The new neighbors...

The operative word was "time" - the time spent to get a degree.

so the words "Study involved to master" didn't exist? Right.

Sure they exist, but with a completely different meaning to the one you put on them. Here's the actual quote:-

"Even the study involved to master it [WoW] requires the kind of time it takes to get a college education". Time, Colette, time. It means something completely different to the meaning you gave it:-

and it means that Rebecca's claim wasn't "patently ridiculous". It was your twisting of it that was patently ridiculous.

This is a pretty sensible thought, with which I don't quite agree, but it's reasonable. I might even agree with the idea that "depraved" things should be banned by the grid service provider--not because they're depraved and make people do bad stuff, but because they might be bad PR and bad business. (Maybe.) After all, it's really their business at stake--not our governments nor our moral institutions, so if they have a good business reason to restrict content to happy shiny things, that's not a question of political philosophy, it's a question of ROI. By the same token, in the unlikely event that they can get better returns from purveying to the bestiality market exclusively, that's exactly what they should do.

And I also agree that, inconvenient though the facts may be, what humans experience through media *does* affect behavior and brain function, and more persistently than one might like to think. At least we know that exposure to violent content really does lead to more aggressive behavior by normal people. And we've known that for decades.

The problem has always been formulating any kind of public policy response to that inconvenient fact. The current response is age ratings and labels for movies and video games. Now, the science behind the effectiveness of such ratings and labels is shaky at best. For example, age is only part of the rating systems for political reasons: the data show the effects robustly with adults as with children (adults wishing it were so notwithstanding), but in a free society, adults don't want to be told what media they can consume.

So, in the "if I owned the system" scenario, an enlightened despot would have good scientific grounds to ban all violent content for everybody, normal or not, adult or not. That isn't the response most RL governments have adopted, but that doesn't make the response invalid. (I personally wouldn't do that, if I were king, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be the right thing to do.)

The point where I disagree, really, is the applicability of any of this to bestiality or any pixel sex. I accept that many residents get some prurient stimulation from in-world "sex"--hence the business empires built up to service the trade, as it were. And, yeah, sex and aggression are both right down there in the paleocortex where learning doesn't involve reason. But I just don't think there are data justifying a conclusion that the RL effects of SL bestiality would be anything specific. Perhaps an increased sex drive--or perhaps not even that--but I don't think we have any scientific reason to think it would lead to a tendency to RL bestiality, or blow-up sex dolls, or plush toys, or... voting Republican, for that matter.

Thats the same quote I already posted -

It doesnt say "To get to the end game of WoW it takes the same time as it does to get to a college degree"

It says "the study involved to master it requires the kind of time as a college degree"

Thats not the same thing at all. "Study involved to master" implies a level of effort.

Now .. stop trying to teach me reading comprehension, please. Agree or disagree, It doesn't matter. But my interpretation is supportable and I didn't twist a damn thing.

Yes you did twist it. Rebecca only said that it takes the same amount ot time. You twisted it to have her saying that it takes the same amount of effort. It's a small change, but it's a change just the same, and the change was sufficient for you to use it to accuse Rebecca of being "patently ridiculous", when she didn't say anything ridiculous. She said it takes the same amount of time, and I'm sure it does. Nothing "ridiculous" about that. Only your twisting and the accusation on account of the twisting is ridiculous, Colette.

I disagree. With your interpretation and your implication. You will just have to deal with it.

Look all this heated WoW discussion aside, either we should be banning anything that is not legal in RL, because it MIGHT corrupt someone, or we should allow it as a way to explore and vent WITHOUT doing it for real.

Personally, if I had two people standing in front of me and one had sex with animals and the other ran around with weapons killing people, and had to choose one to kick out of the Big Brother compound, I know exactly which one I would choose, and it wouldn't be the animal-lover, sorry.

Or have we all become so desensitized to violence and killing that we now accept it? What on earth is wrong with this society?

There's nothing for me to deal with. You changed something that someone said, and you made an accusation on the strength of the change. All I'm doing is pointing it out so that, hopefully, people are not deceived by what you wrote.

I'll be generous though, and assume that you didn't, and still don't, understand what Rebecca wrote in that quote. It's meaning is plain as day, and I can't understand why a native english speaker can't understand it, but I'll asume that you don't.

This is long overdue in this thread…

Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours,
Just a friendly wave each morning, helps to make a better day.
Neighbours, need to get to know each other, next day is only a footstep away.

Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours,
With a little understanding, you can find a perfect plan.
Neighbours, should be there for one another.
That's when good neighbours become good friends.

Neighbours, need to get to know each other, next door is only a foot step away.
Neighbours, every body needs good neighbours,
With a little understanding, you can find the perfect plan.
Neighbours, should be there for one another,

That's when good neighbours become good friends.
That's when good neighbours become good friends.

Deceived? I am not deceiving anyone.

My interpretation is valid I already explained why - go back to English class if you don't understand how that process works.

If people disagree with my interpretation and agree with yours they have more than enough reasons now to decide without you resorting to further accusations.

…and everyone missed the NEIGH bours pun?

neighbours => Neigh - horse sound?

thats terrible lol

well I did wait until post 387

I think you are allowing your personal bias against me color how you are reacting here. Save your dripping condescension for someone who cares.

Colette. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of plain english. We are not entitled to make interpretations as to what somebody means by something they write. We are only entitled to take it at face value, unless they tell us different.

Actually, I do think your intention is to deceive. I may be mistaken, but that's what I think. I think your post was intended to cast a bad light on Rebecca, for your own personal ends, and you made the mistake of thinking that you could do it with that particular bit that she wrote. But you were wrong - somebody spotted it.

I could have readily accepted it if you're memory had been mistaken when you accused Rebecca of being "patently ridiculous", but I now have to accept that either you don't understand plain english too well, or you are too proud to admit a mistake.

I just thought of this RP-line:

She passionatelly bites the octopus neck leaving a mark on his skin. Feels how 8 wet cold arms hug her and literally suck every inch of her body......

Maybe with some dramatic classic music in the background.

Maggie

i'm sorry Mari, that your "REAL" issue has turned into a fight about semantics in this thread.

i hope you can get you problem resolved. that's a disgusting RP and i can't believe you have to face it every day now.

Best.

Stop responding to me if you really don't care.

I don't have a personal bias against you. I have developed a personal bias against Swan during the course this thread, but I've never developed a bias against you. I found that you were wrong or mistaken in something you wrote, and I pointed it out. I now think that you are too proud to admit a mistake, even though it's as plain a the nose on your face.

All Rebecca said is it takes as much time to reach the end of WoW as it does to have a college education. There's nothing "patently ridiculous" about that.

Advanced search the exact phrase "study to master" on google and see how many college websites pop up.

Im done talking to you now Phil. Your bias is showing. Might want to cover that up.

blah blah blah Phil and Colette. this is a thread about beastiality and how to best deal with it, not WOW and semantics about skill vs time.

Im sorry I took offense to being told I was deceiving people. That is all.

I'm happy that you're done talking to me now, Colette. It's disappointing that you continue to argue in favour of your obvious mistake though.

That came later. You didn't like it being pointed out that you made a mistake - that's the reason for this dialogue.

Phil, investing time in a pursuit, implies that the person is making an effort. A four year degree, counting classes and study time will take you roughly 8000 hours to complete. Does it really take 8000 hours of effort to reach the endgame of WoW?