As a performer (and looking at it from the guy's point of view) I don't think he was infatuated with his own performance and unaware... he was trying to keep the "scene" going as well.

He wasn't the one in pain but it's still the same show must go on mentality she was operating under. From my experience one's aware of pretty much everything when in performance mode and trying to tune out most of it. The big rule is you can't say oh hell let's stop this now - it breaks the social contract between performer and audience.

In this case there would have also been feedback from the floor producer exhorting them to carry the hell on.

Getting together with someone for the first time sober is seriously scary. On the other hand, one's much happier with one's choice.

@zuzu

Badoom *tish*!

To quote:

"Zuzu, are you being flippant? Naughty."

@Antinous, hear hear. Good to be reminded that adulthood has a wider scope than what goes on in our pants.

Reading the comments I pondered the "romantic interlude" as mentioned in #8... curiously I think GTI:SA for me fulfills that purpose as well as any game I've played.

No, I'm not talking about the hot coffee (sic?) mod, I'm talking about the unlockable bonuses which required the regular taking out of one's girlfriends on dates.

Admittedly in ludic terms, the romance was a means not the end (from memory one could gain such benefits as not losing one's weapons on being arrested), but all the same the dynamics were well played out - driving around gas stations trying to find a flower... being in a nightclub, trying to dance well enough to impress, getting steps wrong and feeling cheesed off but carrying on anyways to win the gal on the night... (no gay option unfortunately but oh well...)

And what is true romance? Well I've been with my other half for ten years as of this month; I'm still learning.

Perhaps the reasons why sexual content in gaming is so problematic - it'll always be reductionist compared to exploring our real sexual selves.

@antinous - fair enough, I understand you have to make the call in a live situation. It was just my first disemvowelling (albeit not for making racist remarks) so having a bit more explanation of your position is appreciated.

Sorry, Antinous! Got your name wrong (not intentionally).

OK, Chris -- If you weren't making a racist comment, then I'm sorry. I should not have said that.

@Mark - thank you. Your contribution to this site is one of the things I enjoy the most. I'm heartened to see you could admit mistake.

@Antonius - now that Mark's had the generosity to apologise for his error, can't you see that actually the discussion following might just have been valid?

'm wndrng hw t fls t hv th sprpwr t b bl t tll wht knd f mnd smn hs bsd n sngl cmmnt t pst.

Mrk, tht knd f grndstndng s wht n xpcts frm ppl cmng hr t flm. Y'r fxtr nd ftr hr - cld y hv thght bfr y cmmntd?

I have trained myself to treat people as ignored without having to ignore them - initially I used whatever version of an ignore function was available on whatever discussion forum, but I found that putting the effort into activating an ignore function was more than it was worth; far better to focus on the positive people and recognise the trolls with a rueful smile.

A nice technique is to respond to them with "OH YEAH??? WELL WELCOME TO IGNORE. POPULATION: YOU!!!!!" or similar, and then never pay them the slightest attention again. They'll never seek a response from you either, and will assume that you've used the ignore function.

It's reverse social hacking. They're using techniques to make me draw further into their drama, I use a technique to make them exclude me from it.

The art is nice in a COOP wannabe (minus the delicious zaftigs) kind of a way... the glitter just makes me feel vaguely nauseous I'm afraid.

If there were a way to rehabilitate glitter art this could well be it, but ultimately I have to give it the big thumbs down for myself.

Then again I'm of the opinion that umpty million bebo users CAN be wrong.

I've got to say if we look at the basic economic relationship as a contract what we have is a party defining conditions in which the contract, for them, ceases to operate.

Given that AT&T as a big telephone monopoly is a thing of the decades-long past I can't see consumers being severely penalised by this policy should they wish to flout it and take the risk.

Therefore what we have is simply a piece of bad policy turning into bad PR, as is often the case.

On a side note - Joeh, you're trying to tell yourself you're making a strong case about the oppressive injustice of those eeeeevil boingboing moderators... really you're just having some free time on your hands and wanting some attention.

With that in mind, congratulations, you've achieved your goal. Perhaps you should apply to work at the AT&T marketing dept to give them some pointers on how to achieve a positive result with that policy position.

Tune in next week when AT&T spams up the boingboing comments and reaps the harvest.