I don’t usually do a new blog post for every new piece of writing I put on the site but today is a special day (i.e I probably should post more often to give this blog a semblance of life, and this is a good excuse to do so.)

The pome is called I Think I’m The Bad Guy and it is superserious.

Now I can just post it on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, MySpace, Reddit… And I will be a marketing guru!

And I just discovered after a few weeks that it is in fact possible to publish using it. Would have been good to know when I first wrote the previous paragraph.

Yes.

Yes it is.

Here is a photo that I’m pretty sure my new video camera took because it thought the blinds were smiling.

I’m changing the blog’s theme around, so as to make it more interesting, after the suggestion of Mr. Jason Jason Nelson (Esquire) who found my blog to be impersonal and various other words.

Also, I intend to change around the personal portfolio section of the website so that it is more inviting, and so that the fiction section has more information about each thing.

Forward ho! To the internet!

And with this, the Maddened Man stands upright, points at the ceiling, and flies through a conveniently placed metaphysical hole in it.

Metaphorically.

As such, I updated tMAoL to 3.0.1 (after figuring out how to…) and am now mucking around with the blog again to see what I can do.

You may notice a few changes in appearance in the near future. You may not.

You’re either an egalitarian or a racist; an activist or sexist; an animal-killer or a member of PETA; religious or atheist. Far too often there is little understanding of the halfway.

I’m concerned about this because of my current religious dilemma. It would seem that I have supposedly pledged allegiance to two sides of a battlefront.

First, allow me to attempt to explain my position. I was raised a Christian, but I would not define myself as a Christian at this point. My friends, it seems, are all atheists. And I find too often I become the straw man for both sides, because there is no word for my current philosophical standpoint.

(NB. Some of my “Everyone does this” statements may be coloured (>.>) by the fact that I spend far too much time on Reddit.com, where there is a largely ‘Evangelical Atheist’ population. I’m sure that not everyone is as bigoted as I make out.)

As much as I use words extensively, I don’t like the way they simultaneously mean so much and yet so little. They sit on a simple definition which you can debate and stick, but at the same time they carry such a weight behind them, years of nostalgia, books of meaning, neural connections that have nothing to do with the definition whatsoever.

How are these previous two paragraphs connected? I’m sure it would be clear to some.

At this point, there are a series of words that define certain philosophical standpoints on the Christian ‘scale’. They are easy to define, yet carry far too much weight to be used that easily. Allow me to pull a few out.

Christian: (This word will be defined differently depending on who is defining it, but generally…) Someone who adheres to the Christian belief system. Usually, the prerequisites are:

1. Belief in (a) God (specifically, Yahweh, although each Christian’s definition of Yahweh can be different, and they can still be accepted as Christian)
2. Belief in Jesus (Not just that he existed, that much is not important, as much as it has been argued. Belief that he was sent by God to reform Judaism into something palatable to the Gentile tongue)

Anything else is personal definition, and can be easily dismissed. (So far as I can see.)

(NB. I am dealing with the Christian-Atheist divide, I’m sure it applies just as much to other theistic-atheistic divides, but they are not mine.)

Atheist: Someone who believes that there are no deities.

Agnostic: Someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not deities exist.

As far as I can see, these are the three known standpoints. Anything else, it seems, would require expansion and explanation.

So my problem is two-fold. Firstly, I am personally technically closest to Agnosticism according to the definition, but the word carries so much weight in terms of implied meaning that to use the word in describing my own standpoint would create many misconceptions and misunderstandings.

This problem is even greater if I say that I am Christian. The assumption often is (even though it is not part of the definition) that a Christian will denounce evolution, genetics, geography, and rely on ‘the voice of God’ to guide them through life.

Even when I was a Christian, none of these things were true about me.

My second problem is that, being between Christianity and Atheism, I will often be pushed into the opposite camp of whoever I am conversing with. Amongst my friends, I am ‘The Religious One’ even though I don’t fit the definition of religious.

On the other hand, once I make it clear that I despise being treated as ‘The Religious One’, it is assumed that I have taken up the opposite side, and am an atheist. And this comes with its own baggage.

The first reason I refuse to be classified as an atheist is that the subtextual meaning of the standpoint is “I believe ‘All Christians are Stupid’.”

Which I don’t.

So this long-winded explanation serves to join my dividing problems to come to a conclusion.

I hope to secure my philosophical standpoint, and stop being pushed to one side of the nonexistent fence.

(NB. If anybody has read this far I congratulate you on your dedication. Or boredom).

Here’s a new term:

Ambiguist: Someone who doesn’t adhere to agnosticism or gnosticism; who reserves the right to make decisions on their beliefs on a per-belief basis, instead of adhering to a clustered doctrine or predetermined set of beliefs.

So there. I’m allowed to pick bits and pieces from different places, but everyone should be allowed to. Even if they define themselves as Christian, it shouldn’t automatically cause others to make assumptions about their beliefs.

Another term I like, but which is slightly less formal, is “Strongly Meh”, i.e. “I don’t want to back a side, but not because I’m indecisive. It’s because I’m content with not knowing.”

I may write more on my discontent with the simultaneous simplicity and complexity of words, but this post feels like it has gone over the word limit by at least a few hairs.

Ramble ramble ramble.

If anybody actually reads all of this, I think perhaps you should get a prize. See me after class. Good child.

(One final NB. I know I haven’t sourced any of these images. I recommend tineye.com, where you can put in an image and it tells you where it’s from on the internets! I am most definitely not on their payroll! Seriously!)

And with this, the Maddened Man shuffles into the corner of the padded room to play with his straps, in an attempt to refasten the straitjacket before the guards return.

The annoyance to come from this is that a lot of our influence, our social information on how we should act, comes from media. And by media I don’t just mean movies and TV, I mean books, music, comics, YouTube and every way in which a story can be told.

Because of this, we develop a persona. We ‘create’ our own character,  and then we strive to portray this character in our day-to-day lives.

I have recently had the challenge (and the pleasure) of getting to know new people, and the question that has risen numerous times is “Is this person getting to know the real me?”

At first, I had decided that there were certain mitigating circumstances that meant that my personality was different to usual at the time, I had just finished a large creative project which left me emotionally and creatively drained, and with very little energy, and I was about to leave on an overseas trip, which made me feel unstable and unsure.

So I was certain that I was not my real self at that time.

During my overseas trip (due in large part to conversations with my sister), I realised that the persona I had been using during the previous weeks had been just as much the real me as any characteristics I might display otherwise.

After all, what is a personality besides the way a person reacts to situations? I had been reacting to a situation in a certain way; it was my reactions I had been displaying.

This triggered more thoughts. I started to think about what changes a person.

Situations change people

Let’s create a character. His name shall be Gregory.

The character he portrays to the outside world is usually one of kind consideration. He holds the door open for people following him; He replies to emails as soon as he gets them; He says ‘bless you’ whenever someone sneezes.

Gregory gets fired. You would imagine that this would change his character. Perhaps, for example, he becomes nervous and fidgety, as the certainty of his livelihood has been removed. Is this no longer Gregory? Is he ‘not himself’?

Gregory is still Gregory.

Now let’s say that Gregory is a minor character in a story (of any medium). He is the ‘supporting friend’, who plays an important role in three different scenes. The movie is not about him, so being fired is not mentioned. He is, however, strikingly different in his third scene.

This would be counted as an inconsistent character, unless of course he mentioned at some point that he had been fired.

But what if the situation changing him was something much smaller and less important (it is possible to be effected by much smaller things. Perhaps he had missed breakfast that morning. Perhaps he had eaten something that didn’t agree with him. These would change his character quite a bit, but would not be worth mentioning in the story if he was not the main character.

People change people

We shall continue with our man Gregory, but return him to his previous, employed state. It would, after all, be cruel to deprive him of his livelihood for the purposes of a mental exercise!

One of Gregory’s friends is generally quiet, and keeps to himself for the most part when they are together. Because of this, Gregory takes the role of ‘noise-maker.’ He is not usually any louder than anyone else, but in this context, he is.

Another friend of Gregory’s acts louder. In the context of their relationship, Gregory is quiet and thoughtful.

When Gregory meets a new person, it isn’t so much about each of them discovering who the other person is, it’s about them figuring out the dynamic of their relationship. Which roles are they going to play to bounce off each other? Which persona will each of them take?

To this extent, the person Gregory meets will not see ‘the real Gregory,’ they will see a constantly changing Gregory, as he attempts to find a dynamic that suits both him and his new friend.

Have we just met three different versions of Gregory?

Other people’s observations change people

This one, so far as I can tell, works in two different ways, which I shall mark as positive and negative (although they are essentially two sides of the same coin.)

Firstly, let’s say Gregory’s quiet friend says to him “Gee Gregory, you’re always so loud and sure of yourself,” while chewing on his fingernail and smiling nervously.

Gregory says to himself “Wow, I guess you’re right. I am always loud and sure of myself.”

He then meets a new person, and acts on what has been observed of his persona. At a business meeting, say, he meets a new co-worker, and while he normally would have been quiet and kept to himself in a business context, he acts confidently this time. Is this a different Gregory from the one that would have been there, had his friend not pointed this out?

Of course, this happens more often with people who are less sure of their own personas. I guess that’s true of any of this. Oh well, moving on.

The second (‘negative’) version of this type of change is when, say, a person points out that Gregory always taps his fingers on his desk when he’s bored, and it annoys them. He becomes aware of this action, and changes it.

Hmm, bad example. I will try another.

Somebody points out that Gregory never expresses his appreciation for people and their actions. This leads to him thinking about it and changing his actions.

I theorise that a person is only able to change their reactions if they are aware of them. Someone might not be aware of the way they act, and continue to act that way, despite it going against their ‘morals.’

But either way, if you are made aware of an aspect of your personality, you are then able to change it (in theory.)

The Conclusion Part

The long and the short of it is: People are inconsistent. It should be acceptable for us to (sometimes) act outside our personas, whether we are trying out new behaviours or escaping the persona we have created for ourselves.

So nyah. I hope this blog post is fairly linear and makes sense. It may not, however, as it was written by numerous different Maddened Mans.

At this point, the Maddened Man does something that goes against his current persona, just to spite the universe.

Not a rant as such, but a hopeful advisory notice for those who do not know how to speak (or write) the beautiful English language.

My reasons for disliking the misuse of the language are many:

Firstly, English is a language. Language is a form of communication. If you are not speaking the language correctly, then the intended receiver of your message is instead receiving utter nonsense and a headache.

Unless, in the case of special discourses (lolcat, txtspk) the receiver is also fluent in this language. Then you may “Can I has” all you like, all day long.

The problem comes when someone is attempting to communicate a complicated message to someone outside of the discourse of their language. For example:

I can has life? I r livin? I r thinkin, therfor I is! It simpel!

An ordinary lay-person would have difficulty reading and understanding this concept. After a bit of thinking and translating, they would understand, pronouncing an eager “Egad, the chap is discussing Descarte! However could I have not seen it?” but by this point the effort of translating from pseudo-lolcat into English has taken its toll. The gentleman’s brain is tired, and he cannot process any more.

I understand that if a regular lolcat was to see this statement, they would not have to translate it, and would have no trouble stating “O! Dey is kwotin Day-Kart!” and the conversation would continue.

You must, then, choose the language for the situation, and the intended audience.

Please. Do not use text-speak in a long drawn out argument on a forum. Do not hand in an essay in lolcat. Do not attempt to write a legal letter in 1337speak; the law may fail to spot your obvious superiority.

On to the second point.

It is as simple as this, and please leave your automatic disregard for later: Bad grammar does not help your argument.

I know full well that being bad at grammar doesn’t make you a stupid, but winning an argument (if at all possible) is not about being correct, it’s about winning the respect of the opposition.

If you say something that is logically flawless, and then go on to mock the opposing force about their form of dress and moranity, you are highly likely to make them a bit angry. Despite being right, you’ve just made an enemy.

Despite being right, you’re still a jerk.

If you make a point that is fully logical and correct in its correlations, but your writing is riddled with grammatical errors, your opposition will lose respect for you.

Example:

Person 1: I think very much that the earth is flat. It makes sense.

Person 2: but your wrong.the earht isnt flat, they used instruments and calculatered the shape of the earth.

Person 1: I wish to end this conversation.

Hmm. I have lost faith in my own example. How shocking.

Let us try another:

Person 1: Batman and Robin was a far superior movie to the new Batman Begins pish-posh.

Person 2: na, the new one is much better it goes back too the oringonal dark atmospere of the comics. Batman and Robin was aimed at famlies batman shoud never be aimed at famlies.

Person 1: I wish to end this conversation.

Yet again, an example has flopped. Let’s leave them in there for sheer stupidity’s sake.

Just don’t blame me for them.

Aaaaaaaaanyways, onto reason number three.

English is an evolving language. It only takes a time-warp of 500 years backwards to find the words “thou” and “hast” in common usage (and not just by Shakespearean imitators)

You need only jump back one year to find the word “w00t” being added into Webster’s dictionary. Zeros and all.

Language evolves when people use a new different word over and over. The word becomes more common, and eventually enters everyday life.

This happens with many words, like the renewal of skin cells, until eventually you have a whole new arm- I mean language.

I do not want to see the English language transform into what I am seeing all too often. Through misuse and misunderstanding, the mixing of “your” and “you’re”, “their” and “they’re” and even “to” and “too” is rampant.

English is a beautiful language, and once you understand it, it makes so much sense.

Of course, it has its limitations, and the learning curve can be an entire lifetime, but once you get there, it can unlock a lot.

I do not want to see this art-form devolve into “Oi. you’re zips down” or “i hav ben hear to many nites.”

That.

Is ugly.

It is as graceful as an elephant falling over. It is as charming as the rear end of a skunk.

At this point, the Maddened Man, truly devoid of hope, rests his head in his hands, sobbing gently to himself.

He questions the fate of the universe.

How will it end?

It will end, he says, with the words:

“your dum.”

General Posts. How can a post be a General Post? This thought amused me for a moment or two before I moved on to the next, far more interesting one.

If a post is about nothing, then it cannot be a post, can it?

General Posts, for me, was originally just a category to click at the last minute after having written a post and strongly disliking the concept of having a plethora of “Uncategorized” posts.

(The quotation marks are there because I am using the American spelling. I do not wish to confuse those who see the word “colour” in the same page as “Uncategorized.”)

In a few posts, I found some sentences which I would have liked to have written better. Some were linguistically iffy, some were grammatically stupid.

After a small amount of thought (that is, after all, the amount I am capable of without tangenting… er, where was I? Oh yes.) I decided that I would not, in fact, change them to the newer, grammatically superior wordings.

“But what, oh wondrous one, was your reasoning?” I hear you say. “Well,” I begin, before taking another mind-leap into another dimension: at this point I forget my train of thought.

In a nutshell, a section of writing is written by a person. I am sure you can grasp this.

The second piece of information which may be important for your understanding is the following:

People change.

They do, I swear! Their temperaments change, they become more this, less that; they find inspiration in a river, lose it in the lake, and find despair at the bottom of a bottle.

The link between these two microns of thought? The me writing this sentence is a dramatically different me from the one who wrote the last. Even more so the last post; even more so the Ethan Ramsey stories.

The author may be the same person technically but emotionally they are like two dramatically different peas in a pod.

So when I edit a previous post, I am not changing my own work. I am changing me-of-the-past’s work. A me who may have been emotionally unstable (and that is different how?), or rushed into making mistakes, or writing quickly to get an idea they are passionate about out of their system.

I do not dare change me-of-the-past’s work. I can’t ask him whether he meant what I think he meant or not, because he is no longer around. He is, so to say, dead.

Hence the link between the title of this post and the post of this post.

And now, the post-post of this post. (Epilogue)

I was distracted from my writing, bah. Never mind.

What else shall I write? I will probably post again some time today, I am in a webloggery mood today.

Will I post something interesting?

Only Mentok will tell.

Oh.

I won’t post. Me-of-the-future will.

MIND-BREAKERY!

And after adding his images, the Maddened Man leaves, in a puff of smoke.