore, I eliminated the two other answers, 123 and 127.

The idea that I would consider all these possibilities in a small timeframe, at a young age, and with a bizarre logic is laughable to most people and likely to the people reading this article, who probably do not think I am telling the truth. I stand by my testimony though and do not see any advantage to lying about such an experience.

*It should be noted that the point of this writing is not to prepare the reader for childish guessing games. It is to illustrate the fact that you can gain an advantage in predicting other people's actions by factoring in their motives, views, attitudes, tendencies, etc.*

I Have Heard of George Berkeley...I Think.

The following is merely my viewpoint on the subject. It is not definitive, nor should it sway your own answer if you have one.

Q: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

A: The answer is yes. The question assumes that the listener occupies a standing greater than the body which makes the sound. At the very least, the two are equal. One cannot doubt the existence of one without also having uncertainty of the other.

If the philosophical inquiry were phrased differently-

“If an object does not make a sound, does a person have the capacity to hear?”

-then the answer would be yes. The ability is present, regardless of any exercise of it or a lack of stimulation to activate it. Therefore, the tree has fallen even if it is not observed or heard by a third party.

If the question is viewed from another perspective, perhaps one that is less literal, the answer would still be yes. Let us assume that a person performs a great deed, but no one witnesses it. Though the accomplishment is universally unacknowledged, it exists. Even if it should have no effect on a grand scale, it occurred. To wait for recognition is unnecessary.

If the circumstances of the question are viewed from another perspective, perhaps under less than ideal terms, the answer would still be yes. Let us assume that the position of the listener is still favored in comparison to the tree. The perceived power of the listener is faulty because one presumes that the listener possesses the sole quality to confirm the presence of said tree by privilege. The fact that the former is not aware of the tree, however, is a testament to its limited scope of cognition, not an innate ability to deny the being of an object.

Finding a Deal Online

Have not posted in a while. Been busy. Currently writing another short essay similar to my other posts, but it is a bit more complicated. Probably will not finish until weekend. Sentences are fragments for some reason.

Here are some sites that I use to find deals on products. These sites have been recommended to me by online peers.

www.woot.com- Showcases one product per day.
Pros: Has one deal a day to focus on.
Cons: Has one deal a day to focus on.


www.slickdeals.net- Showcases several products per day.
Pros: The website lists several deals per day. Clicking on an item shows more details about the product and the specific details of the deal. Deals that have expired are grayed out. A flame icon is displayed next to the site's "hottest" deals.
Cons: The products are not categorized in any way. Does not list as many deals as www.dealnews.com. May not list every single deal that is on the Internet.


www.dealnews.com- Showcases several products per day.
Pros: The website lists numerous deals per day. Clicking on an item shows more details about the product and the specific details of the deal. Products can be categorized in various ways to make finding a product easier. Meters on a scale of 1-5 are displayed next to products to signify level of "hottest" deals.
Cons: May not list every single deal that is on the Internet.


www.giveawayoftheday.com- Showcases a free software product per day.
Pros: Showcases a free software product per day.
Cons: If you do not like the product, you probably will not download it even though it is free.


There are many other deal-type websites on the Internet, but these are the ones I currently monitor. Most of the products listed may seem trivial in value in face of the current economy, but you may find a deal or two on food products. Food is important. That new HDTV- maybe not so much.

Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and the Form/Function of the Narrative: Part 4

The definitive theme of Robot Chicken is that all narratives can be modified, combined, or cut short; they actually have no effect on the audience’s ability to piece together a rational picture in their mind. Take the 15 minute running time. It is indicative of the watcher’s lack of attention span after years of television and film viewing, not to mention the fleeting commercials in between. The stop animation not only serves as a signifier of nostalgia by its technical obsoleteness, it also functions as a metaphor for the splicing of various storylines together with its crude, unrefined imagery.

Even the opening sequence of the show hints at its ultimate premise. The opening shot is of a dead chicken on a nondescript road (a perverted interpretation of the joke “Why did the chicken cross the road?” perhaps). A crazed-looking scientist picks it up off the street and takes it to his laboratory. There he hacks and cuts at the dead corpse. As he moves away from the camera, we see that the chicken has been revived, sporting new metal prosthetics (hence the emergence of the titular character). The scientist then straps the reformed chicken into a chair and forces its eyes open, presumably to watch the literally dozens of television screens that have been placed before it.

The chicken, as you may have guessed, represents us- the audience, to be more specific. We are an abomination, a twisted experiment resulting from the countless plotlines and stories we have witnessed onscreen. Eventually, as demonstrated previously by the example of the Voltron/ You Got Served act, these once-singular narratives blend into one another. The opening itself borrows from various sources: the aforementioned “Why did the chicken cross the road?” joke, the stereotypical mad scientist with a lab in a giant castle housed in the mountains, the Frankenstein-like emergence of the half-robot, half-flesh chicken, and the “rehabilitation” through the forced viewing of televised images reminiscent of the criminal’s in A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1969). This hodge-podge creation displays the superiority of Robot Chicken’s narrative elucidation. We have no idea why a scientist would revive a chicken and force it to watch television, possibly forever. There is no revelation of motives or backgrounds of the characters or a description of the situation. Nor, as Robot Chicken dictates, are we required to know. What we do recognize are the conventional narratives that it borrows from, which is all that is necessary to enjoy what we have just witnessed in the opening and the subsequent acts that follow.

Nostalgia requires information to be drawn from the viewer’s memory. Both Family Guy and Robot Chicken acknowledge that the modern mind is so muddled with data that pieces of information are grouped into a shapeless mass, often overlapping one another. Robot Chicken, however, fully embraces the chaotic state of the narrative’s current form by mimicking the attention-deficient watcher’s experience through short, jumbled skits that can only produce laughter because of its initial incoherence. Family Guy seems to make only momentary indications of the nature of the modern narrative with its cultural allusions, reverting back to a more standard, traditional plot after each one.

Family Guy is by no means a lesser show than Robot Chicken. The problem is that it will always suffer criticism by those who see the insertion of references as random and disruptive in relation to the main storyline of an episode. Chicken makes no attempt to conjure a stable, primary plot, and therefore, randomness may be present, but there is no disruption.

End

Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and the Form/ Function of the Narrative: Part 3

And it is in the communication of this message that Robot Chicken exceeds its predecessor. Whereas Family Guy argues the amorphous nature of the spectators’ minds in an explicit fashion, Robot Chicken makes it both explicit and implicit. In the former, the references are made to the viewer, who is made aware of their ability to distinguish among various allusions when they are reintroduced to the ‘main’ storyline. The latter achieves the same effect by its exclusion of a primary narrative rather than its inclusion.

The television static motif noted previously serves as the transition between the multiple strands in the show, but also to delineate the fact that there is no principal storyline or characters for the viewer to compare and contrast with other cultural insinuations in the way that Family Guy does; thus, the explicit and the implicit are manifested. Instead of having two separate parts, such as ‘Family Guy’s main storyline’ and ‘a cultural allusion,’ one act of many in an episode of Chicken may intertwine two or more cultural references creating the equivalent of one strand.

In one particular act, a team of humans who command a giant robot named Voltron are challenged to execute elaborate dance moves in a contest against an equally gargantuan monster; when Voltron fails to dance well enough, the sketch ends with their defeat (not before they kill the monster as retribution for being humiliated though). The act is derived from two sources. The Voltron team is based off a show in which there is a giant robot that battles monsters, but such battles are usually conducted by swords and other traditional weapons of warfare. The ‘dance off’ is a product of the film You Got Served (Chris Stokes, 2004) in which black youth participate in a dancing competition to win literally and metaphorically [in life]. Separately, these two narratives are dramatic. Together, they are a basis of humor, as they have now formed a ridiculous story. Robot Chicken accomplishes the overt communication in a similar way Family Guy does [by its combination of various cultural intimations], but it also achieves the inherent by masking the observers’ capacity through the blending of its numerous acts.

This lack of discrimination results in the kind of seamless spectator analysis that Family Guy flirts with but never attains. If one were to turn on the television in the middle of an episode of Family Guy, for example, they would be momentarily disoriented; they would have missed the first half and would require some time to piece together the overall plot.

With Robot Chicken, it states by its very design that there is no need for that kind of viewer exercise. The divided acts have very little reasoning in their placement; the one that is introduced in the beginning has no influence on the others that transpire subsequently, and even if a previous act is revisited, it is only briefly, of no consequence, and rarely an occurrence. If one does not understand a certain act, the television static will most likely appear soon and whisk the observer to the next sketch. No time to comprehend if you are too slow to get the joke; it would not be any different if you were the one switching channels, would it?

End Part 3

Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and the Form/ Function of the Narrative: Part 2

Robot Chicken triumphs over Family Guy in one specific aspect: its presentation. Although Family Guy succeeds in its integration of cultural humor, its doppelganger prevails not only with integration but also with the form in which it presents it. The problem with Family Guy is its dependence on, or perhaps obligation to, the traditional sitcom. As mentioned before, the show revolves around a small family of unusual characters. Like television families before it, this group often has to work through some kind of plot, at the end of which they learn a life lesson and progress as a whole or as individuals. To be fair, not all of Guy’s episodes are structured in this way, but there are quite a few that adhere to this principle. The utilization of a conventional narrative would not be so detrimental to the show if it did not rely on the irreverence of typical narratives for its comedy.

Robot Chicken’s format, on the other hand, is anything but conformist. Without a cast of central characters, there is no demand of character development that plagues Family Guy. Without said development, there is also no prerequisite for a coherent storyline. Without these conservative elements, there are no restrictions, a fact that becomes apparent when watching Chicken.

As stated previously, an episode of Robot Chicken consists of a series of comedic skits. These skits, or ‘acts,’ are broken up into segments. In between these acts, there is a visual motif that consistently reappears as an interesting transitional device. As one part segues into the next, a brief moment of television static is recreated; television static appears as the incoherent scrambled image that momentarily materializes when channels are switched or when the television is not receiving a signal. The significance of this recurring motif relates to a greater theme that Family Guy and Robot Chicken espouse on the nature of modern storytelling.

The message that they emphasize by continuously drawing upon past and present pop culture is that the established method of telling stories may be obsolete in some respects. Family Guy, in its later seasons, has visibly increased the frequency of seemingly random jokes that have little or no impact to the episodes’ storylines; this rise is not without purpose. By its practice of referencing other narratives constantly, the show comments on the viewers’ learned ability to retain an expansive knowledge of television and film narratives and differentiate among them effortlessly. The observer no longer needs to view only the world confined in Family Guy’s in order to produce a coherent sequence of events in their mind. The individual can understand the allusions being made, yet at the same time, be able to discern among them as separate entities from sources outside of the sphere of events that occur in Family Guy."

End Part 2

Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and the Form/ Function of the Narrative: Part 1

This is the first part of a short essay I wrote in my spare time over two years ago and placed on a social networking site. I have split it into several parts, so that it is more readable. I hope it is enjoyable for someone. Maybe one person max.

"When Family Guy first debuted in 1999, few would expect it to be a success. The creator was not relatively known, nor did the show receive as much media attention as its launch counterpart Futurama (1999). After being cancelled and subsequently resurrected due to substantial DVD sales, Family Guy is now enjoying high ratings with its irreverent style of humor. A successful show can be followed by imitators, and the general consensus is that such reproductions are inferior to the original. In the case of Family Guy, however, it can be argued that the television show Robot Chicken (2005) supersedes its forebear.

At first glance, Robot Chicken bears little resemblance to Family Guy. Its format is an amalgam of random snippets of irreverent takes on television commercials and shows with virtually no main characters, whereas Family Guy centers around the exploits of a dysfunctional Boston family in the town of Qhahog. Its running time is less than 15 minutes, as opposed to the latter’s 30 minute runtime. Chicken employs stop animation with clay and plastic figurines in contrast to Guy’s mixture of traditional 2-D animation with some CGI.

Their brand of humor though is what binds the two into the same category. Both Family Guy and Robot Chicken rely on a type of comedy that requires a sense of nostalgia. Frequently, Family Guy evokes many cultural jokes, many of which are drawn from the realm of television and film. The show often provides different versions of cultural phenomena of the past and present, usually laden with a darker sense of humor. In a spoof of the show Two and a Half Men (2003), for instance, there is a skewering of the title, as there appears onscreen a half a torso of a man with two other men screaming in horror. There are also revisionist views of popular films, such as the depiction of the Star Wars’ villain Darth Vader as a meter maid in an urban setting. The humor extends beyond visual media allusions, although these two particular mediums provide the most fertile ground for Family Guy’s gags.

Family Guy may not have introduced the trend of modifying other narratives and their characters, but it did do so with an infectious enthusiasm that was translated to its audience. A large part of the fun derived from watching the show is recalling the plethora of citations from popular culture. Considering the fan base of the series, some would argue that Family Guy is superior to many of the animated comedy shows offered on television today; its progeny Robot Chicken defies this assertion.


End Part 1

Please allow me to introduce myself...

I am a man of poverty and disinclination. My name is immaterial, though you may label me as an Incognito Transcendentalist if you choose.

In terms of skills, I am a jack of all trades but a king of no profession. As a result, I am highly unemployable since I dabble in several areas but excel at nothing in particular.

I believe my only real (and very irrelevant and amateurish) talent is to write, at least in comparison to more lucrative tasks that require knowledge of math, science, computers, engineering, etc. that I do not have a predilection for.

This blog will have no specific direction of content. Whatever I choose to write will be published with little or no necessary relationship between any two posts. One post may attempt to be profound while another will have no merit in being published. Think of it as a dream that conjures up no sense when you try to analyze it

This may seem like a very short introduction, but there really is not much to disclose about myself. What I write in the future may give some kind of inkling of who I am but only slightly. Stay if you wish to learn more; leave if you prefer not to. Maybe one day you can guess my name.