Alright, got a few things to report today. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of trying out a MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) based on an anime series called Ragnarok. The software client to play is free (and 650MB), and so far as I can tell, the game is free (for at least 14 days). So, if you wanna play a cool 3D RPG, that is free (and not limited, except for time) go here and try it. And if you'd like to play along with me, just contact me through an IM program (details on left). A guy named Damien from the Netherlands helped me out, and we had a blast. You must have a broadband connection to play, so it would appear that 56k users are out-of-luck.

Also, Diane Walker has informed me that I will be going on the BPA trip. This is good news, as I enjoy the trip tremendously. I just need to figure out a few last details before I can totally confirm everything. I'm very excited, because I love downtown Indy, and it's always great to hang out with the former crazy guys.

Today, Bates and I tested out this Anti-Telemarketing Script. I think I did a good job executing it. Here is our transcript:

BB: Hello, is Mr. Chris Griffin in?
CG: To whom am I speaking?
BB: This is Joe Blow of Widget Advertising. We have a few questions to ask you.
CG: Could you spell your name for me please?
BB: J-O-E B-L-O-W
CG: Could you tell me how you found this phone number?
BB: Im just given the numbers, I don't know how they are collected.
CG: Oh, I see. And is this your full-time job?
BB: Why, no, its not.
CG: What else do you do for a living?
BB: I don't feel like I have to answer these questions.
CG: I can appreciate your hesitation Mr Joe Blow, however this is an important piece of information used for identification purposes and I will handle it with strict confidentiality. With that in mind, would you reconsider and provide me with the information?
BB: Absolutely not. Now, will you let me continue?
CG: Mr. Joe Blow, why don't you want to answer my question?
BB: Im the one asking the questions here, Im afraid
CG: Don't you like talking to me?
BB: Well, sure, but I didnt call to talk, I called to ask you some questions
BB: not vice versa
CG: Do you have a problem answering questions to a stranger on the telephone about which you don't know the purpose?
BB: Yes, yes I do
CG: I can appreciate your concern, but aren't you calling me?
BB: Yes
CG: Why don't we get back to my questions now? What else do you do for a living?
BB: I work at a highly reputable law firm.
CG: That's funny, my neighbor does the same thing!
CG: Do you also live in Evansville, Indiana?
BB: Well, no
CG: Where do you live?
BB: Louisville
CG: Oh, that's wonderful! And how long have you been in the telemarketing business?
BB: a few months
CG: That's not very long, do you like your job?
BB: well sure
CG: I think I would like this kind of job as well.
CG: How much do you earn?
BB: well, you can call my supervisor here at Widget Advertising and request an application
CG: I might do that! How much did you say you earn?
BB: I can not disclose that
CG: I'm sorry, hopefully I didn't offend you! Do you get time off for going to the dentist?
BB: I've had enough of your questions, we are going back to mine
CG: Why don't you want to answer my question?
BB: It pertains nothing to do with my call
CG: It most certainly does! I'm learning many wonderful things about your job! Can we get back to my questions now, I'm almost finished!
CG: Did you say that you do or do not get time off to visit the dentist?
BB: I don't know
CG: Is it important to have good teeth for your job?
BB: sure
CG: Which toothpaste would you recommend?
BB: the kind you put in your mouth
CG: Excellent! Thank you for your information, would you mind giving me your phone number in case I need additional information?
BB: I can not
CG: Alright, thank you and have a pleasant day, goodbye! *hangs up*

It was a fun experiment.

For lack of material, today's post will include a heated debate that I seemingly started and finished on somebody else's blog. Now I'm not trying to start up the debate again, but rather, thought that I would post the transcript to this debate which is a complete rip from a fellow blogger's comments sections. Last names have been removed to protect the (not-so?) innocent.

To setup a frame of reference, the discussion is about Michael Moore's film, "Bowling for Columbine". FYI, the Joshua that posted is NOT Josh Catt. Next, Josh sent a link to Kelli from an outside source saying that the film was garbage and full of erroneous facts. The person's name that made that claim was Dave Kopel. The movie suggests that we have a problem with violence and allegedly guns in this country. And our story begins...

Wow, I just feel like the Devil's Advocate today...

Dave Kopel's slant on Bowling for Columbine is a bit biased. Upon closer inspection of his Bio, one will notice that he is

• From Michigan
• Taught a class: Gun Control and Gun Rights
• A liberal who has worked for the Cato Institute

These all add up to somebody who would be deeply offended by Michael Moore's film. As any documentary would, the film was meant to convey a message. It did just that.
--chewtoy eleven

Part of my problem with Kopel's slant is that he presents a Rogerian argument against Moore. He pats Moore on the back for a good "mockumentary", while stabbing him in the back to discredit his message. I've seen interviews with Michael Moore and his personal perspectives on the film, he was serious when he made this film. Light pieces of humor are used to take it down a notch, just to relieve the audience occasionally. When you accuse somebody of being vigilant or gun-crazy, do you want to hear a scholar talk about how there isn't a problem, or would you rather see the types of people being discussed (i.e. The Michigan Militia).
--chewtoy eleven

Personal Opinion:

Let's examine Japan's gun laws. Their law is simple, guns are forbidden. Their crime rate is exponentially smaller than ours.

Our country wrote the constitution before there were police stations and country-wide enforcement agencies. This was a time when you were king of your own land, and should a threat trespass on your property, you had nobody to call. This is not the case anymore. Some may call Michael Moore a radical, but I would call him a realist.
--chewtoy eleven

amen!
--Em

whether or not Kopel has a "slant" to his criticisms, you can't say that his FACTS aren't true. michael moore is a radical, no one can dismiss that idea. just look at the titles of his books. he may have been trying to prove a point in his movie/documentary, whatever you wanna call it, and maybe some of what he said was good info, but the facts still prove that he was wrong in a lot of his statements. you don't have to read kopel's article to know that.
--Laura

You can't deny the true facts though, like how the NRA wasn't started right when the KKK was disbained, as it says in his movie, how the NRA did not hold a rally in Flint, MI the week after that little girl was shot, but instead 7 months later. And the many other things he said wrong. He also failed to mention that guns are totally illegal in countries such as the UK and Australia, unlike in America, hence the fact that they only have 65 deaths while we have 11,127 a year, not because we're a "violent" nation.
--Kelli

I am totally pro-guns. Now if you're talking about assault rifles, no. But I believe every man should have to right to protect himself and his family if he so chooses. Our country has not always had the best leadership, and have gotten ourselves into a lot of stupid wars that were really unneeded and threaten the lives of Americans. If some people feel safer knowing the are able to defend themselves if the need arises, so be it. If a country fails to allow its citizens to protect themselves, it seems more like a dictatorship to me.
--Kelli

Why is he obviously a radical laura? Just because he has his own idea different from the norm, suddenly you have to slap this title on him that he is a "RADICAL". If you ask me, his idea's deserve a fair look. I agree with chewtoy, I would call him a realist.
--Essel-P

It's odd that "chewtoy" criticizes Kopel for personal attacks (which isn't true) but then proceeds to offer just that against Kopel: personal criticisms.

Kopel's observations are not unique. Countless people have debunked Moore's erroneous movie, including the Academy Awards. It was one reason that most people don't even call it a documentary. To be a documentary, it must be true, and Moore's is simply not.
--Joshua

Another response:

In jest, "clearly I have stumbled onto the land of the conservative." While you may believe that we do not have a problem with violence in this country, I would beg to differ. I'm not even attempting to say that outlawing guns would completely solve the problem. In what way does outlawing a gun keep a man from defending his family? Death is not the only way to "protect" yourself. There may be times when death results, but do we really need a death first, questions later approach?

I think their definition of radical is "not conservative".
--chewtoy eleven

Direct Responses:

To Laura and Kelli:
My point that you might have missed is not whether or not Michael Moore's "facts" were accurate. It was questioning the credibility of somebody who attacks a good message. It's like putting "Santa Doesn't Exist!!!" all over the headlines, why?!

To Kelli:
Have you ever been threatened in real life with a gun? I have, and it doesn't make you feel any safer. Try living 2-blocks from Evansville's crime epicenter.
--chewtoy eleven

To Josh: Re-read my posts. I never criticized Dave Kopel directly. I made no personal attacks against him, I merely shed light on why I thought he attacked Michael Moore. We could argue all day about what points "must be true" to keep his film credible. If you say Michael Moore isn't credible, I'll buy that. If you say his message isn't sincere or just, I'll disagree. It's pretty simple really.
--chewtoy eleven

There ya go. The post for February 9, 2004.