Archive for the ‘ comment ’ Category

Couldn’t have put this better myself…

15 Misconceptions about London…


Facebook undertakes pointless experiment, manipulates 689,000 users.

The Guardian today reported on Facebook’s scandalous manipulation of hundreds of thousands of users’ emotions as part of an experiment. Needless to say, there has been an uproar – and rightly so. Just the lack of informed consent – or is that in the small print somewhere? – makes the flesh crawl.

It would be interesting to know how they measured the emotions they manipulated – entirely by the ‘how are you feeling’ function of a status update or by something more subtle? Will the results eventually be published? Will those people so manipulated be, after the fact, informed of their participation.

Another salient point, I think, is that this kind of experiment is entirely unnecessary – countless prior experiments into emotional contagion have been undertaken and, while certainly not in this medium or on this scale, the results are, predictably, the same.


Uncomfortable in our skin: the body-image report >> via The Guardian

A very interesting article by Eva Wiseman that articulates my views on this subject with plenty of primary and secondary research to back it up. Pro-read.

The Guardian on Facebook.

My love, my choice: on Cynthia Nixon and why gay is sometimes better « Thought Catalog

My Love, My Choice: On Cynthia Nixon And Why Gay Is Sometimes Better « Thought Catalog.

Building the Master’s House: How the Construction of Heterosexuality Happened >> Autostraddle

Autostraddle — Building the Master’s House: How the Construction of Heterosexuality Happened.

Above is a post from Autostraddle that I feel is important for any self-aware and interested person in our society to read. The allusion in the title is to an article by Audre Lorde, mentioned in my post on the patriarchal critique in The Color Purple, the full text of which I have managed to unearth here.

Is ‘Fringe”s Peter who he seems to be?

loving the M. C. Escher reference in this picture

Well Fringe  certainly turned their cliffhangers up a notch with last Friday’s episode. [No spoilers ahead]. September’s revelation to Olivia would have been a nail-biter most weeks, let alone the mid-season hiatus, as S04E08 ‘Back to Where You’ve Never Been’ would have been if not for a scheduling rearrangement stateside. We could have been waiting weeks!

Anyway, the point of this post is to ask the question that occurred when I read the io9 review of the episode. As the author of that post, Charlie Jane Anders, notes, Peter’s determination to get ‘back’ to ‘his own’ universe whatever the cost is incredibly selfish and out of character. And with the infiltration of shapeshifters having been shown to be as widespread as it is, my query is:

Could peter be a shapeshifter?

The shapeshifters, as the pawns of their boss, would have a great deal to gain from the universe cracking abilities that Peter was seeking in this episode [see how I didn’t spoil that?] and Peter’s single mindedness certainly emulates that of the aforementioned pawns, not to mention his tenuous, poorly explained return to the show at the beginning of the season. It’s just a thought; weirder things have happened on Fringe, like back in Season 1 when they dropped the bomb that there was a second universe.

Another point I’d like to raise is that of the second incarnation of Walternate. Anders seems convinced that this concerned, paranoid Water is genuine. I, however, remain to be convinced.

With regard to the future of the show, it has been said in various articles quoting the producers and other notable people’s at FOX that this increasingly likely to be the last season of Fringe, which gives them half a season to wrap up a series. While I can see this as possible at this stage, I think it would be a shame to rush such an intricate plot to a stunted conclusion.

Living the dream of a fifth season…

gEO :):-

What’s in a name?

In varying religions of the world, to be able to name a thing (or person) is to have control of it, such as Catholic priests needing to know the name of a demon before it can be cast out. Similar premises exist also in Pagan belief systems. When people have your name they’ve got you pinned; from the register being called at school to your ‘paper’ trail in adult life right up to your tombstone/tasteful wall plaque. This person was/did these things. Names are bestowed, though often changed by the individual; I’ve lost count of the people I know —across several generation I might add— who prefer to use their second names and there are innumerable people who shorten their names as I have done.

Spartacus is the name given to him by Batiatus, who refuses to even hear his true name

One of the first things we learn to speak and to write, to deny a person their name is to deny them their identity. This can be done by giving them a new name and refusing to acknowledge their true/preferred name (as seen in Spartacus: Blood and Sand, left), using the wrong version of the right name or even, as seen in the prison systems of yore, by ascribing them a number and addressing them by it without exception.

I recently moved to a new city and got a new job which involves me working in any one of 22 different places, in which there are dozens of new people, about three of whom have grasped my name. It’s Geo. It’s not that difficult to grasp. It’s as short as you can get Georgina without just addressing me as “G”. Despite this I have thus far been (and continue to be) referred to as any one of the following:

Georgia, Georgie, George, Cleo, Chloe, Joey, Jojo and yesterday I was even addressed as Shelley. Add to this the painfully inaccurate spellings of any of the above that I have seen (e.g. Gorja, and Gorga) and I am left feeling like the guy from Scrubs:


Helloooo, identity crisis.

I’d sign off, but I’m not sure who I am today. Could be Shelley.

Happy New Year to whoever you are, from whoever I am


%d bloggers like this: