||the Twenty-Ninth of June, 2003|
|I've added a multi-genre facility to the
archives, and thrown in some varyingly
token genres (Giant Monster
is quite entertaining). It's always surprising how quickly new
directions of innovation become apparent, when you change
something as simple but fundamental as a game's context; moreso
when you realise you can migrate some of those ideas back to the
original setting - that you couldn't quite see them without moving
your viewpoint. Bring on the pseudo-random stimuli.
[ Comments? ]|
|BlogNomic has succumbed to a quiet revolution from
a dissatisfied Rebel Faction; the new broom rule-repealing diktats of
Emperor Geran have yet to be unveiled, but now is, slightly more than
any other, a pretty good time to gatecrash.
[ Comments? ]|
"Bright is the new word, the new noun. I am a bright.
You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time
you came out as a bright?"
Richard Dawkins was furthering a meme in the Guardian this weekend - that
atheists and sceptics and general disbelievers in the supernatural
should appropriate a single friendly, positive word to describe
themselves, modelling it after the self-defining success of "gay".
Which is an appealing suggestion, but the choice of word does seem unhelpfully
arrogant; the Brights web page has to stress at embarrassing lengths that
the word should never be used as a boastful adjective, and Dawkins himself is
unable to resist shooting himself in the foot by implying that religious people
should perhaps, ho ho, be considered "Dulls" or "Dims". I really like the idea
of a friendly catch-all word for people who reject the supernatural, but the
word "Bright" just feels wrong; it's too self-conscious of its own direction,
too antagonistic, and too offensive to non-carriers ("I'm not a bright, but
some of my best friends are").
Bad meme. But it'd be good to be proven wrong, in a years' time.
[ Comments? ]