SL no fun for creator/builders?

I'm sorry, I may not have been entirely clear, but my post makes a great deal more sense in the context of Anya's post to which I was responding.

Anya was suggesting that even trying to break even was stupid because you can make the money easier and faster by flipping burgers. My response was to point out that Anya wasn't allowing for the possibility that breaking even is pretty sweet for someone who is already accounting for SL expenses as sunk entertainment costs.

Put another way, I was pointing out the speciousness in Anya's comparison of the money made working at McDonald's to money made having fun SL. The reason people get paid to work, generally, is that work isn't fun. In contrast, getting paid even a little bit, to have fun, is not half bad.

Which brings me to ...



Yes, that's in fact exactly the point of my post, that making a few Lindens doing something fun is in some instances preferable to making a few dollars out in RL doing something dull.

My advice to "buy Lindens" was (as I explicitly stated) meant for new folks who don't yet have any way to earn Lindens doing something they enjoy. Surely you agree with me that for a new resident who wants Lindens to spend now, "learn a skill and open a business" is pretty unhelpful advice. "Buy some Lindens, and while you have fun spending them and getting to know a bit about how SL works, if you find something to do here that intrigues you, you can start to think about going into business" is much better advice.



Perhaps, but again, when viewed in the context of the post to which I was responding, what I meant is a bit clearer.

I don't think we disagree substantively on these issues, Lear.

You made your points much better the second time. I think we agree completely.

Hey, it's a forum post. Crystalline clarity, trenchant expression, and impeccable logic are obligatory! Except in my posts, of course.

Thanks.



Oh lord. I have enough verbosity issues as it is - I can't imagine how long and impenetrable my posts would be if each one had to stand completely on its own (provide its own context) and cover every anticipated counter-argument to every point I make. *faints*

Well, I generally mean "innate abilities" by "talent". And it doesn't contradict what you said, but it does mean that nobody can avoid being foolish by your definition if they do anything.

welcome to my world (PS I have a rule for that: there is always a flaw... no exceptions)

Even worse, those numbers exclude people's biggest expense: tier.

The reality is that precious few earn even enough to dine out a couple times. I decided LL was intentionally deceiving people when M used the PMLF numbers to claim residents probably made more profit than LL.

Do you suppose LL reports its income to the IRS before deducting expenses? Do you suppose they all work without a salary?

How so? I say that you'd be a fool to think that you can make a fortune without effort or ability. Many do quite well, realizing they need to apply themselves, and are not fools in my opinion.

What does PMLF mean?

Positive Monthly L$ (Linden) Flow

All people who in their total transactions over the month have more L$ credited than debited.
I believe alts and mains are rolled up into one account, but I'm not sure.

Just cut the crap and get on with it.

Totally off the subject, I feel that talent is skill with artistry. Innate ability is meaningless if undeveloped; I know many people who thanks to consistent development show far more talent than others with more innate ability. Skill is learned; artistry is mysterious; talent takes both. JMHO.

In any case, I needn't have used that word; "skill" might have been more appropriate.

As far as I know....there isn't even any crap to cut.

Yes, but you have only decided they are not fools after you've seen that they do quite well. At the moment when the person is deciding whether to do it or not, when all else is in the future and unknown, they cannot make the decision in a way that eliminates the possibliity of them being a fool by your definition unless they just decide not to bother.

That doesn't follow from what I said.

People are fools if they think making a bundle requires little effort or skill.

I never said or implied that those who do not succeed are fools. Failure is usually an important step on the path to success. Often, one of many. Show me a successful person, and chances are you've shown me a person who's failed many times but persisted. Failure is not foolish; there is no shame in it.

All I ever meant to say is that those who assume that there's nothing to it are being foolish. Anyone who's made a bundle without much effort is either brilliant or very lucky.

People are also fools if they think effort and skill are sufficient.



There are just so many vague ways that people say "try harder" that it makes me sick. In my downgrade-to-basic questionnaire I told LL that SL feels like a multi-level-marketing meeting.

This is why.



Okay...show me. Show me someone in SL who is successful by *my* definition (paying their RL bills) who has "failed on the path to success".

Not that I don't think they exist. I just think you (and everyone who speaks like you) is talking from experience you don't have.

Same with the "just do some marketing" folks. When pressed you find they don't do any marketing themselves.

These are the people who keep the myth alive with their vague stories of success and possibility.

Creepy.

If you want success by your definition, Anya, you need to make clothes or skins, or you need to be in the land business (and you need to start in 2005).

Or chickens. You need to have invented chickens.