When you go out and look at the stars at night, supposing that you can actually get a decent glimpse of those little suckers...you might be awed, you might be bored, you might feel tiny and insignificant, or this thought may not even cross your mind. When I look up at the stars I see a strange irony. I see mankind's pollution of the air which has blotted out the night sky, hence isolating us from the world beyond. This makes us more and more ignorant, or if not ignorant, then at least forgetful of the fact that there are worlds beyond our own. To the average human mind, there is the solar syster, and anything beyond that is taking a step into the unknown. We have no idea of conception of what lies beyond our world or even our reality. Some beleive that there's an all powerful God watching over us, some might beleive that there are planets with intelligent life on them, I beleive that its best that we fragile little people try not to conceive what lies beyond. The fragility of the human mind means that to discover some terrible truth, like for instance, our solar system is really just a tiny glass ball inside the basket of a monstrous, all powerful being which enjoys eating these balls once a millenia, and ours is next...This is just an example but I beleive that there are things out there that man isnt meant to understand. For instance, the cosmos themselves destroy everything that human society stands for. By looking up at the stars you can realize that there very well could be no God and that therefore, everything you do is judged not by an all powerful being but by other human beings like yourself. Things like good and evil no longer apply to you any more, because these are concepts created by human beings to govern your behaviour. A Buddhist monk once said that all conflict amongst ourselves would cease if we could realise "the fact of our own death". Monks of this caliber used to go to funerals to watch the dead being burned so that they could frighten the bejeezus out themselves and gain a more objective focus of reality. Once you realize the same things as these Buddhist monks, then everything becomes transitory. You realize how utterly wasteful and stupid are wars and indeed all human conflict in general. But this realization could have a negative side as well. Once you realize the fact of your own death you may very well begin to think "whats the point of striving if I'm just going to die, whats the point of sacrificing and working hard and giving up time if in the end I'm just going to die and all this will have been worthless." While this is slightly exaggerated, this could very well be the attitude that someone who realizes this might think. Then of course you would come back to reality and then you would begin to think that it is all worth doing because it means that you could leave a legacy behind for others to follow. Ultimately, I think that some questions are too deep to ponder on for too long, the key is to just enjoy life and to use to fact that you'll one day die to increase your enjoyment of the time you have.

hmmmm...Freinds are a funny thing. I've had these kinds of thoughts before as well. Some people who have freinds that they consider to be close to them and who suddenly turn against them over what seems to be something small and inconsequential are the ones who dont seem to understand that even though they had a fair amount of feeling towards that person who was once their freind, they just need to realize that the person in question is finally showing their true colors and as such maybe its better that they're not your freind anymore. Freinds who are the closest to you and are usually likely to be the closest are the ones that you hung with in childhood. For some reason, these people are more like family than just your freinds, and I dont mean those who you've simply known from childhood and on but those who you actually had a good time with and with whom you made a conscious effort to pal with. The funny thing about the relationships between people is that they're often based on give and take. How many times have you heard someone say that they will do something for you but they expect a little something in return. They may not mention this at first, but sometimes they do have it in mind. I'm sure true freinds wouldnt do this kind of thing but I know that there are many who do. In any case...I think that a real freindship is one that you dont have to 'work at', as it simply occurs naturally and smoothly. In the end, when you go off to University you find new people that you can call freinds and these people sometimes take priority. But I will say from personal experience. All those Unionville buddies that I left behind when I came here are still just as close to me as they ever were. I cant say that their importance in my life has dwindled at all. Even though I've got 'my own life now' I still make plenty of time for those people. Of course. the fact that they live right down the street from me is also a help too ;)

"The most beautiful discovery that true friends can make is that they can grow separately without growing apart."
-- Elizabeth Foley

Ok, it's kinda funny that Karen just made the disclaimer "this is going to sound really. really. really. really harsh. but i don't mean it in a mean way, but it's definitely something to think about" because in a sense, that's about the same disclaimer I'm about to make in response to her post. Like the disclaimer, no hard feelings here people.

Karen, you posed the question "I've drifted from close friends due to life circumstances.. but that's okay. does it mean i don't care about them?"

As harsh as this may sound too, let me be honest. Does it mean you don't care about them? No, not necessarily. It means you don't care enough. I've known it to happen too. There are people who I used to be good friends with. By no means would I ever say "I don't care about them" because I do. But, if someone asked me, "how much do you care about them" my answer if I were to be brutally honest would be "not that much." See what I mean? There's a difference. Saying "I still care about you, but I've got my own life now" I think can be almost the same as "You're not part of my life but I care about you enough that if you needed to be for a bit, I'll let you in but once you've done your thing, leave"

And again, I'll be honest. If it was indeed true that people not calling being a common occurance means that I'm not a priority in their life, I have no friends with the exception of Elaine.

Period. No questions asked, Elaine would be my only close friend on the face of this planet. And while that thought doesn't really scare me as much you might think, I'd like to think I have a little bit more faith in people like Grant, David, Omair, Dulcinea, Rachel, and Jessica and per example, I'm pretty sure I'm a little bit higher on Grant's priority list than his lack of calling may indicate, although if I'm mistaken in this Grant, feel free to correct me.

If a relationship is unbalanced, get out. That's usually my adage and I swear to you, if I ever felt that my friendship with any of those people listed above WAS unbalanced, I'd get out. Not unbalanced in the sense that they don't call me because like I said, that may just be inherent laziness or immaturity, but an actual imbalance of the whole friendship, I'd get out. I did so with Stephanie because something like that is unhealthy.

And look, I've turned this post into something a bit more personal that I had originally intended... but that's ok. I was citing more from just my personal life cause I've seen it happen with other people as well. In a friendship, you don't doubt first; you trust first.

okay, so as i was starting to say on JonWong's post on April 15:

"this is going to sound really. really. really. really harsh. but i don't mean it in a mean way, but it's definitely something to think about..

you feel short-changed. but if that sort of thing, where they don't call to initiate plans.. if it occurs constantly, you ever think that maybe you're not a priority in their life? that you're not as close a friend to them than you'd like to think? and that "knowing you're gonna call" is only but a part of it?

i mean, there are different levels of close friends right..

oh fuck this, i'm posting on thereallygoodblog lol.."

okay, so what i was saying..

as you probably know, there are different levels of friendship.. and that goes for having different levels of close friendships too, and what each one means to you.

there are those close friends you have that are just.. there. you've probably gone thru shit together at one point in your life, and at that point you really needed each other.. and now you still care very much for each other.. but it just doesn't click as well anymore. you've found friends that you get along with better. now whether or not that's the case for both parties is a different story. but i personally know that.. i've got close friends that mean trust to me, and always will equal trust. i know that they'll always be there, and that i can always talk to them. but i don't.. hang out with them. why? because i have other ppl in my life at the moment, other ppl i get along with better, other ppl i would probably have a better time with, on top of being able to trust them just the same. and it sounds horrible, but that's the fact of the matter, you know.. you've just grown out of them.

i know i've drifted from close friends due to life circumstances.. but that's okay. does it mean i don't care about them? no. what it does mean is that they are no longer an immediate priority in my life; they are no longer the people i call when i go out, or when i just feel like talking, or when i've got a problem. they are my friends...

ahhh i can't think of another way to put this without sounding like a neglectful bitch.

then again, this sort of explanation only sounds bitchy if the relationship is unbalanced, you know? like if i drifted from ppl... but they haven't grown out of me or let go of me yet, then it's a harsh reality to take when i say "i still care about you, but i've got my own life now". you know? i'm not sure if it applies to your life, Jon, but i know it certainly applies to mine.

hmm.. Jon, i hope you're not thinking that we've -condemned- your actions or anything, because i certainly haven't, nor do i think David has. because just as you have always encouraged, we've merely voiced our opinion over your retaliation, and luckily, it's turned into a lively debate.

to clarify some things.. i didn't think much about your actual post that named the villain, really. my first thought was "ooh snap!" as you can easily recall from my comment left for that post. so basically, i saw it.. grinned, and left it.

the point of me saying all this is in reaction to your post that was written in response to David's about self-image and what not, and my point comes from my own interpretation of the relevance of these comments to our lives, period. coming from me, who merely found them petty and immature, i feel that these goons aren't worth caring about, to say the least.

of course, i'm not gonna say we were right in assuming that you were fire-breathing angry, although your post really DID sound very spiteful and full of venom (in comparison to Grant's, whose was evidently done in a Maddox style humour).

say you really were that angry. no, i would not condemn, but yes, as a friend i would try and discourage that anger, because it's not healthy to pay attention to such idiots from Laurier. and i wouldn't compare this with defending a religion either, because a shot at religion is a shot at someone's fundamental beliefs, and is far more personal in magnitude than a comment on a blog when the guys had nothing better to do, you know? yes, maliciousness is not right at any rate, but to what degree are you going to pay attention to contempt? we're going to be faced with all levels of insults, and i'm sure we've all experienced it to some extent. we've been teenagers, we've had to put up with bullshit. but the point here is that to what degree are they worth paying attention to?

and that is why, if you really were fire-breathing angry at the no-lifes from Laurier (who, like i said, are probably getting a boner off this debate) then as a friend i would discourage it. i can't stop you of course, how you react to anything is obviously up to you, but yes, discourage it i will... because when we look at their relevance in our lives, they're really not.. all that relevant. at all. and not worth wasting our energy being angry.

but yea, since you WEREN'T that angry, then.. um.. yea. sorry again for assuming =P

Here's the root of it. First of all, let's get something straight. At the very beginning of this whole fiasco, when the first messages were written, Grant and I were not mad or even really angry in any form. This has happened before. I'm sure everyone remembers that at regular intervals, people we don't know will find out about our blogs, and say malicious things in our commenting system. Like I said, this is nothing new in what happened. What is new however, was how we were able to react to it.

Grant and I, when we read those messages, took on nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING more than a "oh boy, here we go again with the stupid comments." But this time, something was different. This time, we had the means and ability to delve deeper into it. We didn't have to just sit there and wait it out like we used to, there was a "hey, we can have some fun with it" because our commenting system allowed us to track IP addresses. So we did and we found out that not only did they all have the same IP address, but they were almost the exact same as David's. The meant only one thing, that they were Laurier students because they're all connected the Laurier server.

Here was a Golden opportunity. We KNEW enough about them (ie. that it's the same person and that he/she's from Laurier) to be able to say something. In fact, examine what we wrote about them the first time. Grant wrote something about sleeping with their mothers and killing their dogs for fun. Was that Grant in a paroxysm of anger? No, that was Grant typing something serious when in fact, as soon as he wrote it, he messaged me and said "lol Jon, check out what I've written on David's blog." And what was my response? It was a slightly ridiculing "I'm sorry but you'll have to do better than that next time". That too was written, not because I was in a paroxsym of anger, but because I wanted to let them know how pathetic they are.

So what really escalated in anything actually emotional about all this? Like Grant said, there are a lot of things you can laugh off, but things that are done with recognizable contempt and maliciousness are not one of those things. Grant minimizes what was written on his blogger and says that what was written on mine was wrong. I say the opposite and minimize what was written on my blogger and say that what was written on his was wrong. Truth is that because they were both written with a spiteful intent, they were both equally wrong, but Grant and I, having some deranged tendency to put each other before ourselves, were indignant that the other was insulted. But that doesn't change the fact that what they wrote was inappropriate and meant to harm.

What bothered me was that far from seeing our responses as what they really were (ie. rational, cold-blooded mockery of whoever the Laurier dude was), everyone else saw it "unnecessary hassle" for something that "wasn't worth our time." David, you said "Jon, I think there is a considerable difference between venting about the pointlessness of religion, and venting because of the reason you are." What do you think my reason for venting is? I am standing up for a principle *I* believe in; that deliberately trying to hurt someone is WRONG. This is no different than you standing up for a principle *you* believe in; that religion is the opium for the masses.

This was not an unnecessary hassle, nor was it something that wasn't worth our time. Grant and I stood for a principle; that deliberate spite is wrong... we did so in cold blood and without actually feeling any resentment towards the guy from Laurier. In fact, he's allowed us to spurn this new debate on this blog. Where the emotional parts came in was when it occurred to me that nobody respected this; that everyone assumed that we wrote what we did because we were angry. Everyone just told us to let it go and to go with the flow. I've gone with the flow before. I've done it during times when we were joking, when it was for the better good of everyone, when the intent was good. But I will NOT go with the flow when it contradicts a fundamental principle I believe in. Deliberate, spiteful comments, impersonations, intentionally devaluing who people are what they enjoy are wrong and I will stand up for it.

this is where i would beg to differ, Jon.

"Yes it was worth it because if you don't stand up for yourself, people are going to walk all over you."

walk all over you, how? in cyberspace? ouch.

..sorry, i'm being snide.. i didn't really mean to be, i swear -.-"

it's good of you to defend Grant, i applaud your loyalty. but i mean, if they were assholes in person, then i can see the point in taking them seriously (sort of), but over the internet is a little bit unnecessary. it's not like our words are gonna enlighten them in any way, anyhow.. they're probably laughing that they succeeded in pissing you off. besides, what makes you think they're so entertained by us that they'd come back?

oh wait, they're probably getting a boner from seeing us talk about them, so let's stop. like.. now. =)