Parody Page

A page for parodies and stories
that ought not be taken seriously

Marrige ban means that Gays won't be able to love each other anymore

Sadness heaped upon sadness, and weeping
openly in the streets when the
California Gay marriage ban means that
all of the thousands of couples who 
had gone through the ceremony are now
faced with heartbreak, sadness, and
bitter acrimony.
"I didn't realize that what the marriage 
ban really means.  Now that the public
has voted that we are prohibitted from
loving each other It breaks my heart that
following the law means that we have
to go to arbitration and face the splitting
up of all of our assests"
His exhusband is out plotting legal
subtrifuge with a divorce lawyer and
machiavellian plots designed to hummiliate 
and intimidate, said Chuck.  "See, we are
just like straight people in most every way."
continued Chuck.  "So why do you all want to
punish us?"
An mostly unread part of the marriage 
ammendment law says that couples who
were married must now go through bitter
divorce proceedings and make huge and
ungawdly donations to various trial-lawyer
trust fund activast groups but most married
Gays did not forsee that the passage of the law
would result in these bitter divorce proceedings.

So you can see, dear reader of this beta
page that the above parady-post (so mean)
is needing serious editing and perhaps 
deletion.

How do I, as interface designer, achieve this?

1.  I could have that the page or post
   must be crafted elsewhere.
    that is the lazy way out and worked
well enough for long enough until I decided
that the deficiencies in the save formats
from various open source projects didn't
give me the kind of emperical certainty of
outcome that I crave and desire.
Absolute reproducable outcome.

entity collection:  The ability to have
a group of pieces or entities that one
'collects' together in a form of
'structure' or 'type' or 'template'.
This is analogous to using a piece of cut
beryl on top of a ring of gold (for wearing
on your finger.  You take two things and
put them together, not a new idea at all.

So I would want to have binders.
Once you collect all of the pieces together
you can bind them as a publishable article
or you can bind them as an article template.

For example The Left Coloumn and 
The Right Column (of my front page)
are always the same.  At the top it says
The Left Column
or it says
The Right Column

the 'templating' of this would mean that
we have this 'skeleton' that must then be
'populated' with data.

The poplating of this data would be done
but a 'data input engine'


That is one of the tasks of this website.

I am using these pages in a raw way
That allows me to be a beta user.
And by using the pages I am able to
see how they ought to be used.

As a spontaneous poem page?
As a column editor?
As a way to create a gallery of photos?
As a way to write a novel?
As a way to template content types?

All of these things come from these efforts.

So if headhunters call and give me
additude and try to pidgeon hole me and
tell me that I've been out of work too long, well
I just don't pay them any heed.
And when the fellow from the last interview
did his put-down of 'so you just write scripts' I 
could have just sucked it up and
realized that it doesn't matter
what people call you, in their put-down way
becuase you can really do the things
that you do and you don't need to
shop it to India or China, but you do
it right here in your living room and
it is real.

Well, ya, world, it is real and I am right
here waiting for my next assignment.

Do I post these bitter rantings?
These rantings that make me unemployable?

You can rant and rant but you cant
rant at the head hunter.
The head hunter who pretends to have
jobs and wants to resell your
contract to British human-service mafias
for fifty cents on the dollar . . .
And if you don't use these people you don't 
work.

Sounds like an international conspiracy
theory, 
a scurious and unsubstantiated rant . . .

Above we see a good example as to why we
need to be able to flag a post as
visible or not-visible.  Not-visible means
that the post is not viewable by anyone
who is not the editor of that page.

Above we have my 'dark mind' rantings
about my current job situation and, 
suppose some head hunter were really to
come and read my pages (which I kind of
doubt) then I wouldn't want them seeing that crap
(cause it will drive them away, the
will think I am a paranoid fool)
But I would still want to be able to
post that for myself to see (because it
is a pretty good crazy rant for a novel
character, even though I know how crazy 
it sounds, and as a novel writer such rants
are the stuff of the character in the story
(who has to reflect real people in the real world)

So I need a feature that allows me
to flag a post as 'rant' or to flag it
in some other way.

A useful tool would be to flag it as
'possible feature'.

And also, suppose that I am doing some
thought work (designing the interface
in my head) that is most important to document
and as I document it I slip into a story-rant or
into a non-substatiated rant of a novel
character (which I tend to do a lot)
then I would want to tag the post so that
parts of it could be tagged differently.

That is just what 'styles' do in a word 
processor.

And when the parts are flagged as such the
display of the parts can use those 'styles' to allow for, say 'rants' to show
up as red, and well thought through
and reedited parts could take on a 
tourqouise or royal purple color, and 
scientific ideas could be in gold etc etc.


And then the question becomes what if they are
both?

What if a part is both science and rant?

Unsubstantiated Science Rantings

Make a collection of entities.
Tag these as a new collection and move
them to a new page.
What is the name of your page?
How do we source control the content:

  At 10:04:44 AM EST on Fri Nov 7, 2008 bperil wrote:

would be changed to 
something else, of course.

The entities could also say what page
they are from.  
 This entity node originated on the 
 Amillia sup. ib 17 BETA page

Context nodes, Content description entities:  These are the 'source control' aspects of the various pages.

Content description entities would not
be displayed to the user
as content, and do not need to be part 
of the final presentation of the content.


There would still be the necessary part
of reading these entities and allowing
for the data inside of them to be
presented as biblographic material.

Content Notation entities

When a passage is so interesting that
other folks want to comment on it
then they ought to (if allowed) be able
to create their own input concerning this
content.  This is like a slash-dot
page does.

I am not trying to come up with a replacement for the slash-dot thing.

Make a collection of entities.
Tag these as a new collection and move
them to a new page.
What is the name of your page?
How do we source control the content:

  At 10:04:44 AM EST on Fri Nov 7, 2008 bperil wrote:

would be changed to 
something else, of course.

The entities could also say what page
they are from.  
 This entity node originated on the 
 Amillia sup. ib 17 BETA page

Context nodes, Content description entities: 
 These are the 'source control' 
    aspects of the various pages.

Content description entities would not
be displayed to the user
as content, and do not need to be part 
of the final presentation of the content.


There would still be the necessary part
of reading these entities and allowing
for the data inside of them to be
presented as biblographic material.

Content Notation entities

When a passage is so interesting that
other folks want to comment on it
then they ought to (if allowed) be able
to create their own input concerning this
content.  This is like a slash-dot
page does.

I am not trying to come up with a replacement for the slash-dot thing.

Note the two posts above:
I reposted the content
after editing it, but as you
can see the system sees it as a
a totally new post.  Now I will need
to flag the old one for delete.

Or how do you flag the changes?
I could diff the content or just provide
the old content.

It just depends on how much content 
there is as to which makes sense.

A 'draft' of content would to be
editable until the final flagging
of non-draft status.

After a non-draft status the content
could again be changed but it has already
been published for the world to see and
Integrity must be maintained to allow
for the original published post to still
be viewed in order to allow for historical
and archival retention of this content.

IE:  if a post were made today and I needed
to edit it, then I would do that now and
publish the stuff within a few days or
later today.  I would take it out
of draft.
And then suppose I posted it and after a
couple of months said 'gosh I need to
change this because of whatever reason'
and I change it, revise it, then the
original post ought to still exisit
for the 'snap shot' of what it was in the
past.

The website showed this data at this time.
It was reposted with revisions at this time.

It would be a way to catch censorship 
efforts.

My pages should have no capacity to allow
for censorship of ideas, no
higher level authority ought to be
able to come in an edit these posts.

IE:  the original poster would need to
be persuaded to do this.

That is a great idea, oh, ya, and needs
to be flagged as a 'suggestion' as
opposed to a 'design constraint'.


So you see, dear reader, whoever you are,
that this interface has a lot of potential
to be used as a tool for skunk-works 
thinking.

No porn allowed

'no porn allowed'

nice thought but the reality of life
is that people are very interested in 
other people and like to be close to them.
And society has restrictions and calls
this need for physicality as 'naughty'
and this makes it hard to get the
desired contact and makes a lot of folks
have 'hang-ups' which become stumbling 
blocks for their personal spiritual 
development.
Those hangups can result in a desire
to hear about or see sexual things, 
nice happy faces on handsome people,
people being fond with each other,
people having sex.

That is part of humanity and can not be
surpressed.

So can you prohibit 'sexual activity'
on a website?
If people interact between each other 
through a chat portal then
is that really considered sex?
And if someone got ahold of my scripts
and decided to brand the pages as
'naughty nice-folks' or some such
and let whoever at all come and post
whatever at all, then wouldn't it at some
point turn into dick and fart jokes?
Somewhere on some page somehow and with
naughty giggly horny people reading and
posting furiously there are
dick and fart jokes.


How do you say 'not here'?

Well, you need a moderator who will cut
out that crap.
Or you need the ability to flag 
users so that they can post and
see what they post but that
no one else can see it.
Or you need a filter that takes away
the naughty bits.  But then p e o p l e
will p o s t in a way where the
naughty words are not
p
i
c
k
ed

up.
So what is the point of a 'sex' filter?

One of the unkindest uses for a site
like this is the transmission of
illeagal content or for the 
dissemination of 'spy' messages.

People would love to be able
to insert viruses into other people's
machines through a website like this.

Another thing people would try to do 
is to hijack the clicks from a page
like this.  They would want to 'get hits'
from their site.

I don't want that either.

A lot to think about.  All of these are
'private notes' and yet I don't have a 
feature to flag as such.
Or a feature to allow for only these users 
to read this content.
Or a feature that excludes users.

I exclude users from posting by
not giving them a password.

If someone acts like a jerk then I will
remove their password.
No one pays me for access yet so I can
do what I want, and there are no
implied warrenties associated with
using these pages.


Another feature that I want to create is for users to 'get' their content back
if they want it back.

Lots to do but I want to let it germinate.
I have new non-trivial design ideas 
which need incubation.
A 'to-do' list.

The switching between the pages needs
improvement.  Maybe have more than just 
a global list of all pages
but instead a list for the specific user.

These pages could be used for a 
'seminar' where each user is given a 
page of hisorher own and then allowed
to 'do what cha-want' (as long as rules
of decency, developed within the community?)

And then a 'seminar leader' could emerge,
or the pages could be used to determine
and elect the leader or
to not have leaders . . .

Leaderless pages?
Aimless pages?  
Meaningless pages?

Meningless Posts that no boy cares to read?

Notes from a visit to a mueseum.


Students would each be assigned n
various displays and be given access
to a mobile wireless interface that 
allows them to input notes within the
mueseum.

The page then presents each students work
for the review of all other students.
Then students are assigned to review the
input of other students and request
for modification.

Students may flag other students and
then the flagging itself is reviewed.
Students then discuss the topic of when
it woudl be inappropriate to allow
someone to read or review a specific
item or text.

For example one can not take photos of
health care documents and review them
in a website post.

Or could one . . . 

Privacy issues come up and this presents
problems.
the exercise could help students to understand
the important concerns about personal privacy.

blah blah blah.

Hello World is a line from an early C Program

It is not a good thing that people get
so incredibly worked up about an issue
 like gay marriage.  I don't understand
the ruckus in that the people are still
able to love each other and care for
each other.
No one is going into the bedroom and
telling these people not to do what they
want to do.
No one is saying these folks can't have
domestic partners.
The issue is really, it seems to me, about 
the use of the word 'marriage' to mean
'union sanctioned by God and society
between a man and a woman'.
The word was redefined to mean a union
between any two people.
If we go around redefining the words that
we use to write our laws and we do this
without account of how real people (the
governed) feel then we risk the redefinition
of things to the point of 'equality' means
'diversity' ie: descriminate against
them tht's got based on precieved
minority status.  And that made it
possible for high-born Mexicans to
come to the US and qualify for low
cost bids on contracts because they
were 'mexican'.  Even millionaire children
of Mexicans did this and we gave away
our airwave rights to people who were
born in Mexico but not necessarily 
ethnic Chicano (Jewish Sicilian in one
case that I heard about).

Silly really, but that is what liberal
guilt did.
the redefinition of a common word is
another trick of teh limosene liberal set.
The word 'marriage' was chosen for
a redefinition.

And then all laws must be ammended
because there are people who rabble
rouse and demand their point of view
even when it goes against democratic 
processes.

I am not trying to be mean when I want
to use the word marriage to mean what it
used to mean.  I don't have a problem
with seeing the difference between
a male/male and a male/female and a 
female/female relationship.
There are languages that use gender
everywhere and nouns are given a gender
as well.
The agenda of gay marriage seems more
about inheritance, benifits, and insurance.  "I'm married to the Mayor, 
now give me his health insurance"

In that case I would say "I'm the 
domestic partner of the Mayor, now give
me his health insurance"  And I would allow
the law to make rules about gay (man to man), lesbian (man to woman), and straight (heterosexual).  The gay
marriage that is being forced upon us
would deny that there is a fundamental
difference between these types of relationships.

For example I would want to respect that
religious and traditional societies 
have no respect for the idea of a man/man or woman/woman 'marriage'.

But in the agenda of these people it doesn't
matter about tradition.  Break all tradition
is a basic rule of some rabble rousers.

I think that the 'gay' activasts have 
pushed things too far.  IT was not that
long ago that being gay meant that you
could get your head bashed.  And then
it was OK to be gay (happened over a 
period of years) and almost 'cool' (though
it was always hard.)

I know that people want to express their
lvoe for each other.  They want to have
that 'special other' and they want to
say that gender doesn't matter.
Maybe it is like that in Heaven, perhaps 
there is no gender.
But this isn't Heaven, this is Earth.
And on Earth there are very clear 
social issues that humans must deal with.
When we ignore these, like trying to
ignore the wishes of the Morman church,
do we not then craste strife and make 
life harder for everyone?

Gay marriage did not happen due to the
will of the people but was the product
of an activast court (in Massachusetts)
where appointed judges decided the issues
and then stonewalling by the legislature
disallowed a vote.
and then anyone who thought that a vote
would be useful and that they want to
use the word 'marriage' to be between
woman and man and 'civil union' to be
between gays or between lesbians.

No body ever said that gays can not love
each other.  No body is trying
to break up relationships or
criminalize domestic partnership.

But doesn't it seem odd that we are suppose
to pretend that millions of years of
human evolution do not exist or that
the male/female bond is one of the glues
that holds a lot of societies together.
We are suppose to imagine that 
relationships between a man and a man and
a womoan and a woman are exactly the same.

Well they are not and there might be cases
where laws are needed that only apply to
man/man or woman/woman and the way
that 'gay marriage' laws would be means
that governement would be prohibited to 
consider the differences.

Do I leave myself open for attack by
out of countrol cry-baby activasts?
They are picketing the Morman church?
Do not church members have a right
to have a voice in a vote?

again:  no one is telling gays to go
back into the closet.  And no one is
saying that they can't have civil
unions and equal benifits.

But that isn't enough.  They want to
reprogram the way everyone thinks.

That just makes the hate go underground.
That just gives bigots amunition.
a male/male is not the same as a male/female marriage and government and
the people ought to be able to say
this and make laws for each group
as needed and stop with the fantasy
that gender doesn't matter.

Gender does matter.  There are obvious
difference between the sexes.  Isn't
that why guys are gay?  Because they 
know there is a difference?  And
that is why they choose another man.  
If there were no
gender issues than nobody would be
gay, would they.  We would pair up
with whoever.
"Pick someone, any gender"
The gay young man says 'I want a man'.
So, you see, that gender does matter.
And the various relationships are very
different types.

Tollerence shouldn't be reserved
just for those people who one agrees
with and who knuckle under to activast
judges and cry-baby agenda mongering dupes.

God Bless the gays,
God Bless the straigts,
God Bless the Morman Church.

Comeon, people, let's get some sanity.

No one is telling you not to love 
each other.  So do that.  And stop
the hate against people who want
to allow government to consider gender
issues.  If there were not gender issues
you wouldn't want a guy when your gay
and you wouldn't want a gal when you're a lesbian.