JCC P E O P L E Interviews, Issue LXXII: Ender Sai!

Welcome back to PEOPLE!

I decided it was time. I've gone back and forth over the years on the question of whether to interview Ender Sai. Sure, he's one of the forum's most outsized personalities, with an opinion (a damn good opinion, usually) on every subject under the sun, but he's also deeply polarizing, and frequently upsetting. Sometimes, I simply refused to consider the possibility of interviewing him simply because I felt like he had enough attention already.

Lately, however, the most recent wave of Endermania has died down a bit, and I was confronted by the enduring fact about Ender, which is that no matter how many times over the years I've thought he'd be a good interview and yet still refused to ask him, he has always been on the radar. There's a reason for that. Very few JCCers have persevered for so long in their exhausting posting habits, with such thought-out opinions on all these subjects, in all these forums, all the while garnering a considerable amount of fans, as well as retaining rather enthusiastic detractors.

Like it or not, Ender's a fixture here. And he's one of the top five JCCers of this decade. I would be remiss to never interview him, to grab this opportunity of exploring the mind of one our forum's most unique and intelligent individuals. Yes, he can be a ****, yes, he's like if Draco Malfoy had been sorted into Gryffindor (forgive me, Ender), but there's a purpose and a method to the insults, the sometimes boorish cruelty, and the flippant, chill attitude towards any user that fails to live up to his standard.

This is a bit of a long one (understatement), but there were many subjects I wanted to touch on with Ender, including Ender himself. I think we succeeded quite well.

My questions are bolded; Ender's answers are not.

***

Why do you hate America?

Oh ok, you're going to start light, and gently ease me into it Larry King style, before striking like a serpent.

The long and short of it is... I actually don't. I hate what America's become.

Context is important here; I was born in 1979 and so in addition to disingenuously claiming I've been alive for 5 decades, I can very much claim to be a child of the 80s. America, in a pre-internet age, was a hugely symbolic bastion and exporter of democratic liberalism.

In a sense, that's the image I think most of my generation in the West grew up with, and I think to be honest it's the image of America that America wanted to believe.

Only, the year I turned 10, the world changed substantially and from that year until 1991 we shifted from a superpower showdown to a world of unipolarity. And then I hit university, and start learning about the hopes and dreams of people in the developing world whose democracy was curbstomped in the interests of, among others, fruit companies.

I don't like hypocrites, and I don't like bullies, and I was seeing the US cast as both.

Then, with the death of the Soviet Union, the balance achieved in the struggle between centrally planned economies and social equity, and unfettered capital had a victor and that victor was not a kind hearted one. America embraced greed and at-all-costs individualism, and left a whole bunch of people behind. For the record, this is not capitalism. Capitalism allows risk takers to bank their profits, but the notion of the invisible hand assumes a strong sense of duty to the less fortunate and the common good exists in all people and therefore they won't be utter bastards.

The main casualties were of course, people of colour and the poor. And adverbs, apparently.

Notions of good governance and equity aside, and the broadstrokes "disappointed at a people failing to meet an exceptionally high standard", I'm just incredibly jealous of all your Freedom.

So you're an 80s kid... speaking strictly as a proud 90s kid here, what exactly was so great about the 80s, anyway?

I think it was the first time that people who were coming of age as kids in the 60s got to take the idealism of that era and use it to push boundaries. So even though the 1970s was a fairly grim period - union strikes in London, for example, limiting power to a few days a week; crime in New York, the oil shortage, Watergate, etc - it didn't dampen the spirit of people who felt unencumbered in their creativity. And they wanted idealism, and dreams - not a dour realism.

The net impact was a fundamental and seismic shift in pop culture that still resonates today. Notwithstanding the revival of synthpop in modern synthwave music, you had hip hop, heavy metal, and EDM revolutionising music. You had films that are still held dear to us like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, BTTF, Ghostbusters - stories that considered a bold and unique approach to storytelling in their own self-contained alternate reality; a reality that was much cooler.

We got to see the birth of the Nintendo and Sega home game consoles, the rise of CGI through films like the Abyss and Jurassic Park. Our sensitivity to violence was dulled by Axel Foley and John Rambo and Robocop and Ellen Ripley and the T800.

There are things that weren't great. Clothes. Haircuts. But I think it meant that those idealists and optimists gave my generation (X) the permission to have an extended adolescence. We can have the jobs, the good income, the nice cars and clothes and the computer games and Sphero BB-8 and Netflix.

Truth is though, I think every generation feels their childhood was magical. And of course Stranger Things has helped fuel the visceral rush of nostalgia we feel more than think about. If I'm being honest, it's mostly that we got awesome cartoons (Robotech and Transformers! MASK! He Man!) and are now able to reinvent our own myth because like the kids of the 60s running rampant in the 80s, kids of the 80s are running rampant in the 2010s. We create the impression of it being a critical decade. In 10-15 years, the 90s will be the new 80s.

So on the topic of Stranger Things and the 80s, I assume you played Dungeons and Dragons as a kid? What was, or is, its appeal for you?

Yeah I did. Though my mother was concerned that it lead to Satanism. She was wrong of course; heavy metal and drugs did that.

But yeah, I still do play roleplaying games, actually. I tend to GM more than I play though.

The appeal is a combination of things. It's a great way of making anti-social people socialise. You always get someone who's so utterly silly as a person that they ruin the experience in the best possible way for everyone. I made this comment in the D&D thread, before it died out, but for people who've played dealing with Wocky in the thread was a great reminder of that. The group ends up losing momentum to deal with one recalcitrant player who may be deliciously in character, or just a ****.

And humans just reveal a lot about themselves, like how quickly they throw compassion or logic out the window. Like you're caught breaking the law, the DM throws city guards at you. You're outclassed, outmanned 2 to 1 and the group's thinking "right, if I take the captain first..." You're thinking, "surrender! I sent these guards because you can't win. Don't bloody well fight".

When I was a younger player I'd basically play a version of myself. As I get older, I'm more interested in finding new characters and their motivations. Playing someone who wouldn't do what I would do, and exploring that.

Nerds, I think, have this lonely place between aching to belong - because even cool nerds still experience things many of their non-nerds friends never will experience, or care about experiencing - and needing to reinvent themselves. Roleplaying games give people a vehicle to do that. They also give you a chance to catch up with friends, laugh, share in a story, roll some dice and eat pizza.

What is it about nerds and nerdy endeavors that the rest of the schoolyard finds so repulsive, especially back in the 80s? (I say in the 80s, because today, nerds seem to be on the rise, socially speaking)

I don't know, really. I mean, it seems intuitive that at an age where you don't have any form of material reward for academic prowess - success there is its own reward - then it's (intellect, curiosity etc) not a schoolyard currency. Physical prowess is, though, and bullies - insecure and unable to identify and manage their frustrations and self-loathing and rage - can project that insecurity onto people too weak to defend themselves. The only defence those nerds have are words and their brain, both of which hit the insecurity of the bully right in the sweet spot. That spot on their Smaugian armour where they're vulnerable.

as to the 80s - the world was less geared towards reclusive people more at ease with technology or non-verbal communication. I guess? I wasn't really conscious of it, to be honest. All I know is that smarmy Ramza nerd wouldn't have lasted a minute back in my day, with his maths and um... maths!

Did you ever get bullied for your own nerdiness?

No, not for that. I never advertised it. There were kids who, at lunch at my Very British Public (aka private) School, didn't play cricket or rugby, but played D&D or read White Dwarf. I didn't admit to enjoying it publicly, mostly because of not wanting to justify it to people. And they were bullied mercilessly; I didn't need to give people ANOTHER reason to hate me.

See, I was monstrously unpopular at primary school for being new and from a school where kids loved voltron and MASK and stuff to a school where people only played sports all the time. So I didn't fit in, and they made me aware of it. Then in a conformist, traditionalist all boys private high school, I was a non-conformist. I had my hair as long as I could get it (there's a hilarious photo of an incredibly skinny, shaggy blonde haired me from about Year 10 on Facebook) and I listened to heavy metal. I was an outsider, and at those schools, that's basically like being a nerd, being Asian (back then, when Asian migration was ascendant here), or gay.

It wasn't until I found Megadeth that I learned how to properly fight back.

Another reason to hate you? Oh, so you were a pompous **** back, then, too?

Haha! No; I became one I think. In response. In that you create a persona which acts as an equal-parts punching bag and shield, right?

It starts with being attacked because you're different and arrogantly assuming it is them, not you. And building a combatative and brash and sometimes disarming person who takes the brunt. Not you.

Honestly rate for me the job you've done keeping the real you and this brunt-shield persona separate. How much of this persona has carried over online? To what percentage are you really you when you're here online with us? In your real life?

Ha. These questions got me thinking about that before you asked.

So probably around 20% of my posting is actual me. The rest is just something I can't not be when I log in as Ender Sai.

Let me clarify though; people all the time miss when I'm being serious and when I'm just having a laugh. That's my fault, but it's funny to watch something I think is obvious jest be taken seriously. Like, "well, you brought that upon yourself, you tit".

As for the rest of it; I don't really do a lot of that anymore in real life. Adopt that persona. In that I think I had a combination of enough intelligence and a few good role models that I figured out I am not defined by my past any more than I let myself be and I can be who I want. Those who are ok with that will stick around, those who aren't wont' and I can't control it. I do keep many people at arm's length, but that's more because I prefer smaller circles of friends and quiet time. My partner, my nearest and dearest friends never got a filtered or staged version of me. And the JC'ers I've met in real life, like Iello or SuperWatto, or Pete and Punk - I've been myself around them.

It actually bit me hard, because I had this moment where I was actually pretty... well I'm not sure. Angry, frustrated, and kind of despondent about yet another mass shooting in the US. And I took to facebook to vent, which was mind numbingly stupid. The people who know me probably took it in that spirit. But a few people - lexu, Healer_Leona - they know Ender Sai. Not me. So they reacted int he context of the role I play here and the kind of blowing off steam frustrations I have that I vent here. Now, it's hard to kind of articulate how we see mass shootings, because there's a massive cultural divide between us here. But you're watching horrific violence occur with unpardonable frequency, and it's justified with quite frankly the most insipid and limp political responses ever. The Onion had it best; ""No way to prevent this" says only nation where this regularly happens." There's no will to fix it and it's just unspeakable horror being inflicted that's quite preventable. I vented. I did so stupidly, but I did so largely to an audience who aren't JC'ers. So the JCers reactions made it pretty clear I have to be careful, and I've been pretty low key since.

I suppose the question is, why not just stop? Truth is, I assume part of me needs to be this guy, because I'm not/can't IRL.

Oh my god, you're like the Batman.

Is America worth saving, Batman?

I'm sure the notion of the "jerk the boards needs right now", but "not the one it deserves" will go down a treat.

So that question has a number of facets to it, because you cannot discuss America the practical reality without referencing the ideal of America, which is a huge part of the narrative the nation tells itself.

Americans often say - I heard Lionel Shriver tell an audience of a few thousand people this very thing - that America is a country founded on an ideal. I'm not sure in practical terms that's true, but I am sure that notion is inherently problematic in a number of ways. Let's not forget that antagonising the British Empire was of paramount interest to Imperial France; and the "no taxation without representation" was a question of economics and governance more than an ideal of egalitarian liberalism not dependent on the class into which you were born. Like with a number of things, Americans reinvent the story to better enhance its mythic qualities, and I suspect, to better paint themselves historically. World War II is a great example; it's treated like the USA was the only country to stand up to tyranny, when of course it took over 2 years for the US to get involved directly in combat. But pointing out that during that time you were making stonking amounts of cash from selling materiel to the Allies is probably not historically comfortable, so the narrative changes.

Same as with the origin of the United States.

Now I just want to say I don't want to diminish the historic importance of a state that had been recommended for the establishment of its own aristocracy rejecting this and opting for notional equality before the law and in the conferring of legal rights. It was bold. It was radical, and it was instrumental in changing the course of history. It would be churlish, and worse still, unfair to deny this.

The short answer, though, is no. No to the ideal, no to the practical reality. As a general rule, an experiment that fails is not persisted with. The US was an experiment, and in the unaltered iteration from 1776 onwards it's stopped working. I'll elaborate below on a small range of issues that are too far gone to be rescued:

* Income inequality: The GINI coefficient is a coefficient that measures equality in relative terms. A score of 0.0 = perfect equality; 1.0 = perfect inequality.

Ideally a modern liberal democracy wants to sit around 0.2 - 0.3. The US is 0.41, which puts it on par with China and Russia.

Income equality, though, is desirable. I know right wing Americans, fearful of socialism (which they can neither describe nor identify), will be having violent, mouth-foaming fits at this suggestion, but I've never really cared for their opinions, so...

What income equality does is broaden the pool of wealth to enable risk takers to innovate. If you cannot get the middle class upwards, and you cannot get a portion of people from the working class to middle class, then there's a real problem.

America's not giving enough back to society to stop people falling through cracks and therefore to stop people missing out on their capacity for economic participation.

* Guns: There are people here who are, with no respect to them at all, utterly and dangerously wrong on guns. I've owned guns. I am very comfortable around them. I know their limits, and I know basic safety. So I'm not a stranger to firearms.

You have a culture that, in a legalistic sense, is quite unique. Most of the legal frameworks in the world contextualise laws in the context of what you mustn't do. The US, instead, has a language around permissibility. And nothing is more sacred than the numinous legislative provision, the Right.

So, Americans have Rights. A very lazy philosopher named Thomas Jefferson said it's a self-evident truth, because it just is ok, that God gave me - ME personally - these rights. And the rich, epic narrative weaved for me is that the British stopped me having rights (which is true; Parliament wasn't to tax the colonies without their consent) and so I'm told reliably that we fought back by establishing a country where the Gubmint can't take away MY rights, because God gave them to ME, dammit.

The net effect is that the individual's rights reign supreme, and not the right to life. The right to have a gun, and to feel that makes you safe. Americans love feeling safe, because they seem to love feeling afraid.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you cannot reform the system to limit access to firearms that could facilitate more mass shootings, as part of the mass shooting epidemic. The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure that, in the time of foreign invasion, there is a Swiss style civilian militia in effect to assist the state in defending itself. Hence why the words "a well regulated militia". Regulated is a prescribed term. Now, with generous lunches and bottles of aged whiskey and elaborately engraved handguns and bribes from the gun lobby, the supreme court has allowed itself to believe that the part about the militia is less important than the part of about there being no infringement on the right to be armed. So even if you wanted it, there's just no reasonable prospect for reform.

When a state cannot legislate to stop its citizens being slaughtered en masse by people who legally acquire weapons, it begins to look a lot like a failure.

* Race - I read an article on the Economist about the ongoing protest against police mistreatment of black people in America by that San Francisco football player. Apologies, I don't remember how to spell his surname and I don't want to Google it so I can look erudite. It seems people are still furious that in a land of ostensible free speech, someone might not want to stand up during a masturbatory national anthem and give blind obedience to a state which inherently mistreats a portion of its populace it's been inherently mistreating for centuries. Yes, Colin K, please, if you do not unequivocally love America, you should leave! We do not tolerate dissent here, in Murica, which is why we just put up with British rule.

Idiots.

What bothered me most was not that people get upset over a flag or a national anthem, but the comments. Quite polite sounding people elaborating at length about how it's not a thing, he's just making it up, or how he's not very good at sportsball!

People don't get it, and don't want to and the problem is that in America, black people are being brutalised by the police, brutalised by the system, and shut out of the economy in the way I mentioned above. It's indefensible that any of our societies operate on a two tier system. On race, on marriage equality, all of it. And when you have an underclass perennially shut out of the system and marginalised, it's not long until they start looking for more violent means of recourse to their grievances.

None should blame them, but plenty will. And when so many of your poor or your incarcerated are black, then it's time to conclude something is very, very wrong.

* Religion - I love how the Bible is basically the ramblings of a proto-agrarian socialist; a precursor to Ghaddafi's little green book and yet, Americans managed to created streams of thought where an egalitarian, money hating peacenik is in favour of war, hatred, intolerance, guns, and money.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. There are groups with such deeply vested interests in the status quo that any form of meaningful reform is just stillborn. I thought Bernie Sanders had some good ideas (and some earth-shatteringly bad ones, wrapped up in the cloak of my nemesis populism) but he would never have been able to implement them. Healthcare. Student debt (yes, by all means, make an educated populace a rarer thing guys, good job). Welfare. And if someone like Sanders, giving you lot what we've all had for decades and our right broadly supports, can't get it done, what hope do you have.

So, no. America, in terms of what it's become now, is not worth saving. Don't try and save America; accelerate its decline. Start over from scratch (I liken the process to a forest regrowing after a cleansing fire swept through it), and just shut those self-serving interest groups who peddle ignorance out of the process. There's comfort in an uneducated people for those in positions of power, because they don't ask questions and are insecure enough to be easy prey. The whole reason Martin Luther was a hassle for the Church was he translated the Bible into German, from Latin, and the people could draw a connection between what the Bible said and what the Church was saying it said. Turns out they were economical with the truth, and the people resented that. I'm sure the same happens in America; educate the populace, and remove barriers to higher learning, and the comfort blanket of bigotry, intolerance, and selfishness no longer works for them.

If I thought that such a change in thinking, towards investment in education and healthcare, and away from fear and intolerance, was even remotely possible I'd say to you "it's worth saving". But I'm not even slightly of the belief you can get that change. However, you rose to the top of the world in terms of influence and economics; you're not a people who, when faced with a task, are afraid of hard work. You could prove me wrong, or you could come back with America MkII - the new and improved.

Okay, one more Americentric question and then we'll change the subject... I read that you've never actually been here.

So.

Are you ever going to fix that? I just ask because those of us Americans here on the JCC very often feel compelled to point out your grievous misunderstandings of some points of American culture, which I think you would understand better if you actually visited once.

And before you bring it up, yes, I've been to Australia. Beautiful place, lovely country.

I don't know who told you that. I have been there, yes. Not for a long time, no. Since 2001 I think.

(I also lived with an American, and socialised with pretty much nothing but Americans in Taipei [Pfft, whatever Canadians]. Which is basically like saying "I have black friends." Totally valid.)

But Mrs Ender and I are planning to hit up NY in February or March; and at one point, I had talked about a road trip with Pete and Punk.

So, uh, I'm not opposed to visiting the US, but I've just never felt compelled to. It's not different enough, nor do I feel a personal connection like I do with England or Holland. If I go to Asia, I want to feel that isolation of knowing I'll never belong there, and to revel in their culture and history. If I go to England or Holland, I want to feel a kind of kinship. And if I go to France, or Germany, or Italy, etc I want to connect to their stories, deep, and long running history - since my country's history is 230 years of colonialism, and slaughter.

And minor point of order; I think the issue is not that I've 'grievously misunderstood' the culture. It's that either I've a) applied a subset's mindset too broadly, or b) not given sufficient regard to one aspect, whilst giving too much regard in other areas.

I could've sworn I read somewhere you said you never visited!

Moving on...

Most beautiful place in the world, experienced traveler, what is it?

oh Christ... it's a very subjective question.

Our of places I've been, Barbizon.

Lago d'Orta in Italy and Waimea Falls in Hawai'i are honourable mentions.

Barbizon is a small town, near either the magnificently named Bois-le-Roi (King's Wood!) or Fontainbleu-Avon train stations. So, an hour or so SW of Paris. Barbizon is most widely known as a site where impressionist came to paint, circa 1840-1870 on account of the quality of the light there. Their work inspired later impressionists like Monet and Renoir.

If you just do an image search ("Barbizon France") and just pour over the pictures of the fields and the town, you will see the beauty there. An idyllic town that fires the imagination, and the word that best describes it is "bucolic".
Though it's not a great word, is it? Sounds plague-like.
"Haven't seen Beezel in a while."
"Yeah, I heard he's bucolic. Can't go near people or the internet."
"Oh, he was always a wretched thing, but this? This is unfair."
"I know. Poor sod."

Though the place I want to see, because it's achingly beautiful from all accounts, is Jiuzhaigou, Sichuan Province, China.

Look at this..!




I hope you get to see it!

I talked about light with your friend Pete. He said the light changes in different places of the world. Do you agree with that?

Oh yeah. Definitely.

I mean, the fact that Pete said it makes it true. Wonderful chap. Very good in a knife fight. If you need someone to have your back in Islington or Croydon, Peter and/or an army of wing chun masters is pretty hard to beat.

But I digress. Yes. Light.

There are parts of the world where the light has a deftness of touch that just changes everything.

There's an easy way to see it. Look at this:




To this




Same painter. Vincent van Gogh.

Whilst Holland may (does) produce the best people on earth (hoi Watto! hoi Debo! Hoe gaat het?) it a bit **** weather wise, and when you go from grey and rain to a vivid light that enhance the yellows (grey is good for making green more verdant, but it's not alive in the same way) - it's like another planet.

van Gogh was in Arles, in the south of France, when he painted the latter and in the Nederlands when he painted the former. It's obvious the worlds of difference in what he saw.

That's one of the things I think people who don't travel miss out on the most. I mean, you don't have to go to all the continents and to all corners of the world. But seeing how the air smells, and the light looks, and the breeze feels when it's all just a bit different, a bit more or less vivid - it's an experience you can't ever put a price tag on.

***

Ender is an original thinker and one of few people who can surprise me with an interesting take on things. Sure, sometimes it's delivered with the tact and diplomacy of a charging rhinoceros but, hey, no one's perfect. It was a pleasure to meet him over a few drinks last year. IRL he's a personable guy who can handle his beer and quote Derek & Clive verbatim. Important life skills right there.

~Pete

***

How does traveling change you?

I think any time you're exposed a set of cultural norms that aren't your own, you have the opportunity - if you're open minded enough, of course - to reflect on how diverse the planet really is.

I suppose though the answer is different for different people. We're a planet of people connected through a shared coding, a shared genetic makeup but separated by language, geography, history, religion, and culture. Reminding yourself that there's a diverse and rich tapestry of viewpoints that are so wildly different from yours that up is black, and down is right - it's a humbling experience. And it helps you see a bigger picture.

I may be labelled, with various degrees of accuracy (I'm the worst person to judge, obviously) as "arrogant", but I will never be the tourist who doesn't observe local customs and show extreme deference to the practices and preferences of his hosts.

Not a rhetorical question- what's wrong with being arrogant? Do you admit you're arrogant? Do you see it as being either a good thing, bad thing, or both?

Well, honestly? I've often struggled with this concept.

Arrogance is defined as "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."

I'm cocky. I'm incredibly confident. I don't know at what point the lines blur though, because the "arrogant" label gets thrown about a lot. The way you've structured this question indicates you feel I am - hence why I would "admit" I am.

Personally, I don't feel I have an inflated sense of self. But I suppose, when asked to think about it, I possibly do?

So my mind started going to notions of believed inherent superiority, and I was thinking there's a lot of posters I quite admire and feel are damned intelligent. But then I thought, well, there are some I've castigated for being lazy and shortcutting - meaning they failed to meet my standard. The **** am I to judge the adequacy of a person's content?

But I don't expect I'll stop, so. Yeah. Maybe I am?

Erm, to the first part of your question... I personally define arrogance as talking the talk without being able to walk the walk. I then define confidence as having the wherewithal to talk the talk and walk the walk. So I would, subjectively, define myself as the latter and distinguish the former as an insecure braggadocio put on by people who don't want to admit they don't know something, or might fail something.

Inherently, based on that definition, I see it as a bad thing. I think people need to know their limits and realise how much leverage over others saying "I don't know" or "I was wrong" has.

That's a good reflection.

Tell us about times you feel humbled. What shuts you up?

I feel this will come back to haunt me...

So immediately two things spring to mind; recognising when you're wrong, and seeing someone who can do something I can never do (or be something I can't be). So, every time he posts a titanic review of something - a film, a book, an album or a podcast, I think to myself "Christ, Rogue1.5. Way to make us all feel inferior." It's not that I struggle for words and therefore would write a review which said "it r dumb" or "i liek dis". It's that he just jumps into art feet first and with an open heart and mind, and reacts to what he finds.

And then wears his heart on his sleeve with his reactions to it.

So something like that, as an example, just blows my mind. I can't be that guy,and I feel he's more complete for it. So even if I don't try the podcast or listen to the album I read every one of his reviews and hope I can get the tiniest hint of that brilliance.

I always try and have mentors in my life. Because there's always someone better than you at something. Time management. Report writing. Presenting. Golf. Work/life balance. And if you stop looking for someone to teach you, then I think you stop feeling the need for humility.

Who have been some of your mentors?

Usually people I work with, or have worked with, who have a pretty good sense of what their strengths are. I learned some of the most valuable lessons from them; off the cuff, once, one of them noted I was really good at dishing out **** on people, and I couldn't take it in response. It was a lightbulb moment and helped me not take myself too seriously. Another taught me to always listen for the unasked questions, or unarticulated point - in other words, read the room and the subtext and figure out what people are dancing around. If it needs to be said, and you're respectful, being the person to give a voice to something is what senior management want to hear.

I think a lot of people are raised on the Hollywood model of the person who speaks up and says "we're doing this all wrong, we should be doing this and this and this..." gets punished. It doesn't, and learning that has helped me a lot.

The mentor who taught me that was a couple of years older than me, and he died of cancer recently. That hit pretty hard, because you're used to looking up to people who are infallible towers of strength and then suddenly they're down to sub-60kgs (130ish lbs, just for you ) and jaundiced and unable to speak properly. And they're basically close enough to your age that you're thinking "well, ****. I'm not ready to die. Bet he wasn't either".

My last mentor accepted a role in Germany, so the person who I'm being mentored by, and am mentoring now, is my girlfriend.

Has it ever backfired for you- this "articulating the unarticulated point?" Or have you seen it backfire for someone else? It just seems like you need a certain amount of social acumen.

No, not for me. But you absolutely have to read the room, otherwise it'll be a disaster. So yes, social acumen is key. I've seen people who don't know when to, paraphrasing the scholar and poet Kenny Rogers, hold 'em and when to fold 'em. The crash and burn is spectacular.

It goes back to knowing how to walk the walk as well as talk the talk, yeah? If you're going to articulate a point people are dancing around, you'd better be confident that you can back up whatever you're saying and do it in a way that strips ego out of it.

Confidence though is giving two-fifths of **** all about what people think about you, because you don't hate yourself. Sounds simple, but it's true. Why do you think old people fart in public? They've literally had all the time in the world to figure out worrying what others think is pointless. It's biological, so to hell with it.

Fart in public, I guess is my key point. Or, if you know your limits it shouldn't be an issue if people like or dislike you for who you are.

This is what I think allows you to voice quite controversial opinions sometimes. You're certainly confident you're right about something, and then all the sudden we're asking you if some issue is a "hill you want to die on." I think the most recent example had to do with what counts as genocide.

Which brings me to my question. How do you know when to "stand like a rock" and when to bend? How do you figure out you need more humility, more mentoring, and when you need to bull through it, and say, "**** everyone else, I'm right, I know I am" ?

That's actually a really good question. I had to think about it for a bit.

So, there are probably a few mechanisms I use. The first is; how confident am I, really? As you said, is this a hill I want to die on, or is my cause less than righteous. If there is even a hint of doubt, there is doubt and the answer is that I'm not confident or right.

The second is to trust people to be a good barometer. It's not an absolute measure, for sure, but there are some people who you can rely on to basically put things in their right place. If people like tom or Frieda are saying something, it's always worth listening to. Always.

With that genocide thing - it's a pass... wait, no, let's not call genocide a "passion". I am passionate about genocides that meet the prescribed term being called out as such so that appropriate restitution and reconciliation can occur. The Stolen Generation in Australia, for one; and the Armenian Genocide for another. So long as Turkey denies their culpability, I will not set foot in that country. I just won't.

I studied the history of genocide under a world expert. I was pretty confident. And I actually had an email conversation with an academic whose paper was cited, arguing culture - which was excluded from the legal definition thanks to pressure from most Britain and France - was still a valid criteria when assessing the intent to destroy (that is, destroying a culture destroyed an identity, and thus a people). I'm not sure if that was ever raised in the thread - I know I shared the some of what he sent me with Dani, and maybe Iello. But basically in the conversation we agreed I was technically right, but there's been a shift in thinking where the old guard - including my professor - were too rigid in their orthodoxy. Now, this is probably because most of the prominent genocide scholars, of course, were Jews and therefore needed the legal framework of the convention to ensure proper justice against Nazis. Now that we're 75+ years from the second world war, a new generation of academics - unencumbered by the politics of the second world war and Cold War worlds - are finding the Convention unfit for purpose and arguing the term is broader based on the guy who conceived of the term - Raphael Lemkin - having his scope limited by the final version.

You could take that two ways; I went to ridiculous lengths to be right, that I eventually did concede ground I might've conceded much earlier. The main point I would make, but I leave it to you and others to define, is that I was willing to have an expert tell me I was wrong if I was. In that, I was confident enough that I asked a tenured professor from Canada to tell me if I'm right or wrong. A lot of humility waiting below, there, like circling sharks...

A flip side though was the Black Lives Matter thread, which is now "Race Relations". Originally I said that America was not mature enough or capable enough to have a discussion on race, and that things would better be served concentrating on economic inequality as that would be less likely to be coopted by white guilt.

Wocky and Souderwan rubbished that idea pretty strongly.

On reflection, I wasn't wrong per se. The issue with Colin Kaepernick (I remembered!) illustrates this. To this outsider, whites prioritise feeling less guilty over meaningful change, and that's hurting the issue more than helping. If you tackle poverty, which hurts blacks more than whites, it's "colour blind" and more likely to find consensus and benefit blacks, right?

But I got it wrong. I was trying to find a solution to white intransigence, in a way a project manager finds a solution to a stubborn problem. To find a way around that roadblock. What became apparent was you needed to get rid of the roadblock more than you needed to get past it. That whites needed to feel challenged, so they felt awkward and uncomfortable, and so they would seek relief from that discomfort by accepting a systemic failure occurred on their watch (and indirectly, by their hand) and it wasn't good enough, it needed to be fixed.

It took people like Souderwan, whom I respect enormously, being that barometer and saying "no, I get your point. Here's why we need it to go this way". Like, the way he explained it all - I couldn't have been more wrong.

In a nutshell, that's kind of how you do it. Learn your facts. Learn whom you can trust. Be sure that you believe 100% in yourself and your analysis. And be open minded to criticism. If someone's point is logical, let go of your position. If you're not sure, don't.

For mentoring - if you think you've nothing to learn, well, there's your next lesson right there. Always, always have someone who can make you more than you currently are.

Last night, I read Doris Kearns Goodwin's interview of President Obama, in which Goodwin quoted a young Lincoln as having said, "Every man is said to have his particular ambition. I have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men, by rendering myself worthy of their esteem." The conversation was about how young people are ambitious simply because they want to prove themselves, or make their mark, but then something happens. They get passionate about something.

What is, or was, your ambition?

I used to have that great ambition, to Be Something, but I think that was bred of youthful insecurity. Now I just want to live life so that, at that last moment, I regret nothing. I know myself, so I know what I need to keep myself fulfilled.

I was reading, actually, a sort-of biography of our Prime Minister, a man I've admired for years. Rhodes scholar, brash lawyer who took on Thatcher and won, successful businessman, etc etc. There was a sense from his colleagues, both in politics and his past life, that Malcolm had to prove he was the smartest man in the room. Just had to, had to prove a point. He was right, and often knew it. Called arrogant, a lot. Contrarian as if by creed. So you can see why I might relate.

But the thing is, Malcolm's life is dictated by childhood trauma. His mother, Coral Lansbury - Angela Lansbury's cousin - left the family when he was a boy. Then when he eldest was born, his father - a bedrock in his life - died. So he is basically chasing this shadow, this thing he can't have. My father's the same, chasing that horizon. The issue is it's never enough. And I like being able to sometimes just enjoy what I have. To finish work and yabba-dabba-do my way out the door to enjoy the time I have not there. My ambition is to keep that balance, and to make sure I don't take anything for granted.

What is your passion?

I don't think I have just one, per se. So, politics, music, and cars.

Those three things I could bang on about for days, going full Slowpoke on them.

At the end of the day, after all we've been through, do you think you are worthy of your fellow JCers' esteem?

Erm. I don't think I can make that call. I think sometimes I'm a necessary force. A wave-maker was how KW described it during our ModSquad days. So I would expect that from most people you'd get a qualified answer. If you're agreeing with me and haven't had a tongue lashing- you'll say yes. If I've disagreed with you on almost everything, you'll say no and get rid of him. If you've been both - //deep exhaling - which is a lot of the JC - you'll say sometimes.

But. You'll have to ask the JC.

Bah, I think you should've said yes and owned it.

Let's talk about those tongue lashings. Do you recall any that you're particularly proud of, without mentioning who was on the receiving end?

I honestly don't dwell on them. Like for me there's no notch on the belt aspects to it. Which might be quite bad actually...

I'm actually struggling to think or one. I know there was one in the Gamergate thread that felt enormously satisfying. But yeah. I can't honestly recall any.

In my defence I'm writing this on my phone, at an airport so it's not an ideal place to check from.

Hey, you stupid Kiwi, wrack your thimble-sized brain and come up with one of your premium insults right ****ing now!

I know there was a few good ones in the sexism threads.

Was? Do you grammar?!

*were. Distracted by baby getting ready to cry for a flight. Do not. Because I will hate your parents with the intensity of a thousand dying suns if you cry for 90mins.

Sneakily let the baby suckle on some vodka mini bottles when the rents aren't looking.

Here - http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...ment-and-nerds.50020587/page-11#post-51567098

And it's already started. I am so angry I went and found that rant. So glad the entire plane has to listen to that so you two can have a romantic weekend in Melbourne.

I want flights that cost more but are minimum age 5 and up.

Oh. There are twins. Parent is talking over his shoulder to his partner/wife.

I might be a towering ******** but

But

I'm not selfish.

Might/am.

What would a little mini-Ender be like, I wonder? That's gotta be coming at some point, surely.

Yeah definitely. Short answer? Unafraid to fail.

I think there was an innate fear of failure driving me growing up. Failure isn't bad; it's a great teacher. A great empowerer.

How was the rest of your flight?

The baby stopped crying about six minutes before descent. The father stood next to me in the aisle. So you know... not ideal. I did get most of an episode of Mr Robot in though.

I'm not one to enjoy flying. Too tall to get comfortable and that means the patience just fades. I was awake for 40hrs on my last flight back from Europe.

Did you say anything to them, or maybe passive-aggressvie within earshot of them, or did you just give angry glances?

Oh ***** no. I was raised British, so I might tut if i can be sure it won't lead to conflict.

Mostly I just made a show of adjusting my tablet's volume setting.

Polar opposite of the JC.

Bruce Wayne is staring to show, I see.

***

Ender is, without any doubt, a true English gentleman. I hope that some day, probably on a Bank Holiday, we can meet in that delicious pub in Elephant & Castle and have some warm beer with our fish and chips while complaining about the weather.

~JoinTheSchwarz

***

Let's talk about the British thing. I know you're Australian, so when you say "raised British," you mean raised as according to a very British culture, right? Not literally raised in Great Britain?

And you're saying you were raised British, so presumably this is why you avoid conflict, but I remember from the month I spent in England, I was amazed at how blunt and direct British people were. They spoke their mind at all times, and weren't afraid to do so. What am I missing here?

Well my mother's side of the family is British, and the kind who saw themselves as English living here. Therefore decorum was to be observed. One simply does not make a fuss.

So I had this weird mix of British and Dutch cultures. If I know someone, I can do the Dutch thing and if you look at symptoms of Dutch directness ( http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2011/05/28/dutch-directness/ ) it'll seem familiar.

But with strangers or in public, it's the British thing. Don't make a scene, don't make eye contact and don't signal the bus before it is your stop- or you're walking.

The phrase "make yourself at home" is terrifying to me.

It's strange as a mix. And I think it's the byproduct of having parents who weren't- aren't- culturally Australian. Mum especially was a bit snobbish in a fairly inherited way - she wouldn't give a damn about who she is friends with but she will describe people or behaviours as a "a bit common". Tattoos are "common", as are ladies swearing.

And, Australians, until the 90s, had a profound identity crisis where being Australian was a bit shameful because of the larrikin culture and the convict stain. So there wasn't much to make me self-define as Australian. I spend a lot of time lamenting our less sophisticated oursuits. Like drinking booze from a shoe.

Why should someone be proud to be Australian? List all the reasons!

This is a lot harder to answer than I'd like. I'd have said our multiculturalism was a definitive trait to be proud of - but half a million votes were cast for One Nation- a xenophobic unicultural party.

And the notion of being proud of a nationality is of course dangerously close to nationalism, which is more often than not destructive.

We do value loyalty, equity and mateship highly - which i think is worthy.

Perhaps I should have asked why are you happy to be Australian.

Okay, let's do a grand JCC vacation to Australia... what's the best place to visit? Maybe something a little unknown?

And then let's say a JCCer loves her Australian vacation so much she wants to move there, but can't decide on a city... what's the best city?

You definitely need to travel the coasts, from the 12 Apostles in Victoria up to Far North Queensland. You'd see diveristy in flora and fauna, and rarely a day would pass where you weren't impressed by what nature offers.

Plus getting inland, to Broken Hill and Coober Pedy and Alice Springs- the inland is stunning. Uluru at dawn, as the sun first kisses it... breathtaking. I mean, you want this right?



If a JCer wants to move here... it really depends. Sydney and Melbourne are the most prosperous cities. Sydney has the harbour and the beaches; Melbourne is colder but more artistic. More bars and cafes. More galleries.

The rest? Perth, aka East Durban, is a rapidly growning city thanks to mining but still a bit sleepy. Brisbane is sprawling but it's in Queensland, where most of our racists come from. Adelaide is pretty but dying out. Darwin is tropical heat, though I've only been through the airport there, and briefly to an RAAF base. I haven't seen the city proper.

Sydney and Melbourne for sure.

What's something about Australia, and that maybe has to do with you, too, that would surprise most foreigners?

Most Australians are terrified of spiders, even the ones that can't kill you.

For a nation that prides itself on its ruggedness, we scream like babies at the sight of a huntsman.

You're known for being one of the most ardent Prequel, uh, bashers, around these parts, if I may use that word. Is the prequel hate partially an act for showmanship purposes, kind of like when you rag on 'Murica sometimes, or are you really that filled with contempt for I-III?

Well, I don't mind TPM. But the problem I have as a whole is that the prequels basically ruined Star Wars for me. In that it shifted the narrative tone towards more prequelised content everywhere. It made everything about paper-thin flipping out space wizard ninjas. Intolerable.

The prequels are so universally derided that I think it's objectively accurate to call them awful. Those who disagree are almost certainly influenced by nostalgia, i.e. the prequels were launched into theatres at a time in their life that they recall fondly.

I also think if your first exposure to Star Wars was the prequels, it'll influence your expectations.

I grew up on Star Wars during the golden age. Had the Kenner figures as a kid (still have some of them). Watched Caravan of Courage, Battle for Endor, Ewoks and Droids as they aired. Bought Heir to the Empire in 1991 on its release. Played Rebel Assault and Dark Forces on their release, etc etc. I bring this up because I want to highlight how much I was into Star Wars, even when it was broadly not popular anymore. It's also why when Kevin Smith came along with Clerks and Mallrats, I was well into them because he constantly made Star Wars references.

The direction Lucas took made all of that unpalatable, and I'm not ok with it. Because TFA and Rebels and Fantasy Flight games have demonstrated the spirit of Star Wars that I recognise and like is something others like too, recalibrating the brand towards it.

My take on it is Lucas grew up, and he spent time dealing with reality. So his need to escape, his restlessness, was gone. He was wealthier than he needed to be. He didn't hunger any more, and moreover, he didn't dream. An anecdote Spielberg tells about Crystal Skull really brings this home - Lucas came in with research to prove being in a lead 'fridge would enable you to survive a nuclear explosion. OK. So the same guys who had stories about the Holy Grail, Indians ripping hearts out through dark magic and leaving people alive, and a small Jewish box wiping out a bunch of Nazis - much less the story of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader - feels the need to explain the science of something. Right. Ok. Good. Great. Good.

It's why I hate when people try to explain stuff in Star Wars too. It's fantasy. Let it be fantastic. Can the Falcon jump to lightspeed inside a freighter? Sure why not.

Lucas lost that dreaming sense of wonder and wanted fantasy to make sense. As a result, it lost its wondrous scope and become a frankly uninteresting soap opera. Darth Vader, who was scary AF when I was a kid, became a petulant teen with aspergers who literally flipped on the spot and asked literally no questions. It wasn't that he was seduced by the dark side; he was clubbed over the head, dragged into a cave and subjected to snoo-snoo.

I would simply state that the pivot of Star Wars stories back to the stuff I was saying was Star Wars (and it wasn't me, a lot of people here agreed) proves I'm not alone in this thinking. i.e. I just picked the right side.

Also, lol at the dead expanded universe.

***

and I just can't get enough of the prequels

~Healer_Leona

***

What's your take on TFA being too much of a rehash of ANH, and indulging (perhaps overly so) in nostalgia?

Um, I think that part of that argument fundamentally misses the point, actually.

For starters; it didn't rehash ANH per se; it rehashed the Star Wars take on the Hero's Journey. Since both ANH and TFA start their own new trilogy of tales, it makes sense that they go back to Campell; going one further, TFA went back to the structural framework that underpinned the OT and felt less critical to the PT.

As for the fan service; they did what they had to do. I might be more opinionated about it, but I think there's very clear evidence out there that a lot of people think as I do. I'm not prescient or special; I just hitched my wagon to the right horse.

What did you think of the Starkiller?

Well quite frankly I didn't get the upset or fuss. "It's preposterous" - like building a planet-sized superlaser? Or two? It's not like the first two were inspired, brilliant ideas that made perfect sense. This is just the Death Star III, with more Death!

I had no issue with it in the context of the story or the saga.

The Star Wars OT clearly hitched its wagon to the Hero's Journey (at least the very first stages that Campbell outlined, anyway), and it looks like the sequel trilogy has as well. This is getting into some really deep territory here, in an area where probably both of us can do little more than wonder, but what do you think makes the combination of a saga in a galaxy far, far away with the Hero's Journey such a potent story to tell in our present age?

We've never stopped needing mythology. We've never stopped needing tales that extend beyond the limits of our realm and ask questions and posit "what ifs" on the grandest of scales. I would argue, without judgement, that America is a country so heavily invested in mythology that it relies on it as part of the national narrative - the World War II scenario you and I talked about beforehand. But also the myth of the nation's founding, as if upon an ideal; or the Wild West. Basically see also: American Gods by Neil Gaiman.

What we get is a fantasy like Tolkien's epics that has familiar looking but otherworldly people fighting a class fight against evil; with a redemption thrown in for good measure. And the world seems less dull than ours; even Rey's existence, and that brief epiphany as she looks at the wizened old scavenger opposite her, scrubbing her wares (truth is, that woman was only 29. Alcohol and the sun ruined her) and realises it could be her - that's still less relevant that the notion that Rey's life is exotic and interesting and special, and that anyone can be plucked from obscurity into the robes of heroism.

If I'm being honest about it, as I get old I tend to think more about the "why" for everything except Star Wars - I prefer not to think about why it grabbed - and grabs - me like it does. I prefer instead to treat it like visceral experience. I can mostly articulate what I like/dislike about it, but in my view overthinking and overexplaining has ruined the seductive wonder.

Ah! Yes, that's right. The films don't tell us much beyond what we see, and that is seductive. I've said this before, but seduction works off you knowing less, not more. The imagination fills in the gaps.

Unfortunately, nerds ruin everything and you know they've probably given names and backstories to every person in that Jakku marketplace; they probably named and gave a backstory to the quadjumper that was destroyed, and will never be happy until they've explained every unknown to the nth degree.

In short, they'll ruin it again, despite the reboot away from that approach with the EU's death.

To the people who are dead wrong about TFA in your opinion, what one thing would you tell them to try and keep in mind as they did a rewatch of the movie? And you know most of them will probably rewatch it at some point, even very soon, because we're fans on a SW forum after all. Just something to maybe help them view the movie through a new lens.

I think it is really going to depend who you are. I think what the filmmakers did, in a sense, was try to create for a new generation what ANH did for us, and by linking it to the story of Luke from the OT, you effectively continue that journey. So it's in a sense our story continued, but more the story for the next generation. The in-between generation, for whom the prequels are Their Star Wars, probably won't have the same anchor because it's not related to those films. TFA is pretty deaf and blind to the existence of the prequels - you could watch it without ever missing backstory that TPM, AOTC and ROTS carry. That will absolutely, in my view, affect engagement and it does seem to affect engagement among some groups of fans.

So, for a rewatch - remember how you felt the first time, and imagine how you'd feel if this was your first Star Wars. Don't get hung up on Starkiller Base, or ANH comparisons. Just feel it.

What's the predominant emotion you felt the first time you watched Star Wars? Or that you remember from your earliest memory of it?

I don't remember, I was probably 3. I know as I got a bit older, to around 6 or 7, it was mild obsession. I wanted to be Han Solo. I felt living in this universe would have been this experience where there's kind of... I don't know, less hardship, or infinite potential. In that I remember reading one of the Old Republic novels and someone's got an "aircar", a minimum wage job, and low income housing and I'm like... no. It's utopian. Slaves have giant houses and prissy protocol droids. Even the worst luck is still not that bad.

I think therefore when it's not utopian, or they stray into "realistic" territory like the Prequel's ham-fisted allegories, that's when I switch off.

Ok, if you were in the SW galaxy, what kind of character would you be? Force user? Imperial? Smuggler? Gungan?

Yeah, I've always liked the idea of a Smuggler. I usually play them in roleplaying games, and in the Old Republic online game I had one. It's mostly the idea of a ship, done up well and fast enough to cause trouble, that I like. I'm a huge petrol head, I love motor racing, and that love of road and racecars has always made me look at a YT- series ship and think "yeah, I'd change this, and this, and this..."

As I got older, I kind of felt the Legends character Talon Karrde, in the Thrawn Trilogy (that, and the X-Wings books, were the only decent books anyway), had the right idea.

Do you race yourself?

I used to kart a lot in my early 20s and then occasionally have karted in my 30s. I've done a few track days too, but mostly given the prohibitive cost - you have to own and insure a racing car, roughly $1,000 per tyre for slicks, fuel, etc - I prefer to sim race.

So for a long while I raced in a few GT3* leagues via Project CARS ("Community Assisted Racing Simulation") using a Logitech G920 wheel. I did a series in the McLaren MP4-12C GT3, followed by the RUF RGT GT3 (RUF is a German aftermarket tuner that exclusively modify Porsches - and since Porsche charge extreme licensing fees, most games use RUF).

(*GT3 is an engine formula that is basically your famous sportscars - Ferrari 458 Italias, Porsche 911s, Bentley Continental GT3s, BMW Z4s, Corvettes, McLaren 650s and MP4-12Cs, Aston Martin Vantages, Audi R8s, etc. I like GT3 cars, but I'm much better in open wheel cars like Formula 1, Formula Renault, Formula Gulf 1000 etc)

It lacks the physicality of racing - racing is very, very tough on the body. But it doesn't mean it's just sitting in a Sega Daytona arcade machine. You have to be across tyre and brake temperatures, engine temperature, rate of degradation, rate of fuel consumption, sector deltas relative to optimal pace, and the presence and pace of cars around you. If you're following a car ahead too close, whom you're quicker than but can't pass because they're defending the corner lines too well, you're losing downforce as the slipstream is sending air wide around your car. That makes the front of the car less likely to grip in in turns, creating understeer. The effect of this is higher front tyre degradation, and since the only air you're getting is the hot air from the exhaust in front you're not giving your brakes the chance to cool or the optimal cool air for your engine intake.

So you have to be thinking constantly about when to brake, and turn, but also if you're ruining your race pace by sticking to the rear of the car in front. Just having the ability to be .3 seconds faster on a lap doesn't mean much if you have no grip in your tyres with 3 laps to go. I've won races and managed to get both our cars on the podium by running a much more patient, longform strategy for the team. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Right now my roadcar is a VW Golf GTI, the MkVI. She's very pretty, in tornado red. around 6.5s to 60mph. There's a Micro Machines Millennium Falcon suction cup hanging thingy stuck to the windshield that I've had since about 1996; and an NL sticker on the back of the car. That's as customised as she'll go. But being a FWD, she's not practical to track race since FWD tends to create understeer at speed. Understeer is my racing enemy.

Is NASCAR racing?

It is, but I mean. What's the point? I've simmed oval racing and there is some skill involved; but it's just not the same as being stuck to the back of a rival at Laguna Seca and getting a better run out turn 1 before passing down the inside at Turn 2.

Just seems like a massively unsatisfying pursuit which gives its audience unreasonably high levels of thrills.

If V8 supercars took off there, given the V8s Ford/GM produce, you'd have similar cars racing proper tracks. Like Watkins Glen all season. Just saying, Murica...

So let's talk about how tough it is on the body... how so? Is racing really a sport?

Yes, absolutely. There's two components to consider; the first is the G-force on the body when the car changes direction, including under braking. The second is the heat of the cockpit which means 4-5 litres of sweat per race. Worse if it's like today's Grand Prix in Malaysia.

The G-Force is especially potent, because it's forcing the body to strain and pull against 1G of deceleration just from lifting off the throttle; and up to 3.5g in a turn. For the worst perspective - Kimi Raikonnen, the Finnish Ferrari driver, had a crash in 2014 at Silverstone in England, where the impact was 45G!

So you're in this very hot, very cramped space where you're being pushed and pulled by gravity the entire time, and that puts significant strain on the body. There needs to be a high level of fitness to keep the breathing regular, because the more 'puffed' they get the less oxygenated their blood, and the slower their reflexes. At the speeds they travel at, every tenth of a second counts.

There's more info here: https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understanding-f1-racing/Driverfitness.html

So as to the question of if it's a sport - it's definitely something where athletes compete, so...

Let's talk about someone else who like fast cars- Sterling Archer.

It seems like you identify with him. I recently watched the first six seasons on Netflix, and there were several times where I thought, "Yeah, that seems especially Ender-ish..." What do you like about the show and the character so much, to make it your avatar for such a long period?

The show's hit and miss, but some of their episodes have been outlandishly funny and, in a lot of respects, quite highbrow (the Chekov gun in the second episode). I think you see the audience quite varies in their engagement and types - those who love all the Krieger vans that are also Rush covers; that Babou was the name of Salvador Dali's ocelot, or like me seeing the Jeu Monegasque episode's Formula 1 cars with the top three finishers being Bell, Biven and Devoe (Bell Biv Devoe) to those who just love the in jokes or the innuendo or the spy spoof.

Archer's enjoyment from tormenting people like Cyril (like this, where he rides Cyril zero-G into vomit)




or Ray is what does it for me. He's selfish, a ****, but his mother's the boss he's usually quite competent and gets away with it as a result.

Is your mother in charge of you?

Nope! No, my mother isn't Mallory and we never had a dog named Dutchess.

On the topic of pets...

What are the pets you've had in your life, and which were dearest to you?

Pretty much exclusively a dog person. We had a cat, for many years, but she was a mean spirited bastard to be frank. I still have a scar on my hand from when he scratched me at age 3. I didn't even do anything; she was scared of the vacuum cleaner, and ran off, stoping to swipe at me.

As she got older I was the only one who tolerated her BS so she used to sleep on my bed every night. Usually taking up most of the pillow. I've always had a good affinity with animals, even when the rest of the family had given up on her for the evil wretch she was.

But the nearest and dearest - probably, I would say, Labradors. My parents used to have a chocolate lab when I lived with them, who was put down at age 14 in 2014. When she was young she was the most defiant thing ever, but in a really cheeky way. She'd get up on the lounge with me when I was visiting from Canberra, and then be asked "should you be there?" She'd give this wild-eyed glance of fear, then decide the dog-equivalent of "yolo" and just ignore them. She figured if she didn't make eye contact, you weren't telling her to get down. She also once took an entire ham sandwich out of my hands. I wasn't even mad. I was too proud.

Names? Good god, man, give us names!

Ok.

The cat was called Cassie.

The chocolate lab was Lucy.

I also used to refer to Lucy as "the brown seal".

This question comes from Lok:

If you could compare America to some fictionalized country and political state what would that be? (ES seems to be very political from what I've read)...

Yeah, um... I've actually made this point before, usually to people who don't understand politics and want to broadcast that by saying "This thing is like Star Wars because Emperorerereroror this and PResident that!!1!"

I go back to Mark Twain on this; "'Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." If America were to be honestly and accurately captured in fiction, it would be improbably contradictory and unreasonably strange. Even people who strove for realism in their works, like pre-"The Cold War ended and now I'm ****ed because I really put all my eggs in the evil commie basket" Tom Clancy wrote an idealised America, where it was the good guy.

Therein lies the inherent contradiction that would be impossible to capture convincingly in fiction.

America believes so strongly in its own myth. People who would normally not want to be labelled nationalistic or patriotic still get a gut-level feeling of pride when their country is insulted. I've had great fun with it, to be honest. However, it means that Americans see themselves very strongly as one thing, and behave very differently to that.

How do you then portray a nation that believes it's own hype and myths that it tells itself, and make it believable? The ideology of America, this bastion of liberal democracy that opposes tyranny, that happily destroyed a democratically elected government because said government would have harmed a fruit company's profits and the president of that company was friends with the Dulles brothers. That put down a democracy in Iran to prop up a tyrant ("He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard"). And nobody really blinks, or takes to the streets in outrage - even as recently as the Reagan years.

It's like... people need to believe the myth of the noble America, the one which sacrifices its young to defend its values (which is the public narrative; the truth is closer to sacrificing its young soldiers for enhanced resources and wealth and influence) and who oppose tyranny in all forms. And anything that suggests that never was is deeply uncomfortable. There are people who know about Guatemala and Grenada and Iran and the Iraq war of 2003 and the like, and who deeply condemn them. But they still hold the myth and mythology dear.

No writer I know could catalogue such a fascinatingly contradictory set of people in a believable way.

Many of the greatest nations and individuals in history are overbrimming with contradictions, so America is not alone in that regard. But setting aside "great man" theory of history, and coming back down to just two relatively common individuals on opposite sides of the planet, I think you are full of contradictions, are you not?

To put it another way, I think it would be very hard if I were not Shakespeare, to come up with a character like you. From earlier in the interview, the way you described how you are in real life, it was so surprising to me. I could not imagine this other Ender that we just don't know, because we only have online Ender. You also cannot be accused of not being accepting of different races, sexual orientations, genders, and health choices, and yet sometimes you seem to possess no empathy for those who are different than you, who come from a different walk of life, which seems to be the source of comments "you're a cancer" that people sometimes make about you. Am I wrong?

You're right about nations, but I think the contradiction is so wonderful and stark with Americans. It's not a bad thing, per se - that you need to believe in the good myth/vision is probably why you don't do the kind of nasty underhandedness that others get away with (SUP RUSSIA).

I would agree with your assessment, too. I'm trying to think of a way to perhaps give it some context. Part of it is a combination of strongly defined right and wrong, and a very high expectation of myself an others. By which I mean; the lack of empathy comes out when people let themselves down and in my view, need to be pushed. Now, earlier, I made a reference to the absurdity of thinking my standards ought matter even remotely to anyone else; but I think that we generally do define our interpersonal relationships with people based on their positioning relative to our own ethical/moral compass. It makes no sense, in other words, but also it makes a lot of sense because that's how people interact every day.

On reflection, too, maybe this is where the arrogance comes in. If someone I don't respect - and despite appearances, there's precious few people I actively have no respect for at all (I mean, how many people here will defend J-Rod from personal attacks whilst tearing down his belief system?!). If someone I don't respect is taking me on, that's when I don't really care about appearing empathetic. There are people out there who I've locked horns with where I've made is clear it's not personal by supporting them if I agree in threads or talking to them via PM. I've had titanic fights with Lord Vivec, and he's probably never going to accept my criticisms but he knows it's coming from a place of believing he is smarter than the arguments he sometimes makes; that I think he's letting himself down. Not that I think he's a **** bloke - he's not. He's quite intelligent. He just cares too much sometimes.

I guess I feel people have an obligation in this world not to be the lowest common denominator, and it's borderline offensive to me when they do that. If they show signs of being willing to listen or change - again, J-Rod - then I'm good with them. If they want to continue with that, then yea, I won't see eye to eye with them and there will be fireworks and songs written and maybe even a Netflix series...

I think it goes back to what Knightwriter said when we were young and carefree mods (him YJCC, me Senate) - I make waves. I don't know how not to. And yeah, from time to time I'll beat up the bully for being cruel and perpetuating hate; and from time to time I guess I am the bully, or at least a really good impersonation of him. I think it's part of the charm.

you are a charming fellow!

Best film you've ever seen

In The Mood For Love

Best book you've ever read

Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks

Best JCCer you know

Christ. Best I know. I'm going to do a top 5, and they can either accept their shared prize or they can fight to the death for the ultimate victory:

tom - Grounded, caring, and with a strong moral compass. He's one of those people you know you could talk **** with for hours over beer, with real hip-hop playing in the background.

Frieda - I don't interact as much with her, though we were in ModSquad way back when... but, like tom, an incredibly strong moral compass. These are two JC'ers I know that are good people, without any qualifications to that statement.

Jello - I remember arguing strongly for him in ModSquad, when horsey I think was the other contender. What was it for? I think it was EUC. Anyway, people thought he was too aloof and arrogant (...) and I was able to make the case for him. Seeing him get up and still, 9 years later, be a mod is gratifying. But we talk via FB Messenger, and met up once years ago... I'd love to catch up with Jay again IRL and just frown at poor people or something.

Darth Punk - When I was in London last year, I met up with halibut, Punk, and Slightly_Un-Pete. Hal left early to go to a show, and I spent another 5 hours or something drinking Belgian beers with Punk and Pete. He's a firm favourite now; I can picture him actually saying everything he posts. One day, we will go to a converted urinal in the East End where the ladies have willies.

And finally, Pete. We've got a similar sense of humour; a similar personal/work ethic and a similar love for Derek and Clive. Despite Pete having the unenviable job of removing lobsters from Jayne Mansfield's bum, he's very ground and sensible. If I were to go on a group of pale, British-ish guys road trip around the US with two JCers it would be Punk and Pete. We even discussed it at one point. I think I'd be shot first though, followed by Pete. Punk would be adopted by a strange Christian cult and never heard from again.

You've condemned me though, Cor. Because there's a lot of phenomenal people here on these boards who deserve respect and love and in naming one - or five, as I did because I'm a cheating bastard - I put those I don't name offside.

Guys, except for maybe 4-5 of you, you're all great people.

Last meal on planet earth- what do you order?

If it's just "the world ends at midnight" - I want slow cooked lamb, the kind that just falls off a bone. The salad/vegetable option is immaterial here; nothing will compare to that succulent taste of a baby sheep. It's divine.

We've been on the edges of the topic of MS for a few questions now. What do you make of your time spent modding here? Worthwhile? What did you learn? Would you do it again?

It was a very interesting time because it was pre-social media but post ROTS. So a lot of anxiety about the future of the boards tied up with a lot of politics around the various forums.

I didn't do things in the conventional way. Surprisingly. I rarely banned. I publicly warned people when convention was to PM them and generally advocated transparency. I also took the view it was my job to represent the user base there.

It meant the entrenched interests like Strilo and TwiLekJedi hated most of my ideas and we ended up with a deep seated dislike of each other. They weren't interested in reform or transparency in the slightest. They were lazy and entitled and owed it to the JC to step down much earlier than they did.


As for worthwhile... well. The process of managing a dispute by PM was sacred. And I felt it didn't show that bad behaviour was being managed so I called it out. Nowadays that's the done thing with mods. But I think it made the Senate a better place and helped the antipathy subside a bit.

I'm not saying I made the mod change in behaviour happen, mind you - just that what's normal now was anathema then and I think I was a bit ahead of the curve.

The most valuable thing I learned, other than why Sape was so utterly ****-useless, was how this place actually works.

The sexism policy and Senate re-merger were done because of that knowledge. In that the way I structured them was key; the way I managed my conduct was key. And with the Senate, the way I worked around having Wocky trying to help.

The sexism policy was a massively collaborative policy and I don't seek to diminish anyone's contributions. I just make the point that knowing how MS works helped me make their job easier and very few could have achieved the same results.

Would I do it again? Ha; I would never be asked! But I mean, hypothetically I'd enjoy disappointing people by not conforming to expectations. I'd do a good job, mostly because I believe it's a leadership role and I'd be mercilessly hard on myself to deliver for the JC. But... it was a lot of work. There were days when my MS postings would be twice my Senate postings. And I just don't think the responsibility to be the Mod Ender (who is not a **** sadly) personality is too great.

It was a privilege to serve, but in the improbable event I was asked I'd have to decline.

And just why was Sape so utterly ****-useless? We all know how that ended up, but before any of that, I think to most of the forums (regulars like myself) Sapient was well respected, if not completely revered. Was it a different story in the "back channels" of MS?

Well, so we know he was busy being a pervert arsehat 99% of the time. That's established. What he used to do, and it makes sense because he was busily trying to set up some statutory rape, was basically ignore the facts and recommendations of his staff in the worst way.

Say I put this to him; "Sape, I have this user in my forum - Jabba-wocky. He has these really esoteric posting habits, and a lot of users call it a form of trolling. I don't believe he is trolling, but I can't also ignore a growing segment of my users take exception to his style. We all agree here in MS that banning is disproportionate and unnecessary - but we can't simply 'do nothing'. What do you advise?"

Sape: "Oh yeah, you guys are right. Definitely ban the troll."

//facepalm

It happened over and over and over again. He just wasn't listening, wasn't available, wasn't engaged and would skim over key points to make the wrong call time and time again. I don't mean "he disagreed with me" - he disagreed with majority position time and time again. It's been 10 years so specifics don't come to mind but maybe someone like dp4m might remember.

And yes he was revered, but he was head admin and he was visible in the community. So the frustration was, in the pre-Sapist the Rapist days, just that - MS related. In my view, Rhonderoo was a billion times better, and I never really interacted with Obi-Wan506 when he had the head role.

He was basically the David Brent of ModSquad.

How was rhonderoo superior?

She was an actual leader; she had earned a lot of respect from her peers; she listened, she gave an enormous amount of a damn and didn't bull**** you. She understood the community, and by that I mean... this is a point I make often. I say mods need to be leaders in their forum, in that they should know the people and personalities. The contentious topics and how to manage them. The troublemakers, and the issues they care about. She did, for both (I believe...) fanfic and the JC.

If you don't respect your leader, and the head admin is just that in ModSquad, it changes things entirely. Since I only had Sape - who was asleep too during the crap with Kimball (before he went gun nut) being demoted and stuff - and then roo, I got a really good perspective on good v bad head admins.

The current admins, Ramza and JTS, are horribly corrupt, deeply unethical, and at least one is Spanish. It's unfathomable that we'd be punished so severely such a short interval from when I left.

***

I'm trying to figure out a diplomatic way to strike a balance between "I frequently find Ender's posts insightful and/or amusing" and "sometimes Ender's caustic streak gets him into trouble he could probably avoid being in."

Actually, maybe that whole sentence is my quote.

~Ramza

***

Okay, before we move away from this ModSquad and administrating tangent, I wanted to bring up something Rogue 1.5 talked about recently in a thread (I can't recall which one). He talked about transparency, and his desire to see a read-only forum where MS threads would be "declassified" after a period of time. You've mentioned your advocacy of greater transparency, would you go as far as supporting such a forum?

Yes, and I said as much in the thread. Nothing I said there is something I am ashamed of; and I think that people will probably be more broadly sympathetic to the MS if they saw what being in MS actually entailed. It's a job, essentially, with no remuneration and often, no thanks.

Hug your mods, people, and tell them you love them. A good cuddle and some positive feedback will go a long way.

Alright, now what about that ophie AD&D character?

Ophelia is a diviner, a class of magician in AD&D concerned with knowledge. "Seekers of knowledge, hoarders of lore, and master spies, diviners are perhaps the most underrated specialist wizards. Because they must give up access to only one other school of magic, they are also the most versatile specialists. More than any other specialists, diviners excel at gathering information, and an adventuring party that includes a diviner is much more likely to prepare properly for an adventure."

That seemed to fit her like a glove, to be honest. I could see her showing up to impart wisdom divined from all sorts of magical sources, before vanishing for weeks or months at a time.

Ophelia
Female Human Diviner 1
STR 11
DEX 9
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 17
CHA 12

Hit Points: 4
Armour Class: 10

Stats wise, that's solid. Wisdom is her friend here. Physical combat is not; her weapon is her mind and her charm.

Spell Level: 6th

Equipment:
Quarterstaff (1d6)
Robes and traveller's boots
Obvious magic user's hat - Ophelia is not only fashionable, she has an ironic sense of her self which means a giant, Gandalf style hat. When you're alone, roaming the hills, it keeps the sun off your head. When you're advising some Lord or noble, it adds to the air and mystery. Because of the ironic use of this, Ophelia gets a minor situational bonus: +1 to all CHA related checks in front of nobility when discussing her divining.
Tinderbox - sadly nothing to do with the fast paced world of swipe based dating.
Spellbook
Scrolls of paper
Scroll case
Vial of perfume
Small sack x3

Familiar: Owl - because she can

Favoured Spells:
Evard's Black Tentacles - rubbery black tentacles spring forth from the floor. Useful for proving a point, tripping people up on their own hubris, or playing Twister with an edge.
Magic Mirror - Helps turn any mirror into a scrying device. Helpful for just, you know, reading tea leaves like a boss.
Polymorph Other/Polymorph Self - Just because
Contact Other Plane - Used with Magic Mirror, and the primitive minds of most of the peasantry and nobility will see Ophelia for a BAMF with witch like powers. Downside is, they may burn her for it.

Beautiful.

I realized this entire time, I never asked you your name. I'm pretty sure it's Andrew, right?

Yes sir.

How's your day been, Andrew?

Well! It's only midday, and the better half is interstate for work so I've cooked some haloumi and kale for breakfast, done some work (yay) and am about to head out for a bit. Ah crap. I just remembered I need to go get dry cleaning. Thanks Cor! I'd have forgotten if not for you.

yw!

Now just what is haloumi?

Haloumi is a cheese from Cyprus, made from goat's milk I believe. You typically tend to fry it up in a tiny bit of olive oil, in the pan, and have it as part of a meal. It's salty, but I just imagine they're unicorn tears. Idiots who eat "paleo" diets think it's somehow a paleo cheese, which I find reaffirming - that our homo sapiens forebears recognised the value of a good goat's cheese in the all natural diet.

***

Thanks again for reading! A huge thanks to Andrew for his deeply thoughtful answers and for his participation in this interview!

Andrew might make a post shortly. If you liked his answers and participation in this interview, please Like that post.

If you were a PEOPLE interviewee in the past and you saved your issue, please let me know. Otherwise, old issues from before the big move will be restored by going the (very) long way around.

Past Issues

1. FamousAmos
2. Darth_Ignant
3. FareLenore
4. Mortimer_Snerd
5. Darth_Deception
6. Albert_Normandy
7. Darth_Snowball*
8. PhilipWise
9. Everton*
10. Quixotic-Sith*
11. DarthTunick*
12. KnightWriter*
13. gabe*
14. Coruscant*
15. rhonderoo / Kavic_Toth*
16. Katya_Jade*
17. harpuah I*
18. VadersLaMent*
19. George_Roper*
20. Handmaiden_Yane*
21. solojones I*
22. jp-30*
23. GrandAdmiralJello*
24. Earwen and Skye Lightrider*
25. Souderwan*
26. harpuah II*
27. AaylaSecurOWNED*
28. TheGuardianofArlon*
29. PulsarSkate*
30. Eeth-my-Koth*
31. dp4m*
32. MASTERPRENN*
33. Grimby the Hutt*
34. s65horsey*
35. Esperanza_Nueva*
36. Errant_Venture*
37. harpuah III*
38. Darth_Guy
39. JediYvette
40. solojones II*
41. SLR*
42. Whitey*
43. imperial_dork*
44. AmazingB*
45. Miana Kenobi*
46. JoinTheSchwarz*
47. Armenian_Jedi*
48. darth_boy*
49. ApolloSmileGirl
50. tom
51. Jabba-wocky
52. Zapdos
53. Kyle Katarn
54. Healer_Leona
55. I Are The Internets
56. Ramza
57. Rogue1-and-a-half
58. Admiral Volshe
59. Lord Vivec
60. Jabbadabbado
61. anakinfansince1983
62. slightly_unhinged
63. mrsvos
64. Darth Punk
65. Boba_Fett_2001
66. LostOnHoth
67. Juliet316
68. Shira A'dola
69. TahiriVeilaSolo69
70. ophelia
71. Master_Lok


*unrestored


~Coruscant

 

tl;dr

It's been remarked on before, but Cor's skill as an interviewer really does need to be called out. There were several questions where I had to put a lot of thought into the answers, mostly because it required introspection I hadn't done in some time. He has a knack for knowing what to ask an interviewee, and when. Whilst I appreciated it a lot in the interviews I read, I think being on the receiving end gives you a whole new level of appreciation for it.

If you are offended by anything I've said, please direct your complaints to:

Ender Sai
C/- The Socialist Workers Party of Kowloon
Presidential Suite
Peninsula Hotel, Salisbury Rd
East Shim Tsha Tsui
Hong Kong SAR

EDIT: Also, AF1983, you just shamefully made me realise the consequences of having to name JC'ers. I knew if I did one, I'd have to do 5. Do 5, I have to do 10 (and probably include Daveed and Maik). Do 10, and you get to 15, and then 20, and then 30... and then you're better off just listing people you dislike.

Truth is, aside from about 1 or 2 3 or 4 no more than 5 miscreants there's nobody here I don't like.

 

Great job on the MS sum-up. You nailed it perfectly and that's more or less how I felt/feel. I might add a little something to the whole Sapient bit. Transparent he wasn't, but when he wanted to be a martyr, boy, could he ever. The hand-wringing that guy could do when he wanted you to feel sorry for him was amazing. His behavior after the Wisegate thing with his whole special thread in Comms about how conflicted he was . . . that stuff is too embarrassing to even read. But, hey, claws in, cat. Good interview.

 

Thank you, Ender.

My skills as a censor certainly suck, though. Something got through. I'm not saying where it is.

 

Yeah this is probably worth calling out, because I think that's what gave him the status in the first place. He was a "man of the people". He bled for us, hurt for us etc.

It kind of - I mean, not wholly, but a bit - still gets to me that there were so many things wrong with Sape and we never really tackled it head on. He had this kind of protective aura for so long.

 

i control F'd for my username and then closed the thread. this is what i always do in these threads, gonna be real witchu

 

I hear you. I was genuinely pissed when the whole harrassment thing came out because I knew the guy (admittedly, in passing) and I felt like an idiot for a. not seeing it & b. giving him a pass every time he did something I didn't like because "oh, he's just an all right kinda guy." I've come to terms with the fact that his sociopathy was very high functioning, at least online. He was good at manipulation and image building. I was genuinely taken in. I suppose he's partly responsible for the withered cynicism I now feel toward super-popular online figures. Sociopaths are good at building images in the real world; it's so much easier online. But the moment when I really finally tumbled to just what a horrible dude he was . . . well, it was when I went back and looked at all those Wisegate threads for one of my anniversary threads and I finally connected the dots between the harassment and the efforts he went to in order to keep his position. All that handwringing and emotionally raw wrestling with his soul . . . bull****. He knew when he started that thread that he was going to do whatever he had to do to keep his position because he couldn't afford to lose that power, given the things he'd done. What a guy.

EDIT: But, gonna be honest with you, I dream of the day I go into JC and he's started one of those "hey I'm an oldbie" threads, assuming that everyone here is new and no one will remember him. You know you want that to happen.

 

I think it's natural, though. We were in close proximity to an absolutely terrible human being, when he was doing terrible stuff. Seeing it would have been impossible then, but naturally you wonder if you could have done more. And it's only with hindsight it makes sense. The number of times he'd ignore majority opinion for some kind of flippant statement in support of us doing what we said we didn't want to do - he was enabling us to feel we had the boss' trust. And with attention elsewhere it was basically delegating authority through implicit trust in our collective judgement. That he never actually read what we put up to him was evident; but why he couched his responses the way he did... it makes sense now.

I think it was with Malkie's demotion that he really showed me who he was. People who didn't like Malkie were agitating hard for his removal, and Sape was just lead by them. dp4m, do I have that correct?

EDIT: OH GOD YES. Please let Sape come do an "I'm an oldbie gaiz lul who is still here?" thread.

 

It'd be a bit hard for him to do so considering he suffered the Omniban - the Endless Ban that is Registration.

It's fine, I got it.

 

My memory isn't what it used to be, but that sounds right. Of course, I'm still friends with Malkie and Tim both, who have their share of detractors here and elsewhere. It's not like an easy one like nashira or something.

BTW, haven't read this yet but it's on my list for later!

 

I keep seeing the word used and not censored, so I'm confused.

Ramza, is there an addon that allows for users to opt in/out of a profanity filter? I feel the need for a Comms thread...

 

Also, maybe I shouldn't read it if I'm not name-dropped, and I was your first mod in RPG...

 

The rule on bastard is a bit more flexible so I'll allow it here since it's not directed at other users.

Not that I know of. Plus I feel like that'd have to get run by Philip since it would dramatically alter the nature of our language policy.

 

TL,DR:

 

dp4m please. It's an interview with me, about me. There should have been zero expectations of name drops entirely.

 

That's not very Crown-y of you, old chap...

 

Not enough namedropping of the "me" kind. May the dingo steal your gonads.

 

Yeah, it just kind of fizzled out a bit mostly because I realised I'm meant to be writing a paper for the board and I'm researching spells. I just couldn't put in the time. Well, not without putting my bosses offside.

Wocky was my favourite though. He just reminded of everyone who comes late to a group*, and says "2 rogues, a CG fighter, CN mage, TN cleric, CG ranger? I'll roll an LG paladin!" Then, to roleplay his alignment, he has the two rogues arrested for theft.

* I mean, I know I made up his character but he's so LG. So, so painfully LG.

 

Deleted questions:

Cor: What do you think about JohnTheShorts?

Ender: it's Bullcrap his a admin and he Thinks its ok to bully like the Endersi and harpuna that hurts the community and facebook will make us like google what do you think,

 

Hahaha

 

That was an exceptionally fascinating read.