Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy--will you let me be yours?
Gloria

Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?
Yours, Gloria

Dear god...how am I going to come up with twenty things?

1. I like peanut butter and A-1 sandwiches.
2. I think I may be the only person in the world who dislikes West Side Story.
3. I hate being the only virgin in the room. And it happens a lit.
4. I have entirely too many cousins.
5. This journal is entirely frivolous. Funny at times, but I rarely update it with things that happen in my actual life.
5. When I'm eating candy, I feel guilty if I accidentally rip the wrapper.
6. My ego is too big.
7. I gots two siamese kitties!
8. I can't draw. At all.
9. I am happiest when I'm rehearsing for a musical.
10. The upcoming Rent movie fills my soul with unfettered glee.
11. I hate being wet and cold, yet I live in western Washington.
12. The fact that I'm a senior scares the bajeezus out of me.
13. I can't believe I just used the word "bajeezus" in a sentence.
14. I am in at least four choirs.
15. I sing baritone.
16. I play the piano.
17. My favorite food is spaghetti carbonara.
18. My dad read The Lord of the Rings to my brother and I as a bedtime story when I was six.
19. I will occaisionally twitch for no reason.
20. Hotdogs make me nauseous.

I tag , , and

Pippin

When
Friday, November 18, 7:30 PM
Saturday, November 19, 7:30 PM
Sunday, November 20, 2:00 PM

Saturday, November 26, 2:00 PM / 7:30 PM
Sunday, November 27, 7:30 PM

Where
The Everett Performing Arts Center
2710 Wetmore Avenue
Everett, WA 98201

How Much
Tickets: $7-8
Bow Office: (425) 257-8600

There aren't going to be as many seats as usual, so please call and get tickets early.

Most mathematicians are familiar with -- or have at least seen references in the literature to -- the equation 2 + 2 = 4. However, the less well known equation 2 + 2 = 5 also has a rich, complex history behind it. Like any other complex quantitiy, this history has a real part and an imaginary part; we shall deal exclusively with the latter here. Many cultures, in their early mathematical development, discovered the equation 2 + 2 = 5. For example, consider the Bolb tribe, descended from the Incas of South America. The Bolbs counted by tying knots in ropes. They quickly realized that when a 2-knot rope is put together with another 2-knot rope, a 5-knot rope results. Recent findings indicate that the Pythagorean Brotherhood discovered a proof that 2 + 2 = 5, but the proof never got written up. Contrary to what one might expect, the proof's nonappearance was not caused by a cover-up such as the Pythagoreans attempted with the irrationality of the square root of two. Rather, they simply could not pay for the necessary scribe service. They had lost their grant money due to the protests of an oxen-rights activist who objected to the Brotherhood's method of celebrating the discovery of theorems. Thus it was that only the equation 2 + 2 = 4 was used in Euclid's "Elements," and nothing more was heard of 2 + 2 = 5 for several centuries.

Around A.D. 1200 Leonardo of Pisa (Fibonacci) discovered that a few weeks after putting 2 male rabbits plus 2 female rabbits in the same cage, he ended up with considerably more than 4 rabbits. Fearing that too strong a challenge to the value 4 given in Euclid would meet with opposition, Leonardo conservatively stated, "2 + 2 is more like 5 than 4." Even this cautious rendition of his data was roundly condemned and earned Leonardo the nickname "Blockhead." By the way, his practice of underestimating the number of rabbits persisted; his celebrated model of rabbit populations had each birth consisting of only two babies, a gross underestimate if ever there was one.

Some 400 years later, the thread was picked up once more, this time by the French mathematicians. Descartes announced, "I think 2 + 2 = 5; therefore it does." However, others objected that his argument was somewhat less than totally rigorous. Apparently, Fermat had a more rigorous proof which was to appear as part of a book, but it and other material were cut by the editor so that the book could be printed with wider margins. Between the fact that no definitive proof of 2 + 2 = 5 was available and the excitement of the development of calculus, by 1700 mathematicians had again lost interest in the equation. In fact, the only known 18th-century reference to 2 + 2 = 5 is due to the philosopher Bishop Berkeley who, upon discovering it in an old manuscript, wryly commented, "Well, now I know where all the departed quantities went to -- the right-hand side of this equation." That witticism so impressed California intellectuals that they named a university town after him.

But in the early to middle 1800's, 2 + 2 began to take on great significance. Riemann developed an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 5, paralleling the Euclidean 2 + 2 = 4 arithmetic. Moreover, during this period Gauss produced an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 3. Naturally, there ensued decades of great confusion as to the actual value of 2 + 2. Because of changing opinions on this topic, Kempe's proof in 1880 of the 4-color theorem was deemed 11 years later to yield, instead, the 5-color theorem. Dedekind entered the debate with an article entitled "Was ist und was soll 2 + 2?" Frege thought he had settled the question while preparing a condensed version of his "Begriffsschrift." This condensation, entitled "Die Kleine Begriffsschrift (The Short Schrift)," contained what he considered to be a definitive proof of 2 + 2 = 5. But then Frege received a letter from Bertrand Russell, reminding him that in "Grundbeefen der Mathematik" Frege had proved that 2 + 2 = 4. This contradiction so discouraged Frege that he abandoned mathematics altogether and went into university administration.

Faced with this profound and bewildering foundational question of the value of 2 + 2, mathematicians followed the reasonable course of action: they just ignored the whole thing. And so everyone reverted to 2 + 2 = 4 with nothing being done with its rival equation during the 20th century. There had been rumors that Bourbaki was planning to devote a volume to 2 + 2 = 5 (the first forty pages taken up by the symbolic expression for the number five), but those rumor remained unconfirmed. Recently, though, there have been reported computer-assisted proofs that 2 + 2 = 5, typically involving computers belonging to utility companies. Perhaps the 21st century will see yet another revival of this historic equation.

-Copied from `justthorne's journal-

I have never encouraged collective discontent or uprising at this site, over any issue, at any time when others were itching for destructive hostility to this site. But the atrocity toward °jark, and the administrative silence in response, is simply too unacceptable to abide.

So here's what I've got, the only rational plan I can come up with, that might possibly work.

First, what's the problem?

The founder of this site was sacked without notice or respect. (In fact, during a recent face-to-face meeting at the Summit, nothing was even said about it, despite such a golden opportunity for the weasel to act like a MAN.)

Regardless of the wisdom of sacking the founder, the conduct itself reflects a poisonous lack of integrity at the top levels of our administration. (If necessary, read my moral assessment here. And °euphoria's latest journal is telling too.)

There has been no communication to the community regarding this deplorable conduct. Not even spin, let alone honesty.

But here's the real problem:

That the agent feels surely he will get away with this.

That is, he can pretty much assume or count on 99% of deviants to go on their merry way, too addicted to this site to take any meaningful stand over it.

He can pretty much count on "business as usual" in the big picture, both at the moment and over time.

He can believe that, sooner or later, this whole mess will simply blow over, largely because DA is such an irreplacable experience with such inertia of motion that it will barrel forward, as it always has.

Left on its own, that premise is true.

So we've got to attack exactly that premise.

But not in a way that will destroy the site or the dream in the long term. Because that's really the last thing that any of us want.

So here's the best strategy I can come up with.

Let's make this site about nothing but integrity, and taking a stand on its behalf.

First and most important, stop submitting art. Unless that art concerns the issue at hand. I would also suggest hiding all your art, but how you handle that is your call. (I personally don't believe in deleting art, but hiding it is non-destructive. Use [link] to batch it all away.)

And if you're burning to post new art, find a way to make it relevant. (Shoot, you'll end up with extra attention for riding the wave, so you could even consider it "enlightened self-interest.")

Second, stop commenting art, unless that art concerns the issue at hand.

Third, stop posting journals, unless they concern the issue at hand. Consider posting a simple journal that says merely "Waiting for Jark to Get the Respect He Deserves," if you've nothing more complex to offer than that.

Fourth, stop any public communication, unless it concerns the issue at hand. We're all addicted to our social lives here, but let's take it into Notes.

Fifth, minimize viewing of art, to slow down the view counts and statistical progress of the site (as well as ad revenues).

Sixth, make sure your current Favorite reflects the issue, by picking a piece that's concerned with it. In fact, fave as many relevant pieces as possible, to push them up into the DTFs.

Seventh, if you are an administrator who doesn't believe in this crap either, I'd suggest minimizing your administrative functions. Am I out of line to suggest that? Quite possibly. But each administrator should strive to express their indignation as best they can, even if only by passivity.

And eighth, though I have no desire to pimp myself, link this journal if you please. Or, hell, copy it into your own if you please. (If so, take care to preserve the links, there are only a couple. I can note anyone with the copy to preserve the proper bolding and italics.)

In effect, you see, we're "taking all the fun out of DeviantART." But without doing anything that's long-term destructive.

But here's the critical plank of the plan, without with none of the above will really make a difference.

We MUST not spam pages, for a host of reasons.

But we must personally spread the word, to people we know, in an attempt to grind this site to a halt. I would suggest Noting, and just generally keeping our eyes open for people who are blowing this off.

Obviously, most of us here are brimming over with social energy - that's why we spend so much time here. Let's put that social energy to good use.

For instance, if an artist we know and like is continuing to post art, let's note them and say, "Hey, could you please lay off for the time being, until °jark is treated with the respect he deserves?"

(It's worth noting that he reportedly hasn't even been given an explanation for what's happened.)

It should be as easy to track and pursue as our DevWatches, looking for new work that's continuing to be posted.

I am not suggesting that we hassle strangers, but rather that we pursue the degrees of separation that unite us all. Let's each deal individually with people we respect, and people who respect each of us. Because respect is exactly so much the issue here.

If we do not stand up for integrity, we have none.

And to those who say, "why bother?"

We say, "if integrity and decency are not worth fighting for, then what is?"

Not by destruction, but simply by profoundly passive resistance, and the persistent grimace of discontent.

Not even by leaving, but simply by saying, plainly and impossibly to ignore, "we don't like it here anymore."

Until it once again becomes a place that we do.

A place we can be proud of.

Because, right now, we can't.

This doesn't even have to be about love for Scott. You might not even know him personally. But it's about decency, conduct, and respect for the man who envisioned this site, and made every sacrifice necessary to make it come true.

So here's the real challenge.

Could we grind this site to a halt by DA's fifth birthday, on August 7?

That sounds to me like a milestone worth striving for.