The old skool thread

[Takeda Shingen]

This is a SubSim old skool thread. Yes, I find the, urbanized misspelling of school to be humorous. In any case, the General Forum (the precursor to today's General Topics) was a place where you could learn a tremendous amount of things regarding a huge amount of topics. I loved it. And so, here is my attempt to revive that tradition. I'll be posting information and links on a variety of subjects that interest me. Feel free to discuss them, and add your own.

Two rules:

1. No politics. We didn't talk politics in the old days.

2. No 'news' current events. General interest events are fine. For example, my first topic will be about mummering and the Mummers Parade, which is topical due to the date, but not 'newsworthy' in nature.

[Sailor Steve]

From the title I thought it was going to be about "What we learned in school".
:rotfl2:

What about politics from the 5th century? That's not really politics, it's history. I know, I know, that answers my own question.

No, I don't really have an idea yet. This sounds pretty cool. Looking forward to your first subject. :sunny:

[Takeda Shingen]

I can't stand the Philadelphia Mummers Parade. Every New Years, the people of southeastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and northern Delaware are subject to 9 hours of coverage of sexually ambiguous cross dressing and public drunkeness. In my disdain for the event, I began to research the origins of real mummery and found, of all things, cross dressing. Why?

It was simple really. Mummery was originally an English tradition of court entertainment on feast days. The actors would dress in gaudy outfits and reenact historical or mythological events in Anglo-Saxon or Gaelic culture. For example, there was almost always a St. George that would serve as both central actor and narrator. This usually meant that there was a dragon too. No word on who played the dragon.

The thing about the rules of the stage in those days were exactly as the rules of operatic performance. Women were not permitted to be actors or singers. As such, men would have to take the part of women, although mercifully castration was not necessary as it was in opera. As such, there was nothing sexual about this cross dressing, as it was in the name of drama.

Fast forward to the New World, where the mummer tradition had taken more of a lay person role. Part of a 12 Days of Christmas celebration would be a mummer party usually hosted on the 12th night (on or about 17 January by the Julian Calendar). People would dress in gaudy outfits and meet at the house of a friend, who would attempt to guess the identity of each of the guests of the party. As such, deception was highly valued, and dressing as the oposite gender was an effective method of hiding one's identity. Women were now involved, and they would frequently dress as men. Once again, nothing sexual.

It appeared that my intended argument had fallen flat. Cross dressing was indeed a part of the mummer legacy, and there was indeed nothing sexual or impure about it. Granted, I still can't stand the Mummer's Parade, and think it is a silly tradition, but it is more faithful to it's roots than I gave it credit for.

For more reading.

The official Mummers Parade website: http://www.phillymummers.com/

An overview of the history of mummering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummers_Play

[Takeda Shingen]

What about politics from the 5th century? That's not really politics, it's history. I know, I know, that answers my own question.

I would love to talk some late Roman politics and practice with you, Steve. Do it!

[Sailor Steve]

Well, the Mummer's thing is pretty cool. I had heard the word, but never bothered to look it up. Thanks for that.

[Jimbuna]

So who's going to pick up the part of the topic that covers cross dressing? :hmm2:

Any takers? :smug:

I saw you...don't go looking at me like that :stare:

I had major problems fitting into the wifes dress last night :oops:

[Red October1984]

So who's going to pick up the part of the topic that covers cross dressing? :hmm2:

Any takers? :smug:

I saw you...don't go looking at me like that :stare:

I had major problems fitting into the wifes dress last night :oops:

Get away from me! :stare:

*Pulls a Tazer and slowly backs up*

:rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

I had major problems fitting into the wifes dress last night
Did it make you cross?

[NeonSamurai]

My turn before the rowdies get into it further... :stare:

Topic, Psychology:

Perhaps the oldest and longest running debate in the field of psychology is that of nature versus nurture, or biology versus environment (personally I prefer these two terms as they are more precise). Originally in the early days of psychology, the argument was very polarized; the great minds of the day argued for one or for the other, with the attitude that people were born into the world either as tabula rasa (blank slate), or that everything we are we are born with (or later viewed as being contained in our genetic makeup). These views were eventually discarded for the more current understanding that both are true, that it is almost never entirely nurture or nature, but ratio of both. So now the argument revolves around how much is it nurture and how much is it nature, when examining aspects of the human mind, such as personality.

In clinical practice the biology vs environment question invariably comes up when working with mental illness. The consideration of biology vs environment strongly ties into treatment planning; drugs are not a whole lot of use if the person's problems are all environmental, and therapy may not be of much benefit if the person's problems are entirely biological (there are some major exceptions to this). The problem though, is that often times it is difficult to tell what the underlying cause is; is the person depressed because they have few social contacts, or are they depressed because of a chemical imbalance that made them more anti-social and isolative, which caused the person to loose most of their social contacts. Generally speaking the answer is that both biology and environment are playing a role, and both are interacting with and influencing each other. This is why in modern clinical practice, the standard approach is to provide both drugs and therapy together to treat mental illness.

The whole process gets even more convoluted when you factor in that in clinical practice it is very common that you are not dealing with one single mental illnesses (such as depression), but multiple illnesses (such as depression + anxiety) that are interacting with and influencing each other (and each having their own biology and environment factors).

Some light reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#Nature_and_nurture

[TarJak]

I think his wife was cross. He's got his own dresses.:O:

[STEED]

Breaking wind. :88)

[Takeda Shingen]

In clinical practice the biology vs environment question invariably comes up when working with mental illness. The consideration of biology vs environment strongly ties into treatment planning; drugs are not a whole lot of use if the person's problems are all environmental, and therapy may not be of much benefit if the person's problems are entirely biological (there are some major exceptions to this). The problem though, is that often times it is difficult to tell what the underlying cause is; is the person depressed because they have few social contacts, or are they depressed because of a chemical imbalance that made them more anti-social and isolative, which caused the person to loose most of their social contacts. Generally speaking the answer is that both biology and environment are playing a role, and both are interacting with and influencing each other. This is why in modern clinical practice, the standard approach is to provide both drugs and therapy together to treat mental illness.

My question would be, and it is something that I have wondered about for a long time, is the correlation between pre-natal genetics more powerful than the environmental factors in regards to severe and sudden mental illness? In other words, is there simply a switch that gets flipped in one's genes that say 'at 24, this individual will become schizophrenic', or are continued environmental stressors enough to push one towards it. I had come across students in my time in K-12 education that I thought may be future sufferers of the disorder, but do not pan out in that manner. Given the peculiarity of the onset of schizophrenia, is it possible to every truly know?

[u crank]

I think his wife wad cross. He's git his own dresses.:O:

And he's got very good taste. :D

[Madox58]

Oh Great! Tricked again!
It's New Years Day for Gosh Sakes!
And you tricked me into thinking.
Thanks to Tak and Neon?

My head now hurts by a power of 3.
:nope:

:salute:

[Sailor Steve]

Topic, Psychology:

Perhaps the oldest and longest running debate in the field of psychology is that of nature versus nurture, or biology versus environment (personally I prefer these two terms as they are more precise).

Given the peculiarity of the onset of schizophrenia, is it possible to every truly know?
I've asked myself a variation of that question more than once: Is it my parents' fault or my own? On the one hand I realized a long time ago that my foibles are my own, and trying to attribute my problems to someone else is even on a good day "shifting the blame". On the other hand an honest appraisal leads me to question whether they indeed had a hand in making me what I am. I think that part of rationality is asking yourself that very question. Why am I who I am today? What really happened? One can dwell on past mistakes in an attempt to understand why, but one also has to ask the question "Could I have really avoided those mistakes? Am I doomed to be who I am?"

Of course it's also easy to waste too much time worrying about things we have no control over. Then right back into the trap of "But do I really have no control?" It's enough do drive you crazy.

[Oberon]

I'm here looking for mods for Silent Hunter II which I have just purchased, what is all this about Project Messerwetzer?

Here's a Happy New Year for 2003! :rock:

[TarJak]

I'm here looking for mods for Silent Hunter II which I have just purchased, what is all this about Project Messerwetzer?

Here's a Happy New Year for 2003! :rock:

I'm surprised you weren't looking for mods for SH1 Admirals Edition.:|\\

[Jimbuna]

I'm simply wondering why the majority of chairs have four legs :doh:

[Madox58]

I'm simply wondering why the majority of chairs have four legs :doh:
Cause when you drink Beer?
2 legs is not enuff if you do it right.
:haha:

[Jimbuna]

Cause when you drink Beer?
2 legs is not enuff if you do it right.
:haha:

LOL :)

Bastid! :huh:

[Sailor Steve]

It was a nice try, Tak, but the children just can't leave it alone.

Sorry. :nope:

[Madox58]

Does this look like a Guy the could handle less then 4 legs?
:hmmm:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/IMG_0498.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

It was a nice try, Tak, but the children just can't leave it alone.

Sorry. :nope:

I'm not dissuaded, Steve. In fact, I have tommorow's post already formulated in my mind. The kids will calm down soon enough. They always do.

[geetrue]

I'm not dissuaded, Steve. In fact, I have tommorow's post already formulated in my mind. The kids will calm down soon enough. They always do.


My third grade teacher always use to say, "Kids are billy goats"

[Sailor Steve]

My third grade teacher always use to say, "Kids are billy goats"
Well, you're chewing on everything in sight.

[geetrue]

Well, you're chewing on everything in sight.

Don't you know I have to keep my post count up ... :woot:

[Takeda Shingen]

Don't you know I have to keep my post count up ... :woot:

So do you have anything of worth to add? Otherwise, there's plenty of spam threads that you could use.

[geetrue]

So do you have anything of worth to add? Otherwise, there's plenty of spam threads that you could use.

You don't have to get huffy puffy ... as a matter of fact I do.

Where do all of those smart people come from ... I will not make that claim for myself, but I seriously wonder how do those people do it.

You know the computer code people, the inventors of motherboards, cpu's, thin screen this and thin screen that.

Who has the scales on smarts?

For example Russia never ceases to amaze me on how they can build such wonderful submarines yet they can't keep them operational.

Where do smarts come from? Before birth is called genes?

How do they get that old grey matter going in the right direction?

Not just Russians of course ...

[NeonSamurai]

My question would be, and it is something that I have wondered about for a long time, is the correlation between pre-natal genetics more powerful than the environmental factors in regards to severe and sudden mental illness? In other words, is there simply a switch that gets flipped in one's genes that say 'at 24, this individual will become schizophrenic', or are continued environmental stressors enough to push one towards it. I had come across students in my time in K-12 education that I thought may be future sufferers of the disorder, but do not pan out in that manner. Given the peculiarity of the onset of schizophrenia, is it possible to every truly know?

We're not entirely sure about that one, there is definitely a genetic factor as schizophrenia tends to run in families. The current concept is that one can be genetically predisposed to developing it, but it is not a certain outcome. It is felt that certain kinds of environmental stresors are either triggers of schizophrenia, or can bring about an earlier onset of the illness. There is a high correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia for example, but the relationship is bidirectional in that marijuana use is a predictor of schizophrenia, as schizophrenia a predictor for marijuana use (either can precede the other). It is also not unusual for the first schizophrenic episode to happen during periods of high stress.

Interestingly enough, it is not unheard of people to only have one or a couple of psychotic episodes and then never have any further. We also don't know why schizophrenia can develop earlier in rarer cases. Adolescent early onset schizophrenia is pretty rare and the earlier form is extremely rare. Brain development in general seems to be a significant factor in it's developing, since the frontal cortex doesn't stop developing till around age 22-24, and f-mri studies have shown that the schizophrenic brain generally functions differently.

Anyhow I will stop there for now as I could go on for hours on this topic. :)


I've asked myself a variation of that question more than once: Is it my parents' fault or my own? On the one hand I realized a long time ago that my foibles are my own, and trying to attribute my problems to someone else is even on a good day "shifting the blame". On the other hand an honest appraisal leads me to question whether they indeed had a hand in making me what I am. I think that part of rationality is asking yourself that very question. Why am I who I am today? What really happened? One can dwell on past mistakes in an attempt to understand why, but one also has to ask the question "Could I have really avoided those mistakes? Am I doomed to be who I am?"

Of course it's also easy to waste too much time worrying about things we have no control over. Then right back into the trap of "But do I really have no control?" It's enough do drive you crazy.

The general answer is yes... and no :) The parent child relationship style is hugely important during the first two years, infants need attention, contact, and affection to develop properly, and without it (or insufficient quantities of it) will suffer moderate to severe developmental delays which generally cannot be fully recovered later in life (this is why in another thread that people adopting orphans from certain countries do not know what they are getting themselves into).

Beyond that it is an interplay between the person's inborn nature, and their interactions with the environment. So yes, parental influence has a very large impact on how the person develops and who they become. Many values and belief systems are inherited from parents. But so does the greater environment (some of which is the person's own choice) influence who a person becomes; such as choice of friends, school system you are exposed to, media exposure, etc.

For the more philosophical question you asked, personally I think the answer is a bit of both. Had the environmental aspects I had no control over as a child been different, things probably would have turned out differently in some areas, but I am not sure that my internal self would have changed hugely. Personally I think that the core of one's personality is genetically based, but the expression of it is malliable by environment.

[Takeda Shingen]

You don't have to get huffy puffy ... as a matter of fact I do.

Where do all of those smart people come from ... I will not make that claim for myself, but I seriously wonder how do those people do it.

You know the computer code people, the inventors of motherboards, cpu's, thin screen this and thin screen that.

Who has the scales on smarts?

For example Russia never ceases to amaze me on how they can build such wonderful submarines yet they can't keep them operational.

Where do smarts come from? Before birth is called genes?

How do they get that old grey matter going in the right direction?

Not just Russians of course ...

You're sounding like a Augustinian predestinist. Are some premordially equipped and destined with the end already ordained? In other words, are people simply destined for greatness and are gifted to those ends? How much truly free will do we have?

Most follow the Aquinian view of predestiny as pertaining only to spiritual salvation, but I wonder sometimes if predestiny does not affect more than that aspect of life and death. I sometimes wonder if I am not the plaything of something larger and greater than myself. It would be wholy arrogant for me to believe that I am the highest being in the universe. Maybe it is a god. Maybe it is something else. I don't know.

What I do know is that I have had numerous occurances in my life that have seemed too fortunate to be purely coincidental. Is, therefore, the ultimate end of the free will argument simply that we don't have free will? If I think that it is by my own will that I type these words that is one thing, but if I am unable to see outside of myself to realize that I am coerced to do so is something else all together.

In any case, how can I truly know? Does one develop his abilities, or are those abilities decided before it all began? I have no idea.

[Oberon]

You're sounding like a Augustinian predestinist. Are some premordially equipped and destined with the end already ordained? In other words, are people simply destined for greatness and are gifted to those ends? How much truly free will do we have?

Most follow the Aquinian view of predestiny as pertaining only to spiritual salvation, but I wonder sometimes if predestiny does not affect more than that aspect of life and death. I sometimes wonder if I am not the plaything of something larger and greater than myself. It would be wholy arrogant for me to believe that I am the highest being in the universe. Maybe it is a god. Maybe it is something else. I don't know.

What I do know is that I have had numerous occurances in my life that have seemed too fortunate to be purely coincidental. Is, therefore, the ultimate end of the free will argument simply that we don't have free will? If I think that it is by my own will that I type these words that is one thing, but if I am unable to see outside of myself to realize that I am coerced to do so is something else all together.

In any case, how can I truly know? Does one develop his abilities, or are those abilities decided before it all began? I have no idea.

That's some meaty stuff to get ones teeth into there Tak, and no mistake.

Well, here goes.

Some believe, and I am inclined to be one of them, that the essence of a creature is the soul, that little something of life that science just can't quite put its finger on. Our job on this Earth is to learn, not just things from school but things from life, to experience things, be it positive things or negative things, but things, that when we die the soul takes back to wherever it is that souls come from, be it some sort of cosmic atom (ala Carling) or a great river with many streams that come off it and meet back on it. Once we're done here, we can have a rest for as long or as short as we like since time has no meaning, and then we can come back again to experience something else, and some people say that we're given a choice, we're given like a movie trailer of our life, and what we'll learn and we say "Yes, I'll take that life, it looks like I'll learn a lot from it" and off we go.

So where does free will fit into that? Well, you could argue that it fits in that we have a choice on whether we take a life, and even if it's a tough one, we chose it, for whatever reason we had up there, which is not given to us here.
Alternatively you could argue that free will is a clever illusion, baked up to make us think that we have a choice when in fact it was already mapped out for us before we were even born.

Putting that spiritual belief aside for one moment, and tucking into the cold hard reality of the world, it IS hard to decide if there IS such a thing as free will. Certainly we have a basic level of free will, we can choose not to get up in the morning, we can choose what cereal we have, we can even choose what we say to people, however in the broader terms of the sense, the knowledge of the consequences that decisions would likely have, curbs our decision making process some what. For example, you could stay in bed in the morning, but then you would not go to work and could face being fired, you could have that cereal, but it's your wifes favourite and she'd be mad if you stole some, and you could tell that person where to go, but he/she's your boss and you'd be in trouble if you did.
So in that respect, some element of free will is robbed from you. Naturally this does not stop some people, I have witnessed people drift in and out of jobs and living life like it's one big party. These people usually have rich parents... :shifty:
So, is that it? Is it money that determines how much free will we have? Perhaps, it certainly has a large influence on it and in some countries you can do anything you want, up to and including murder, if you have enough money. However in other countries you can find yourself with less free will, and indeed sometimes in prison or dead, if you have too much money...
So, perhaps it's society, that strange invisible force that influences our every move, even if we try to rebel from it, it still is there, guiding us and judging us. Mankind is its own worst critic, and also judge, jury and executioner.
It will be interesting to see, in another thousand years, providing we haven't blown ourselves into a new dark age, or had an asteroid or other natural event do it for us, it will be interesting to see what is taboo in the society of the 31st century. Will it be a society where sex and violence are the norm, or will it be 'Demolition man' style, where everything is conditioned, clean and non-violent, and dirty things like sex for non-procreative purposes are frowned upon. Given, however, that the free will of the 11th century had pedophilia, rape, and violence as the norm, then one thing is for certain, there is no certainty.

[TarJak]

I'm interested in how the physical environment is different to the perceived environment and that how light and its bending and bouncing can impact that perception.

This is an excellent article that discusses the role of light in perception and in particular Philosophy: http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/unreal.htm

Does that make this post unreal or simply perceived to be so?:D

[Sailor Steve]

Well there is also the problem of personal mental perceptions, which have nothing to do with that article's subject, but ultimately cause similar problems.

Does that make this post unreal or simply perceived to be so?:D
Are you referring to the difference in perception physically, as in how the post is percieved on the page, or mentally, as in the difference between what you mean in writing it and what the reader thinks you mean?

This, in a completely different context, is also true of history. We don't know what happened in Rome two thousand years ago. We only know what people at the time wrote down. Were they recording history, or just spreading gossip? Can any modern translations be trusted? Did it happen at all?

How about your own personal memories? Are you absolutely certain that what you remember happening yesterday really happened the way you remember it? What would the people who experienced the same events say?

I like ice cream. My friend likes ice cream. I assume that it tastes the same to him as it does to me, but does it really? I can never know the answer to that.

Ain't philosophy wonderful? :sunny:

[Takeda Shingen]

The contest for Biggest Douche of the 19th Century was a close race between two of history's greatest composers.

Franz Liszt (1811-1886) didn't come from money. What he lacked in formal education he made up for in personal ambition. He arrived in Paris in 1827 after completing studies in Vienna. His minor celebrity status won him a sufficient circle of piano students to support himself, with some of whom he began having romantic liasons; particularly ones that were from wealthier and more powerful families like Caroline de Saint-Cicq, daughter of one of Charles X's ministers.

Liszt socialized with the intellectual elite of the city and in 1833 met Marie d'Agoult; decended from minor aristocracy and wife of Charles Louis Constant d'Agoult, a major aristocratic parisian aristocrat. Liszt and d'Agoult immediately began an affair, which resulted in the birth of what would be the first of three children. Outraged by this betrayal, the Count d'Agoult divorced Marie and removed any association with his family, ruining her in Paris and most of France. Marie, having no other option, went to join Liszt in Geneva with their young daughter.

Liszt never married Marie. In fact, he spent large amounts of time touring Europe, as his piano career had begun to take off. Even though she bore him two more children, he became increasingly cold and indifferent, even refusing to correspond in letters. After finally having enough of this behavior, Marie returned to Paris in an attempt to legitimize herself and perhaps regain some status of her previous life. It was too late; she was ruined, as no benefactor would come within 100 yards of her.

She wrote volumes of desperate letters to Liszt, begging him to use his influence within the city to secure a comfortable living for her and their children. Liszt's solution was to remove the children from Marie's care and place them with his own mother with the instruction that Marie was never to see them. Marie was left to scratch out a meager living as a freelance author, whose status as social pariah guaranteed that she never lived in comfort or security again. Liszt, for his part, seemed completely untroubled.



Richard Wagner (1813-1883) came from a background even more obscure than Liszt's. He did, however, have a better formal education, which allowed for him to enter the ranks of the local musical societies with far greater ease. In spite of that good fortune, Wagner had two very nasty habits. The first was mounting debts that he was not able to pay off. The second was being an notorious womanizer.

In 1834 he was the director of the Magdeburg Opera; in the process of staging his own Das Liebesverbot, when he began having relations with Christine Wilhelmine Planner, known by her nickname Minna. After a stormy courtship, in which she actually left him for another man at the time, the two were eventually wed and lived together in Riga, where Wagner was conducting the local orchestra. After once again mounting tremendous debt, the two fled Riga for London to escape being imprisoned. Despite Wagner's nasty habit of finding new benefactors, borrowing their money and not paying the debts all while sleeping with their wives, she remained with him. She even stood by him during his involvement in the Dresden uprising of 1843, where an arrest warrant was issued for him, forcing them to flee once again.

Minna finally had enough after his affair with Mathilde Wessendonk, wife of yet another of Wagner's creditors in Swizterland, where the Wagners were staying in 1852. The two seperated. It was around this time that none other than Franz Liszt, whom Wagner had met in Paris as he repeatedly fled from both creditors and angry husbands, came to his aid. While Wagner was banned from entering Germany, Liszt personally conducted the premiere of his opera, Lohengrin. He aided Wagner financially in Switzerland and help his reputation abroad, which aided in German the ban on Wagner being lifted in 1862. Finally establishing himself in Munich due to both Liszt's aid and the support of King Ludwig II, he was able to premiere Tristan und Isolde at the National Theatre in 1865. The conductor was none other than Franz Liszt's own son-in-law, Hans von Bulow, who had married Cosima Liszt, the middle child from Liszt's and Marie d'Agoult's extramarital relations. Their daughter, Isolde, had been born a few months before the premiere.

I'm sure that, even if you are not a student of musical history, you can see where this is going. And you are right. Isolde was not the daughter of von Bulow, but of Wagner, who had begun an affair with Liszt's own illegitimate daughter. After much scandal, Wagner and Cosima were 'encouraged' to leave Munich by Ludwig II. Mina Wagner died in 1866, and von Bulow divorced Cosima, allowing the two to finally be wed in 1870.

And there you have it. The two douchiest guys of the 19th century, joined through layers of extramarital deceit. You can't make things up that are this good.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh yeah. Those musicians are all the same. Now we're getting into some history that I've never heard. :sunny:

[geetrue]

It will be interesting to see, in another thousand years, providing we haven't blown ourselves into a new dark age, or had an asteroid or other natural event do it for us, it will be interesting to see what is taboo in the society of the 31st century.


I'm interested in how the physical environment is different to the perceived environment and that how light and its bending and bouncing can impact that perception.

This is an excellent article that discusses the role of light in perception and in particular Philosophy: http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/unreal.htm

Does that make this post unreal or simply perceived to be so?:D

Both thoughts are interesting in the presumed fact that all of what we see in the heavens is still really there.

Have the science people been able to measure how long everything we see has lived through carbon dating?

Have the science people been able to say without a doubt how far away the nearest star/stars are as measured in light years?

Yes they have ...

However I am of the thought process that what we see may not even be there ... are there names for people like me (no pun needed).

What we see may not even still be in existence, but may have already evaporated into nothing. Look how long it took for the light to reach the earth with hubble showing the birthing of stars ...

Where are those stars today?

Definition of existence (n) (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+existence&qpvt=excistance&FORM=DTPDIA)
being real: the state of being real, actual, or current, rather than imagined, invented, or obsolete

[Takeda Shingen]

One of my favorite documentaries of all time is The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0923752/

If you have not seen it, you can probably find it on YouTube. I didn't link it here because although YouTube doesn't seem to have a problem with that, I am pretty sure that it does violate copyright law. As such, I would encourage you to either buy it for yourself or rent it via Netflix if for no other reason that it is a great film and you should support the director.

Anyway, I found myself completely fascinated by the figure of Billy Mitchell, the high score record holder for Donkey Kong. Here is a guy straight out of the motivational speaker circut, complete with the whole "I'm a winnner" attitude, but with a real dark side. He's just a jerk and he is afraid of Steve Weibe, which leads him to engage in almost cartoonish antics to avoid the latter.

Not a long post from me today, but if you have not seen this, you simply must do so. :up: