This is Suho1004's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Suho1004's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Suho1004
Recent Activity
Slightly belated comment here, but I had to laugh when you mentioned the popping. Don't worry about it--I understand completely, having just gotten over a pretty bad cold that was still probably an order of magnitude less severe than your flu. Hope you're feeling much better now.
1 reply
@Wil: Excellent. I was hoping I wouldn't come across as a nit-picker. I'm eager to see what awesome goodness you spring on us in Ep. 2!
1 reply
That's some good stuff--I am looking forward to the book! (I did notice a lot of popping in this podcast, though... maybe use a pop suppressor in future podcasts? Just a suggestion.)
1 reply
I think a lot of people get hung up on the biological aspect of parenthood, probably because it is the quickest and easiest way of establishing parenthood in Western culture. But is it the best way? Before writing this comment, I went to dictionary.com and looked up "father." The first definition said "a male parent." So I looked up "parent" and the first definition said "a father or mother" (the same thing goes for "son," by the way). What does this mean? I think it means that defining parenthood isn't as simple as a DNA test. Certain cultures around the world are less strict about monogamy than most Western cultures. The result is that, while everyone knows who the mother is, it is not always so clear who the father is. So who is the father? Whoever raises the child. In these cultures, biological fatherhood means little to nothing. I'm not saying that monogamy is inherently good or bad, I'm just saying that because of it we end up putting undue emphasis on biological parenthood.
1 reply
I think a lot of people get hung up on the biological aspect of parenthood, probably because it is the quickest and easiest way of establishing parenthood in Western culture. But is it the best way? Before writing this comment, I went to dictionary.com and looked up "father." The first definition said "a male parent." So I looked up "parent" and the first definition said "a father or mother" (the same thing goes for "son," by the way). What does this mean? I think it means that defining parenthood isn't as simple as a DNA test. Certain cultures around the world are less strict about monogamy than most Western cultures. The result is that, while everyone knows who the mother is, it is not always so clear who the father is. So who is the father? Whoever raises the child. In these cultures, biological fatherhood means little to nothing. I'm not saying that monogamy is inherently good or bad, I'm just saying that because of it we end up putting undue emphasis on biological parenthood.
1 reply
Happy Birfday from the other side of the world (Korea)
Toggle Commented Jul 30, 2007 on happy birthday to me! at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
Happy Birfday from the other side of the world (Korea)
Toggle Commented Jul 30, 2007 on happy birthday to me! at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
Somehow I'm guessing that Wil is not going to be too upset about some 15-year-old kid whining about him on MySpace. I vote that we save the posse for more important matters. :) Looking forward to the GiR write-up.
Toggle Commented Jul 27, 2007 on Nerd Prom 2007: Day One in Brief at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
Somehow I'm guessing that Wil is not going to be too upset about some 15-year-old kid whining about him on MySpace. I vote that we save the posse for more important matters. :) Looking forward to the GiR write-up.
Toggle Commented Jul 27, 2007 on Nerd Prom 2007: Day One in Brief at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
Wait... "snazzy" is out-of-date? Crap. My vocabulary dwindles with each passing day.
1 reply
Wait... "snazzy" is out-of-date? Crap. My vocabulary dwindles with each passing day.
1 reply
Can I ask a question about the wording? Sharladawn brought this up briefly, but no one else mentioned it, so maybe I'm just missing something... It took me a while to get this, because the brief article mentions "convicted terrorists," but what this means is that any person who has been convicted of terrorism at some point in the past can be punished based on evidence that would not normally be admitted to a court of law. Is this the correct interpretation? I'm still scratching my head, though--if someone is already a convicted terrorist, why are they standing trial again? Didn't they already go through a trial to get convicted in the first place? I'm a little confused here.
Toggle Commented Jan 19, 2007 on regarding hersay and coercion at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
Can I ask a question about the wording? Sharladawn brought this up briefly, but no one else mentioned it, so maybe I'm just missing something... It took me a while to get this, because the brief article mentions "convicted terrorists," but what this means is that any person who has been convicted of terrorism at some point in the past can be punished based on evidence that would not normally be admitted to a court of law. Is this the correct interpretation? I'm still scratching my head, though--if someone is already a convicted terrorist, why are they standing trial again? Didn't they already go through a trial to get convicted in the first place? I'm a little confused here.
Toggle Commented Jan 19, 2007 on regarding hersay and coercion at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
I'd like to second cuberds comment... we've been totally dry of podcasts since the week-long experiment, haven't we? Have the podcasts died?
Toggle Commented Apr 13, 2006 on some further reading at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
I'd like to second cuberds comment... we've been totally dry of podcasts since the week-long experiment, haven't we? Have the podcasts died?
Toggle Commented Apr 13, 2006 on some further reading at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply