Shoot the Wall (A.K.A. The Rant Thread)

[T.o.b.y]

Oh! I have always just called those things chestnuts, is that wrong?

 

They can certainly be found all over the place around here. I will have to go collect some. Spiders be gone!

[Pseudonym]

The photos look similar but a chestnut is different it's littler. Chestnuts are edible for humans but conkers aren't. Conkers come in a spiky outer shell - do chestnuts? I can't remember.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Why helping and comforting instead of experiencing the adventure itself without being a sidekick? Do Sherlock looks like he needs comforting? I think he would need brain transplant first before that actually could ever hope to become reality. :facepalm:

Couple of reasons maybe:

1. they can relate to what you say as 'sidekick' characters.

It's almost always self-potrait, I guess there is a lot of truth in a way. For example, I remember you played Sims before right? When I played mine looks and behaves like me (well, except those electrocuting neighbors, killing acquaintances and putting them to starve in the dungeon and let them being eaten by plants or killed by satellite--> well it gets pretty boring!), self potrait, then when I played wii my mii look like me.

2. They want to try other shoes.

Well, it's role playing. They probably want to experience what it's like.

3. They don't consider it as 'sidekick'.

Sherlock is dreamy character, as in, in real life, there are not many people with his ability. Actually, his sidekicks are more realistic people and maybe that makes it appealing in some way.

 

Sherlock doesn't need John to be Sherlock. He doesn't need those comforting or he could do without help. But without people like John and others, Sherlock is not special. Many people actually enjoy comforting and helping people, or in the way, tasting the adventure without the main responsibility.

 

These Sherlock-groupies were often quickly becomes disillusioned when the Sherlock-player didn't react well to their character's advancement. Think about it, would Sherlock react well to a girl who appeared from nowhere and suddenly begins to stick to him like being glued with super-glue?

NOW this sounds terrifying to me. Is this forum based thingy or you really meet in person? Whichever it is, if I were Sherlock, could I play dead or elbow someone or left without a word? Because as you said, Sherly would freak out right? XD

 

The photos look similar but a chestnut is different it's littler. Chestnuts are edible for humans but conkers aren't. Conkers come in a spiky outer shell - do chestnuts? I can't remember.

I believe chesnut outershell is not spiky but inner part tiny bit hairy.

And, chesnuts don't repel spiders. I believe I've seen them holding hands. But a packet of chesnut probably not enough. :p

[Pseudonym]

Do spiders holding hands hold one chestnut or eight?

[Van Buren Supernova]

Okay, I can no longer cover for Mr.Spider.

Each in each hand, so yah, eight.

 

Btw, some spiders have very cute paws (if they are called paws). I put in in spoiler box, but assure you spiderphobs that they are cute and you probably won't realize they are spider's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shadow Dweller]

 

Why helping and comforting instead of experiencing the adventure itself without being a sidekick? Do Sherlock looks like he needs comforting? I think he would need brain transplant first before that actually could ever hope to become reality. :facepalm:

Couple of reasons maybe:

1. they can relate to what you say as 'sidekick' characters.

It's almost always self-potrait, I guess there is a lot of truth in a way. For example, I remember you played Sims before right? When I played mine looks and behaves like me (well, except those electrocuting neighbors, killing acquaintances and putting them to starve in the dungeon and let them being eaten by plants or killed by satellite--> well it gets pretty boring!), self potrait, then when I played wii my mii look like me.

2. They want to try other shoes.

Well, it's role playing. They probably want to experience what it's like.

3. They don't consider it as 'sidekick'.

Sherlock is dreamy character, as in, in real life, there are not many people with his ability. Actually, his sidekicks are more realistic people and maybe that makes it appealing in some way.

 

Sherlock doesn't need John to be Sherlock. He doesn't need those comforting or he could do without help. But without people like John and others, Sherlock is not special. Many people actually enjoy comforting and helping people, or in the way, tasting the adventure without the main responsibility.

 

1. That's familiar. And no, all my sims were modeled after fictional characters and I let them run their own lives while I am busy with making the most outrageous buildings where they do activities at. Sherlock actually ended up as a crime boss, lol.

2 & 3. They ran away as soon as the Sherlock in-game behaves like in the series. Longer they would stay if Sherlock is being all nice and cuddly towards their character.

 

 

>> without people like John and others, Sherlock is not special

 

Isn't this like deliberately scattering small rocks around in order to make a polished diamond looks even better than it would be if it is around its own kind?

[Pseudonym]

I'm conflicted by those spider feet. They're both cute and horrifying. 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Bahahaha, let them run then. Why are they attracted in the first place, for his look only?

 

Isn't this like deliberately scattering small rocks around in order to make a polished diamond looks even better than it would be if it is around its own kind?

Maybe not deliberately, but the diamond is shinnier among rocks. If the diamond is with diamonds, it is not special and pretty hard to stand out with its shine.

If it is on its own, it could be shinny, but there is nothing to compare. Without comparison, we can't say something is special.

 

P.S. diamond is kind of bs anyway, it's not rare and actually quite worthless :p

[Shadow Dweller]

 

Maybe not deliberately, but the diamond is shinnier among rocks. If the diamond is with diamonds, it is not special and pretty hard to stand out with its shine.

If it is on its own, it could be shinny, but there is nothing to compare. Without comparison, we can't say something is special.

 

P.S. diamond is kind of bs anyway, it's not rare and actually quite worthless :P

 

 

Cubic zirconia also shines brighter among glass crystals. Still, both diamond and its replacement have the necessary structure that make them shiny when struck with light and they don't need rocks and glass beads around to bring out the sparkles.

 

By now I am convinced that many of those role-players doesn't actually know what they truly want when they ask for a Sherlock-player. They often cannot handle the intensity and fled without having decency to call it quit first.

[Artemis]

P.S. diamond is kind of bs anyway, it's not rare and actually quite worthless :p

Additionally there's a bit of a misconception about it being the hardest natural substance on earth, because in their minds people equate "hardest" with "strongest". Yes, it is high on the scale in "hardness" (only a diamond can scratch another diamond), but it's relatively low in "toughness" (you can pretty easily shatter it with a hammer). It's a minor pet peeve of mine when I hear engaged or soon-to-be engaged women buy into the idea that they need diamonds in their engagement/wedding bands because "it symbolizes the strength of their marriage". Yeah, not really. At least, I hope not.

[Arcadia]

I've never role-played, and never intend to, but I'm willing to bet it's like everything else ... different people do it for different reasons. Sounds to me like you just haven't found the right set of players, Shadow. But I have no idea how you do find them.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect if you found a group of role-players who appreciated that sort of Sherlock, they'd all want to play him.  But I have no RP experience whatsoever, so what do I know?

 

I've never heard of horse chestnuts repelling spiders.  Around here, I think people say that about Osage oranges.  (Which are no more oranges than horse chestnuts are chestnuts.  Osage oranges are actually related to figs and mulberries, though I believe horse chestnuts are at least related to chestnuts.)

 

VBS, those spider paws are just adorable!

[Shadow Dweller]

I've never role-played, and never intend to, but I'm willing to bet it's like everything else ... different people do it for different reasons. Sounds to me like you just haven't found the right set of players, Shadow. But I have no idea how you do find them.

Yes well... if they cannot handle BBC's Sherlock's less than perfectly chivalrous conducts and the lack of immediate response to their 'I NEEDS romance' approach then they have no hope to handle my OC. This is the Holmes brothers we are talking about, not people who believes on soulmates to make them to be 'whole'. They have different priorities than searching for 'love' and close companionship.

[Shadow Dweller]

I suspect if you found a group of role-players who appreciated that sort of Sherlock, they'd all want to play him. But I have no RP experience whatsoever, so what do I know?

 

I've never heard of horse chestnuts repelling spiders. Around here, I think people say that about Osage oranges. (Which are no more oranges than horse chestnuts are chestnuts. Osage oranges are actually related to figs and mulberries, though I believe horse chestnuts are at least related to chestnuts.)

 

VBS, those spider paws are just adorable!

Lol. In other words, those people didn't actually saw Sherlock as depicted on the series but instead they saw someone they hope to play Pygmalion with and the expected end result is the 'dashing hero' becomes in love with them. That smacks on their own need to be needed.

[Pseudonym]

I'm visiting my parents for a couple of days, and their internet connection physically pains me. 

 

I click on a link and then sit... waiting... 

 

[Fantasy Lover]

Can we switch? You can hang out in my apartment, but don't forget to feed my Cat!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Spoiler alert: I'm terrible friend and not fans of kids.

 

Good god I hate it.

Why parents think it's cute or making any sense at all to put the kids on the phone?

 

Reluctantly, I called a friend, for a belated birthday wish (I don't even celebrate mine..! It's one day belated, which is pretty good since I missed my own brother's more than a week). He always complains that I hardly get in touch and he is my longest friend as I suppose so I brace myself and waited for couple of rings before I gave up. (See, I called! You missed it, not my fault).

I did it twice and left a text so I thought it's good enough until next year, especially because he replied my text. So it's done, right?

 

But nooo, he was ringing as well and I'm guilty of ignoring his calls so many times as I know he only wants to chat. But gah, dammit, I just replied his text and it's his birthday.

 

He is a friend, I don't really mind chatting when I'm in the mood, even so, normally I don't really share anything but just general or talking about the past and 90% of the time I'm not into that too.

So I picked it up and told him he is bloody old and happy birthday.

In the background I heard kid's noise and I know I'm quite safe since for some reason he doesn't dare to have long chat at home since he says his wife doesn't like him chatting with female friends for too long, so he never calls from home.

So hoping that he disconnected soon, I ask, "is that your kids?"

 

And he said yes, you want to talk to them?

And what follows is me frantically said no, I don't! I DO NOT! Halooooo, I don't want to! No! No! No! Hallo! No no NO!

 

But all I heard was the sound of him talking to the kids saying this is... say hello.. bla bla, and to my nightmare, the kids were apparently fighting for the phone.

 

For the record, I don't know these kids, never met them, never even met their dad for almost a decade.

So I said I had to go somewhere, now. Right now.

 

And this happens at least a couple of time with other people.

 

Seriously, why, parents?

I know it's good that you adore your children.

Isn't it enough that you flood social media with pictures?

What is the logical objective that you are trying to achieve with this?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Guess I'm lucky that my friends' kids are adults! Just be patient, VBS, it won't be long before your friends' kids are grown up too -- and then you can talk to their GRANDchildren! :D

[Van Buren Supernova]

Good heavens!

 

But not too worry. Next year when I pick up his call and if he does that again, I'll tell him. He is hardy and I suspect he detects that it's not my favorite time.

I was honest when someone did it before and asked her why did she think I'd enjoy it. Quite nicely, no worries. After couple of rhetoric questions she answered herself, she agreed that I need to have my own children to know how it feels because it's natural law for women to have children and one should always shriek at the sounds of them and we can marry our kids someday. We are not in contact anymore. :p

[T.o.b.y]

I remember feeling awkward and uncomfortable talking to anybody save immediate family on the phone from the age of four. So I sympathize. Even my best friend and I text 90% of the time.

 

I dunno why people want to force you to talk to their children, admire their pictures etc when they know you don't like kids. I mean, from a parent's perspective, that doesn't sound very desirable.

[Pseudonym]

I hate talking on the phone too. To quote someone, I can't remember who, I prefer to text. 

 

I don't get it from a parent's pov either. My friend who insists on sending me baby photos never says anything when I fail to say how adorable blah blah he is (he looks like a baby. You know, fully functional), but she's probably a bit unhappy about it. So why insist on sending me more photos? Learn, woman, learn!

[J.P.]

Photos of kids? Maybe you should quote Mycroft watching a pic of Rosie. :D

[T.o.b.y]

Photos of kids? Maybe you should quote Mycroft watching a pic of Rosie. :D

Yes, that was one of the highlights of S4 :-D

 

In defense of proud parents, the love one feels for a child is very strong and can lead to behavior just as irrational and blind as a teenage infatuation. I guess that's nature's safeguard against offspring being abandoned or neglected.

 

What I really can't stand is when people nag and whine at their kids nonstop. Quite often, at the pool or downtown, I have been forced to notice parents who were going on and on about how awful their children were behaving. They were so loud and annoying themselves that the kids were barely noticeable. That to me is way more disturbing than having a picture of a drooling infant shoved in my face.

[Pseudonym]

Yes, also not pleasant. 

 

I hope I manage to word this right...

The other thing that gets me, and fortunately I've only come across it a couple of times, are people who's entire personalities and identities seem to be subsumed by the fact they are a parent. For example, I met someone in uni, and in the first few seconds I knew she had a daughter, her daughter's name and how old she was. It's the first day of uni, everyone is nervous and trying to make friends, and some people babble, so, okay, fine. But every time I talked to her all she talked about was her daughter. Nothing about herself, or her interests, or any friends or other family members. It was like in becoming a mother she had lost all sense of herself. I realise kids are hard work, take a lot, and parents love them fiercely, but this girl appeared to have lost all sense of autonomy until her entire identity was reduced to just 'mother.'

[T.o.b.y]

Yes, also not pleasant.

 

I hope I manage to word this right...

The other thing that gets me, and fortunately I've only come across it a couple of times, are people who's entire personalities and identities seem to be subsumed by the fact they are a parent. For example, I met someone in uni, and in the first few seconds I knew she had a daughter, her daughter's name and how old she was. It's the first day of uni, everyone is nervous and trying to make friends, and some people babble, so, okay, fine. But every time I talked to her all she talked about was her daughter. Nothing about herself, or her interests, or any friends or other family members. It was like in becoming a mother she had lost all sense of herself. I realise kids are hard work, take a lot, and parents love them fiercely, but this girl appeared to have lost all sense of autonomy until her entire identity was reduced to just 'mother.'

In the short run, I think that's understandable. Infants and little kids do have a way of consuming ones entire being.

 

What I wonder with people like that is how they cope once all their kids are grown up and become independent. Especially if there aren't any grandkids right away to fill the void. I love my parents dearly but I wouldn't want the burden of being their main source of identity for my entire life.

 

I am not even sure whether, taken to an extreme at least, that's still real parental love or whether the children aren't maybe asked to fill a need that had nothing to do with them in the first place.