This is Mitch Wagner's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Mitch Wagner's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Mitch Wagner
Roguish man-about-town.
Interests: science fiction, all types of fiction, and various couch-potato and mouse-potato activities.
Recent Activity
I hope you enjoy your standing desk! This post contains a photo of my setup:
Toggle Commented Apr 5, 2011 on Standing Desk at Robert Paterson's Weblog
1 reply
You claim that my motivation for writing the original post was to get a rise out of Linden Lab, that I knew he was sure to read it. What evidence do you have to support that? You said LL is "fanning out and playing to all the SL media." I am not part of the SL media anymore, and in fact I haven't been in touch with LL since well before Rod Humble was named CEO. Oh, I think they bulk-mailed me the press release announcing his joining the company, but it doesn't take any money, time or effort to add another email address to a bulk mail. Like I said, you have this imaginary version of Mitch Wagner in your head that has only a passing resemblance to me. Occasionally, you leap on something I write and assume some base motivation for doing it. Often, you distort key details of actual events. Then you denounce me for this imaginary motivation. Here's why I did that original blog post: I was procrastinating giving my friend the tour of Second Life he wanted. I asked myself why, and I realized it's because I don't really enjoy SL anymore. I asked myself why that was, and then decided to write up my conclusions. I expected a few comments on my blog. I certainly did not expect amount of attention it actually received. And I didn't expect Linden Lab to pay any attention to it. As far as I know, they stopped paying attention to me months ago; we've gone our separate ways. I thought it was gracious for Rod Humble to offer to bring me to him as he did. Just because I don't enjoy SL anymore today doesn't mean I won't enjoy it tomorrow. And I'm glad that other people still enjoy it, I'm still fond of the place even if I'm not involved much anymore.
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2011 on Couldn't You Just Slap Him?! at Second Thoughts
I did not invite him. He invited me.
Toggle Commented Feb 18, 2011 on Couldn't You Just Slap Him?! at Second Thoughts
Here are the actual facts: Rod did not retweet me. I retweeted him. The context: A friend has been on me for a couple of weeks to give him a tour of Second Life. I kept putting him off, because I don't go into SL anymore much, and don't know many people anymore and don't know much of what to do. But I felt like I owed it to my friend to give it the old college try, and so I finally made an appointment to get together in Second Life and show him around. For complicated reasons, I viewed this as more than a casual request from my friend, and believed I had an obligation to do what he asked, even though under normal circumstances I might have just said, "Second Life? I'm really not into that anymore." And before I did I tweeted out the request that Dusan described, and was pleased to get responses from several SL users on my friends list. Including Rod Humble. I tweeted out Rod's. I may have tweeted some others. So, Prok, the tweet you're attributing to me was actually his. And I logged in and walked around the airfield a bit, and exchanged a few words with Rod (first time I've ever talked with him). He seemed a bit distracted. That's OK -- so was I, I'd ordered a pizza a short time ago, and was expecting it to arrive at any second. And that's the only point I want to respond to. I won't take the time to respond to the rest of your denunciations of me, except to note that I am not responsible for the activities of the imaginary "Mitch Wagner" that lives in your head.
Toggle Commented Feb 18, 2011 on Couldn't You Just Slap Him?! at Second Thoughts
By the way, I've excluded this blog's URL from my Google vanity search, so if you write about me here outside this thread, I won't see it unless someone else calls it to my attention. Likewise, I will immediately block you on Twitter. Because you're right: This conversation is a complete waste of my time and energy. And yet I seem to be compulsively unable to resist. And so I need to take measures to protect myself against myself.
Toggle Commented Mar 31, 2010 on Terrorists at Second Thoughts
Prokofy, you say you write about me "perhaps" once a year, but in fact you've written to and about me several times in the past month or two. You've blogged about me here at least three times in the past few weeks, you left a comment on my Facebook, you @mentioned me on Twittter. I explained why I emphasized the Fort Hood attackers' Americanness, but you say I'm lying. Based on what evidence? Because you claim you know what I'm thinking better than I myself know what I'm thinking? I am not excusing the Fort Hood attacker when I say he's not a terrorist, I am not reducing the heinousness of his crime, I am simply classifying it. To paraphrase someone else in another discussion: If I kidnap a child, I am not committing theft against the child's parents. Why? Because the child is not property. Similarly: The Columbine killers were not serial killers, they were spree killers. Doesn't make them any less wrong. >>I don't care how famous you are, how important you are, what a mensch you are.... >Don't you have something more important to write about it?!<< I probably do. But now I'm writing here. If you want me to leave you alone and go away, why do you keep talking to me and talking about me where I can hear you very clearly?
Toggle Commented Mar 31, 2010 on Terrorists at Second Thoughts
I have said no such things. I believe no such things. You are just making this up about me. You put in quotes the phrase that Hassan is "just like any American." But I never used those words. I never used words that mean the same thing. Because I do not, and never have, believed those things. This is why I hate talking with you. This is why conversation with you is like picking at a scab. I unfriended on you Facebook, in Second Life, I blocked you on Twitter (for a while, and I may do it again), and I may just block the URL for this blog from my Google vanity search. Because you take some casual utterance of mine -- often something said in haste, on Twitter -- and you spin, literally *thousands* of words of interpretation about what I *really* believe, and then you proceed to denounce me, and those beliefs that I don't actually have. You build this massive structure of rhetoric and outrage on some 140-character statement I made in passing, which you've misinterpreted. And, yes, I did compare the recent rock-throwing incidents to Kristallnacht. And I said that was wrong. So why are you still arguing with me about it?
Toggle Commented Mar 31, 2010 on Terrorists at Second Thoughts
Was the Fort Worth attacker a terrorist? Depends on which definition you use: Merriam-Webster says terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." By that definition, then, yes, he's a terrorist. Princeton University WordNet has a different definition: "Terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)" By that standard, he was not a terrorist, since he targeted military, rather than civilian targets. You're leaping to the conclusion here that, because I don't characterize the Fort Wood attacks as terrorism, I think that means they're OK, or somehow less serious than other attacks.
Toggle Commented Mar 30, 2010 on Terrorists at Second Thoughts
Prok, you have grossly misrepresented my position, as usual. Good-bye.
>>I think calling the Fort Hood case "American treason" is naive, and deliberately avoids looking at the issue of the Al Qaeda leader in touch with Hassan and inspiring him. The trial will determine how much he was directed by this international terrorist conspiracy.<< It's not naive to label a thing for what it is. The Fort Hood attacker was an American who attacked military targets. Whether he worked in collusion with al Qaeda is irrelevant to whether the attack was treason, terrorism, or both.
You're right that the recent attacks on healthcare advocates aren't terrorism. I shouldn't have called them that. Nor should I have compared them with Kristallnacht. I was hoist on Godwin's law. OTOH, the Fort Hood attack wasn't terrorism either. They were a treasonous attack on a military target by an American traitor.
Mitch Wagner is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 15, 2010
Hamlet, I'm looking forward to your analysis of the original article. My own $0.02: Harsh, but fair. We've all known about the first-hour problem in SL for more than a year, well, that article demonstrated exactly what it looks like.
Delinda - LOL. Crap - You're such a sentimentalist.
The people who giggle and smirk and think it's all about sex are frustrating. Yes, a *lot* of Second Life is about sex. So is a lot of the Internet, and real life. If you're into that, fine. If you're not into it -- if you're morally offended by it -- that's fine too. Most people like sex. Some people like it kinky and dirty. None of this is new. So stop giggling like a 12-year-old, okay? When people ask me about it -- especially when the giggle-and-smirkers ask about it -- I explain it as best as I can, and then I conclude, "I'm personally not involved in that side of Second Life, but I know a couple of lovely people who are, and I can introduce you if you're interested." That puts a stop to the giggling and smirking. So far nobody's taken me up on it.