actuality.log


Wednesday, March the 3rd, 2004

A song by The Cure
As abstracted and modified by me
As brought to my attention by a cutely haunting HP ad campaign

I’ve been looking so long at these pictures of you
That I almost believed that they were real
I’ve been living so long with my pictures of you
That I almost believed that the pictures are
All I can feel

If only I’d known all the right words
I could have held on to your heart
If only you’d thought of the right words
I wouldn’t be breaking apart
All my pictures of you

Looking so long at these pictures of you
But I never held on to your heart
Looking so long for the words to be true
But always just breaking apart
My pictures of you

There was nothing in the world
That I ever wanted more
Than to feel me deep in your heart
There was nothing in the world
That I ever wanted more
Than to never feel this breaking apart
All my pictures of you

Not related but still might be. I took this yesterday near the ChemE department. I don’t know what these things are supposed to do. I have always just seen them sit there. I think I’m going to call it Constrained Perspectives.

Constrained Perspectives
Clickey clickey.

NP. The Cure – Disintegration

This is a printer-friendly version of the journal entry “Pictures of you” from actuality.log. Visit http://emphaticallystatic.org/earlier/pictures-of-you/ to read the original entry and follow any responses to it.

12 Responses to “Pictures of you”

  1. Vigvg says:

    Why the hell is there still snow around !?!?!

  2. puli says:

    With all due respect, i think it has something to do with the weather and also, sometimes, to some extent on the people responsible for removing it!

  3. wahgnube says:

    People people. For all practical purposes this place is Greenland or some such. It is cold for some 8 months of the year, and snows for some 6. Even during the supposedly “warm” months, like now, it isn’t warm enough for things to melt.

    (Exaggerated for effect but you get the idea.)

    And Puli, no one just arbitrarily wastes their time clearing snow off grass and other such places not on “useful paths”. Anywhere you will walk or drive is clean as soon as possible. The rest, melts in a few months. Usually.

  4. Optimist says:

    It’s not snow. Its a quagmire of shimmering pearlbeds intrinsically fractal in nature.

  5. wahgnube says:

    Yes! How dare the rest of us cheapen it?

    I bow to thee. How could I have let me do this? I need to immerse myself in fractional dimesional geometry math to get back on track. In a bit. For now I’ll play with pretty pictures.

  6. puli says:

    Collective: it was a general statement, notice the “sometimes” to make it sound generic.

  7. puli says:

    and yes reeshy, sob sob ….”quagmire of shimmering pearlbeds intrinsically fractal in nature”, how come that’s allowed here :(

  8. puli says:

    Wahgnube: I think increasing the 30 second limit would be a good idea. But again it just one clumsy me in a whole, so on second thougths it’s been designed with just the right limit. :)

  9. wahgnube says:

    Woah. Firstly, the limits are quite fine. It is expected that people collect their thoughts and take their time before attempting to type them in. The limit is meant to be more of a spam deterrent than a people deterrent.

    Secondly, some nicks are off limits to some people – reeshy to you. And do I have to reason out to you or anybody what I like/don’t like/find acceptable/find affected and so on?

    There is a section in the disclaimer where I go on about this. But then again, the entire disclaimer is me saying I’ll do what I want, and you have to try to not be bothered/take things too seriously.

  10. puli says:

    Hi Harish,

    I felt it would not be appropriate to post this comment on actuality.wahgnube.org. So here it is. Before you read on, if I may, I would like to say that nothing in this email is intended towards
    ranting at you or your site or whatever. In fact, I would never do that in my right mind. But then, if you feel that this could as well be posted on the site, I strongly encourage you to do so on my behalf. I
    know, I cannot ask/order you to do something, I am neither your BOSS,
    nor your creator, and even if I was either, there’s a good chance that
    I’m not allowed to do anything of that sort. But then, its just me, and its just you, so it’s all up to you. So if you want to hear what I have to say, read on.

    It’s all about your site disclaimer. I have to admit, the recent comment has made me think again about such things like DISCLAIMERS and limits to their powers. I am indeed troubled, so to say, about the power these DISCLAIMERS tend to have. I tried hard, but I had to really
    put this forward to you.

    Let’s start. …and he said let there be a DISCLAIMER and lo.. there was one!

    see that’s one card you always keep in your hand. No wait, read on before you jump onto any explanation. But then again, there will be a clause in the disclaimer that will point out “hey! you cannot do or say THAT because of THIS”, hehe and poof… here we go again! No wait, read on.. there’s more.

    Boy, am I tired of these reservations. But then again, I know, I’m left alone in this domain, and trust me, I don’t need support. It’s just that I feel that the disclaimer is more than ten fold overprotective orcsome such, what’s wrong with keeping it simple, so that it addresses the most needed concerns. Again, goes the answer, yes it addresses only the necessary and sufficient concerns. Phew! Hold it, please? The
    present disclaimer makes it so much like hey, look here fella, this is my site, my content, my choice, my this, my that, (did I miss something). Jumping jeremy, the hell it is!

    did I say, I missed something ;) yes its the people who comment! NO. See, its all restricted here, there’s no freedom to express what you want to say. and you go.. really? where is it in the DISCLAIMER dear Sir?

    nevertheless the “Where we all scream. You can too.” …. “Where we all scream. Hopefully.” and some such “eye-catchy” headers leave much to be desired! Again if there are a zillion restrictions to what a
    person cannot do, why not restrict the DISCLAIMER to only the things which one can do, would it not make it insanely lucid and utterly neat?

    Is it not reasonable, to assume that the entity on the other side is also human and will obviously want to react to something in a way he/she feels appropriate.

    This is my request. Please do not quote some line from the DISCLAIMER
    and put all this off. This is about the DISCLAIMER, so the DISCLAIMER
    CANNOT be used to defend the argument. Help! Somebody help!

    Think it over, its a small world, a short life. Why overly complicate it, is it really required that you impose such restrictions on others thoughts and comments? I know, I have no right to interfere in your life or your internal/external affairs. The feeling is also mutual and we all respect that.

    But then again, I know, this is all yours, EVERYTHING HERE IS YOURS, you RESERVE all RIGHTS you feel need to be RESERVED. Go ahead. You obviously owe me or anyone else NO EXPLANATION whatsoever.

    -Puli

    PS: My sincere apologies for having used “reeshy”. (Sorry for using that again!) I just felt at that point that I could have that liberty, but I was gently advised that it was not permissable, and I humbly respect that reservation. I know that I am extremely verbose and I’m sorry, I cannot apologize for that. I am also aware, that the letter is
    missing a logical structure, but unfortunately, its purpose is to be
    random in thoughts and ideas, so it leaves nothing to be desired from
    my side. All the more, I know that in most probabilities there will be a response to this letter pointing out where logic was missing and being a normal being, (yes, I claim to be a normal person) I will read it and try to see if I can comprehend it. But, (wow! one more “But”!) trust me, it is not fun visiting your site this way, obviously that’s not your problem and I’m infact ready to leave if I’m asked to. And
    again, being important, I wish to restate what I said earlier (the effect is all the more necessary).

    I would like to say that nothing in this email is intended towards ranting at you or your site or whatever. In fact, I would never do that in my right mind. You’re one of the most interesting people I’ve ever met, (even if our live correspondence has been very minimal) and I have gathered many good and moral ideals from you for which I am greatful to the lord. I would hate to break-up the current relationship that we
    have any day, and trust me I am not crazy!

  11. wahgnube says:

    General things I know about me. I don’t need you or anybody else to affirm/deny any of this. I am not stupid. I am quite methodical. I don’t arbitrarily do random things with no reasoning attached to it. I put in a lot of thought into how things are presented and the choice of words used. And in general, I say it as aptly as I can. Most importantly, I don’t particularly care for what most people think about me.

    Though I know I can find the one line that addresses all of this in the much hated disclaimer, I won’t. You did say I cannot use it in its defense, and more importantly, I don’t need to. Now, with that out of the way, so you know where I’m coming from (attitude wise) with all of this, here is the response.

    This was my first real pass at doing something like this, the disclaimer (and usage policy) I mean. (Ok, technically it was SEVEN iterations, but it still was the same basic thing. If you’re curious, I’ve linked them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (what you see on the site now), and 7 – to see how I’ve trimmed down on verbosity (which according to how you made it seem, increases lucidity). It isn’t obviously perfect. But, I will be redundant by saying every subsection I did put quite some thought into, and kept/removed/expanded/added based on what I felt was necessary. Not what IS, what I FELT WAS. (Yes, I don’t even have to say it.). Again, the second time I tried it, the results were more along the lines of what you wanted. For instance, this iteration (answers to questions 15 and 16) of another such disclaimer/site policy thing. Those are basically the rules here too, if you wanted it in a couple of lines.

    If you wanted to come over and play in my house, you need to follow whatever rules I lay down, however insane or restrictive they may seem. I said, if you want to be there. I am not forcing you or anybody else to be here or respond to what I say. If I asked you for your opinion, it is a totally different thing. I am obligated to listen to you, however you choose to respond to me. That would be analogous to me begging/forcing you to come over and play. I obviously can’t do that, AND set down rules you aren’t comfortable with. It is not some power trip, or some “magic card up my sleeve”, but a means to keep my best interests served first. I repeat, the idea here isn’t to be restrictive towards what you can do, but so that I’m comfortable and happy with what is going on. This is some form of daily release. Stuff happens, I scream about it, I feel better. Having to listen (and painfully respond) to things I’d rather not is not in my best interests. Which is why these sorts of usage policies exist. It has to be, in some sense, a positive experience for me. Not you. If it is, great, if not, why put yourself through a restrictive form of expression (where the guy doesn’t even have to care for your opinions) when you could be somewhere else freely talking to someone who does?

    Those “eye-candy” headers too. You don’t see they might have (and have been) slowly modified as I realized the thing was evolving (or getting more restrictive as you said)? Why do you assume no thought went into them either? It started of, believe it or not with anyone being able to sign up and maintain their journal. That was when it read, “Where we all scream. You can too.”. Where the “You can too.” section linked to a sign up page. I realized, over a year, only 7 people signed up. And not one posted. So I removed that, and started working on the aggregator. Because it just feels weird to scream about your life in some odd place. So no, they’ve always and still are apt enough, and definitely don’t leave too much to be desired.

    Did it occur to you that by going to some extent open with what is going on in my life, what I am feeling and so on, I am setting myself up for a lot. Did it occur to you I might be human too and feel all of this is some form of protection? I don’t see you doing this. I don’t get to see anything, or comment about your life. I doubt if you or anyone else will be truly open to other people responding “in a way they feel appropriate”. I don’t want appropriate. I want to feel good about doing this. No one is restricting your thoughts. Just which ones and how I choose to listen to them in this medium, at this time.

    The point here is none of this is to be taken so seriously, so I wonder why people do. And you’re right. I didn’t owe you any of this and could have spent my morning smelling the flowers and getting stung by a bug or something instead.

    Now to nitpick, not on form, typos or grammar, but word usage – words like relationship, breakup and things are unacceptable. Coming from a male.

  12. puli says:

    i learnt my lesson good, but i won’t tell anyone what the lesson was. i dont have to.

    later.


1 people conned into wasting their bandwidth.