I think I found a site I like! Saw an article about how Microsoft messed with the Vista kernel for the Service Pack (nothing major, it turns out), and then I saw this awesome little article: It's a Windows world: Deal with it.

Heeheehee... So true.

Well, looky here... Guess who showed up on Digg? Good ol' Bob Knight. The comments are predictable... "He might be a jerk, but he's an awesome coach." Yeah. I would expect that from a group of people who worship Steve Jobs.

But let me tell you... This guy was in Indiana for an incredibly long time. I grew up hearing about how Bob Knight did this and how Bob Knight did that. But you know why he left Indiana? He was fired because he was a FREAK. His final act of creepiness made huge news, and then he was fired, which also made huge news, because people were going on about how it was unfair that his contract was broken. Pfft... People who praise this guy have no dignity. But, then again, this is Digg we're talking about... Digg doesn't do dignity.

THIS is what I can't stand about the Myst community.

For months... YEARS! I have been saying Uru isn't what it was supposed to be, and I've been flamed and attacked for all this time. I have been called the "problem" of Uru and that I should just shut up and let the people who like it keep playing and that I should just butt out. So I did, and then I even get flamed for that. I even brought it up last week and got rolled over the coals. And now? MystBlogs is packed full of posts saying the EXACT SAME THING I HAVE BEEN SAYING and the same people who flamed me earlier are agreeing with those posts. (Oh yeah, and don't forget to plug your precious AdminKI hack that you want to use.)

Why? How can you possibly be so HYPOCRITICAL? Tell me! I want to know! How can you, literally, one week in the past, say the "old guard" are a bunch of stuck up whiners and then, one week later? AGREE WITH THEM. Someone, please... Tell me how you can do this so blindly? It's perfectly fine when all your favorite friends say it? But not me? Why? TELL ME. I'm trying to make sense of this irrational behavior.

Gah! Humans! I don't see what The Doctor sees in you. If you, the reader, ever again wonders, in the future, why it seems that I'm so resistant the Myst community? You can refer to this post.

eBay has always been a delicate balance when it comes to leaving feedback. As a buyer, you should objectively examine your purchase AS SOON AS you receive it and make sure it matches the description. If what you bought is not what you expected, but it matches the description, tough noodles. If what you bought is not what you expected, and does not match the description? Work with the seller to see if they're willing to solve the problem peacefully. If not, it's negative feedback and PayPal report time. This, however, is the ideal procedure that NEVER happens.

As it is, even if buyers think you shipped too slow, you get negative feedback. If they're upset that day? Negative. The box is wet? Negative. Their preferred candidate lost the primaries? Negative feedback. There are few buyers who are truly objective and honest, and eBay/PayPal already sides 100% with the buyer in the case of a dispute. You, as a seller, have to solidly prove that the buyer is in the wrong or you lose everything.

As a seller leaving feedback, the ideal procedure is to leave feedback as soon as they pay. Technically, that's when the buyer's responsibility ends. Sadly, this is never, ever the case. As a seller, I was told to wait until the buyer leaves feedback before I did. That way, would could retaliate against stupid negatives. Our official stance was "we do not consider the transaction complete until you are satisfied with the product. We will do anything reasonable to work with you if you don't like what you got." If they weren't reasonable and they leave a negative? We left one, too. It's as simple as that, and it works just as well as it sounds.

Sadly, eBay is going to ban sellers from leaving negative feedback. They have just left the door wide open for wanton negative feedbacks from buyers who KNOW they can't be retaliated against. "The mailman was 20 minutes late... It's negative time!" Bah! As someone who was involved in selling on eBay for over a year, I can safely say that I will never be involved with selling something on eBay ever again, and I hope other sellers band together and tell eBay what the driving force behind their success thinks!

Come on, eBay. Everyone keeps telling you how you should do it, but you keep doing everything backwards! Make it so nobody can see feedback left for them until both buyer AND seller have left feedback. This will essentially stop people from waiting until the other party leaves feedback, so you can leave what they left. It won't stop people from being idiots, but it'll stop retaliation. Make a warning page (a big one, because people are blind dimwit morons) that bugs the person leaving negative feedback that they should communicate with the other party to try to resolve the situation. Maybe even force an email, but that probably won't stop the crazies out there.

But nooo... You stopped retaliation by limiting the folks that make eBay work. Smart.

(Yes, the title's on purpose.)

So I was reading my boring English Composition book... Wading through common sense blathering about procedures I already do, tips I already know, and examples to reinforce the things I already do and already know. Yeah... It's a pretty boring book. My FAQs pocket book is far more interesting... It actually gives me examples of techniques without giving me 10 pages of someone's boring report.

Anyway, they were talking about using the internet for finding sources... Yeah, big revelation for me, man. Internet search sites? Woah. But then they go through a "basic internet glossary". You know... Things like "blog" and "cyberspace" (what, is this the 90s again?) and "newsgroup". Stuff you would be well off knowing, right? Well... Not entirely:

MOO A multiuser domain, object-oriented, provides a space in which people can meet at a given time to discuss a particular topic.

MUD A multiuser domain (or dungeon) enables simultaneous communication, often by role-playing a certain character or persona.

Tell me... Why are these terms in the section of the chapter discussing where to find sources online? Unless you're actually doing a paper about MOOs and MUDs... This book is incredibly lame on so many levels. All the tips I've read so far have been given to me for free via National Novel Writing Month. The only thing I'm actually learning is how to write MLA-style papers, which is basically learning how to do margins in Word and learning how to type that source properly so you don't get sued for plagiarism, pfft.

As an avid MUD player, I find this humorous... Useless! But humorous.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to prepare for a new member orientation for Phi Theta Kappa. I guess my 4.0 GPA is starting to turn some heads. I have to say that I'm a bit surprised... I didn't think Ivy Tech was this connected. (Or, even if they were this well connected, I'm surprised they have the competence to organize something like this... Of course, this is coming from the college who can't keep appointments, can't straighten out financial aid without outside intervention, and overlooks people with a perfect grade for the Dean's List.)

With Uru bring canceled, posts are coming out of the woodwork that are saying things along the lines of "let it go", "it's not meant to be", and "it's not what it was supposed to be". Now, see, I completely agree with this, but... I've been saying this for ages now, and I've been blasted in every way possible for saying it, and now, the very same people who blasted me are now agreeing with other people who are saying this.

I don't really care, though, if you can believe it. I'm used to this kind of treatment by now, but, as all my readers know by now, I enjoy pointing out hypocrisies, and this qualifies! One minute giving me the third-degree, and then one minute agreeing with your friend who says the exact same thing? Something a little bit screwy with you...

Proof that "when you're right, nobody remembers... when you're wrong nobody forgets."