Eva Mathews


Brant Gaede

Recommended Posts

Even in the age of Wikipedia, it is impossible that Eva Mathews is a 20yo college student.

--Brant

too much about too much and college students surely prefer other venues and surely need all the time they can get to study for up to 18 course hours a semester--or what have you

she hasn't posted on R of R since March 2, the date Joe Rowlands put her into Dissent, and she tells us she was oblivious to what Joe did?

starting in very late December, she put up over 400 posts there, what college student cares about that kind of thing or has the time?

I don't think she's Victor Pross except for her indefatigable energy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even in the age of Wikipedia, it is impossible that Eva Mathews is a 20yo college student.

--Brant

too much about too much and college students surely prefer other venues and surely need all the time they can get to study for up to 18 course hours a semester--or what have you

I'm a senior, actually, & I try to contribute to Wiki, in an altruistic spirit of sharing

I know a lot of psych & physics because of mom & dad, who both do research & teach.

And because i scored ex-hi in math at 14, I've been helping mom with coding & stat method.

This likewise gives me an understanding of the math of physics.

My spinoffs are philo & the lit theory that my best friend, Sissy, constantly yammers about when she's not trying to become the first under- 20 Nobel laureate in poetry.

Re other interests. far too many spend a lot of useless time hanging. OTH, when I'm with friends, we do. For example, last night was 'Medea'--i arguing endlessly afterwards over the theme; she was called 'Medea' , the 'medean' as an outsider (ektos). this was lost on the americanized-modern interpretation which makes her out for revenge for infidelity.

What I find most disgusting is how middel amerika judges everyone & everything else by its incredibly low standards. Foe example, you expect me to be & behave like an 'average 20-year old despite a background clearly to the contrary .

Well, Meno ektos to that. Otherwise, i'm developing a thesis that Rand herself was just playing a game to earn money, and meant nothing of what she said or wrote. I'llpost when i accumulate sufficient evidence.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'llpost when i accumulate sufficient evidence.

EM

Good idea.

I would suggest that you inform yourself about the probitive PROBATIVE [EDIT: Can't believe I've misspelling this word for decades] value of evidence as well as the standards of evaluating same.

So far, I am under impressed, however, you might be able to get better at it.

Here's a free head start...

I kept it to your grade level...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find most disgusting is how middel amerika judges everyone & everything else by its incredibly low standards. Foe example, you expect me to be & behave like an 'average 20-year old despite a background clearly to the contrary .

EM

The average 20 yo maintains a balance between grossly ignorant and mildly stupid. I don't recall putting you into such a categorization. It would be silly on the face of it.

What is "middel amerika"? My(?) "incredibly low standards"? "Disgusting"?

Do you expect to learn anything here or just wash the great unwashed? You are not Promethius bringing us fire. You bring us lecture after lecture. And they are not interesting.

OL is about thinking. No one here, save maybe you, has the slightest idea what you are about--here. You treat this forum as if it was a horse to ride begging the questions of where you are coming from or going to, much less why, why and why.

Your online behavior is generally destructive to where you are because it's all about you and your incredibly vast store of partially digested knowledge*. That does sort of mark you as a 20yo.

--Brant

*I am not commenting on your math skills

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence is indeed prohibitive to the cognatively dissonant.

re cartoon: I suppose the message is that to a ten year old, 'A=A' and 'existence exists' sounds profoundly philosophical.

Likewise, a juvenile would be impressed with saying things like 'consciousness is axiomatic'--Wow! just like triangles 'n stuff!!.

Then he/she will hopefully go to college and learn that all this--if accepted by adults-- is philosophy gone retarded.

Rand, however, never believed this stuff for a moment. She was a smart, well educated kid from a good Petrograd family who instilled in her the European virtues of rational skepticism. Belief in systems is what royalty, peasants and workers did.

For me and mine it's the same, looking upon middel amerika as a mass of consumers who want something to believe in order to make their otherwise worthless lives meaningful. So i understand her well.

Rand's moral education came with two violent intellectual ruptures of the sort that shakes one out of a dogmatic slumber.

First, at 15, there was the confrontation with Hawthorne and Hester. To her delightful dismay, Rand discovered that only one in twenty students understand the true heroism of Ms Prynne. The other 19 students, sanctimonious fools that they are, will judge her character in absolutes of black and white: they simply didn't understand Hawthorne.

'So this is Amerika', thought our young Russian princess, so now, how can I possibly make some rubles by writing what they want to hear, da?

Then came screenwriting. Perhaps her head was filled with Pudovkin, Eisenstein, and German impressionism--the cinema of interrogation.

Then told by the moguls who ran Hollywood that what we're writing is entertainment, not questioning or messages, she quickly changed her tune to happy endings, but with an interesting twist.

Having been raised on Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Rand cleverly integrated the 'higher thematic' with existential angst. And of course, this being Amerika, what 'higher' purpose is served other than the pursuit of wealth? Enter the individual struggling against social norms in order to become rich!

So my thesis begins with two facts:

* Rand's background was rational-skeptic, and she never changed. Rather , to make money she wrote to appeal to the morally self-righteous for whom ethics exist as an objective principle.

* that she was a Hollywood screen writer says enough. hapy endings and strong, assertive heroes is what's produced.

The skill of Rand was to transfer her talents to novels, where her work became schlock, and to philosophy, where it became nonsense. Yet lucrative, which was the point.

This ends part one of my thesis, Who is Ayn rand? Or, never give a sucker an even break.. More to come....

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not even a digressive dog leg, Eva, that's another thread.

--Brant

now you're behaving like a bully--that explains your last post--in fact you've revealed yourself to be a bully to your audience and where you post--a very angry one--and it's not just directed at us but at Ayn Rand, someone you know very little about while telling us about her: I can't tell if you are a communmist or a libertarian but you're no kind of Objectivist at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence is indeed prohibitive to the cognatively dissonant.

Now you reading skills are also subject, unfortunately right along side of my lack of spelling skills!

Probative ...

One key element for the admission of evidence is whether it proves or helps prove a fact or issue. If so, the evidence is deemed probative. Probative evidence establishes or contributes to proof.

Probative facts are data that have the effect of proving an issue or other information. Probative facts establish the existence of other facts. They are matters of evidence that make the existence of something more probable or less probable than it would be without them. They are admissible as evidence and aid the court in the final resolution of a disputed issue. For example, in the case of a motor vehicle accident, a witness's testimony that she saw one automobile enter the

intersection on a red light is a probative fact about whether the driver was at fault.

Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue. However, probative value may refer to whether the evidence is admissible. Rules of evidence generally state that relevant evidence, which tends to prove or disprove an alleged fact, may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. A trial court must use a Balancing test to make this determination, but rules of evidence generally require that relevant evidence with probative value be excluded only if it is substantially outweighed by one of the dangers described in the rule.

The rest of your post was so amusing that I can't for you to show us the evidence of your primary assumptions of what was occuring in the mind of a five (5) to eight (8) year old Russian Jewish Athiest.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my thesis begins with two facts:

* Rand's background was rational-skeptic, and she never changed. Rather , to make money she wrote to appeal to the morally self-righteous for whom ethics exist as an objective principle.

* that she was a Hollywood screen writer says enough. hapy endings and strong, assertive heroes is what's produced.

The skill of Rand was to transfer her talents to novels, where her work became schlock, and to philosophy, where it became nonsense. Yet lucrative, which was the point.

This ends part one of my thesis, Who is Ayn rand? Or, never give a sucker an even break.. More to come....

EM

This is very interesting. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my thesis begins with two facts:

* Rand's background was rational-skeptic, and she never changed. Rather , to make money she wrote to appeal to the morally self-righteous for whom ethics exist as an objective principle.

* that she was a Hollywood screen writer says enough. hapy endings and strong, assertive heroes is what's produced.

The skill of Rand was to transfer her talents to novels, where her work became schlock, and to philosophy, where it became nonsense. Yet lucrative, which was the point.

This ends part one of my thesis, Who is Ayn rand? Or, never give a sucker an even break.. More to come....

EM

This is very interesting. :blink:

Many thanks. More to come. Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now you're behaving like a bully

Brant,

That's no bully. That's a loudmouth hack with no punch.

Who reads that stuff? You? Me? Another whole five people?

Do like this. Imagine that post being published for purchase. Even tidied up.

Bestseller material? A mover of hearts and minds?

Heh.

A real world-shaker, that one.

:smile:

This is very interesting. :blink:

Noemi,

I certainly hope so.

Lots of people thought you were her.

Some probably still do.

Except she's in Georgia and you live near where I do.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not even a digressive dog leg, Eva, that's another thread.

--Brant

now you're behaving like a bully--that explains your last post--in fact you've revealed yourself to be a bully to your audience and where you post--a very angry one--and it's not just directed at us but at Ayn Rand, someone you know very little about while telling us about her: I can't tell if you are a communmist or a libertarian but you're no kind of Objectivist at all

Actually, my point is that I deeply respect her. She did what she had to do to earn a living in a time and place that was dripping with anti-Jewish, anti-women and xenophobic hatreds.

She gave the rubes what they wanted to hear, and made lots on money doing so. 'Hardly anger, but rather delight on my part.

So no, a communist would have denounced her as a liar. Rather. yes, I'm a pragmatic libertarian who's been trying to dialogue my way through Objectivist philosophy by asking a lot of hard questions. After all, you Objectivites are 'spozed to be allies, yes?

And i get called a 'bully' for my efforts...and worse, a term mis-appropriated from the guy whose work directs half of my own (Kahneman)? When will the injustice end?

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The skill of Rand was to transfer her talents to novels, where her work became schlock, and to philosophy, where it became nonsense. Yet lucrative, which was the point.

I have enjoyed most of the nose-tweaking and fanny-paddling you have done over at RoR, Eva, and a number of the entries you have made here. Your posts show a confidence in swinging the axe of criticism -- even if those wounded by your axe were hardly needing such attacks, or so many whacks.

I must mention though that here as elsewhere in the Objectivish online world, boundaries are drawn deeply, and defended with great enthusiasm. You will cross these otherwise invisible boundaries whenever you take a whack at what makes other folks gather: a high regard for Ayn Rand in all her areas of accomplishment.

This is a long-winded way of saying that folks will be outraged here over comments that "out there" would pass without a word.

It offends folks to take issue with Rand, to undermine her genius, to slag her and her works.

I am by no means an Objectivist, finding Rand's psychology to be crude and unwarranted, but I do understand a bit about groups dynamics, having been posting (as a critic of Objectivism) since 2005.

Folks are going to get wound up about your interjections here. If this is your aim, have at it. If you on the other hand want to engage with others, you will likely need more than one 'voice' or register.

Here is Brant making it personal, assigning you to the bad side of the ledger, and essentially trying to insult you off the board, or to at least rope you and bridle you, in an effort to make you observe the verities. You strike the bone when you subtly or not-so-subtly imply that those who follow Rand or rank her high in the Pantheon are rubes, dullards or cult members.

All in all, this is an officially welcoming place (as evidenced by MSK, forum owner and policeman, and welcome wagoneer), but at times a pretty insular bunch. It does not take too many jabs at Rand for the bristles to stiffen and for discussion to be degraded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now you're behaving like a bully

Brant,

That's no bully. That's a loudmouth hack with no punch.

Who reads that stuff? You? Me? Another whole five people?

Do like this. Imagine that post being published for purchase. Even tidied up.

Bestseller material? A mover of hearts and minds?

Heh.

A real world-shaker, that one.

:smile:

This is very interesting. :blink:

Noemi,

I certainly hope so.

Lots of people thought you were her.

Some probably still do.

Except she's in Georgia and you live near where I do.

:smile:

Michael

Dear fellow Rand-lovers,

Actually, I do intend to publish the worked-upon version, entitled, 'Who is Ayn Rand? Therefore, your comments 'qua' Objectivist are welcome.

Wth sincere thanks for your anticipated comments and constructive critism, Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The skill of Rand was to transfer her talents to novels, where her work became schlock, and to philosophy, where it became nonsense. Yet lucrative, which was the point.

I have enjoyed most of the nose-tweaking and fanny-paddling you have done over at RoR, Eva, and a number of the entries you have made here. Your posts show a confidence in swinging the axe of criticism -- even if those wounded by your axe were hardly needing such attacks, or so many whacks.

I must mention though that here as elsewhere in the Objectivish online world, boundaries are drawn deeply, and defended with great enthusiasm. You will cross these otherwise invisible boundaries whenever you take a whack at what makes other folks gather: a high regard for Ayn Rand in all her areas of accomplishment.

This is a long-winded way of saying that folks will be outraged here over comments that "out there" would pass without a word.

It offends folks to take issue with Rand, to undermine her genius, to slag her and her works.

I am by no means an Objectivist, finding Rand's psychology to be crude and unwarranted, but I do understand a bit about groups dynamics, having been posting (as a critic of Objectivism) since 2005.

Folks are going to get wound up about your interjections here. If this is your aim, have at it. If you on the other hand want to engage with others, you will likely need more than one 'voice' or register.

Here is Brant making it personal, assigning you to the bad side of the ledger, and essentially trying to insult you off the board, or to at least rope you and bridle you, in an effort to make you observe the verities. You strike the bone when you subtly or not-so-subtly imply that those who follow Rand or rank her high in the Pantheon are rubes, dullards or cult members.

All in all, this is an officially welcoming place (as evidenced by MSK, forum owner and policeman, and welcome wagoneer), but at times a pretty insular bunch. It does not take too many jabs at Rand for the bristles to stiffen and for discussion to be degraded.

William,

Thanks for your kind and constructive advice.

I have no ulterior motive. Rather I'm bringing into this forum the same hardball zeitgeist that I encounter at college. But here, unlike college, people are permitted to stonewall, their hostile comments not withstanding.

re hostility: Three years ago, as a seventeen year old freshman, a rather huge guy choked me from behind with is forearm, in an attempt to rape me. This last fact was made clear by his thingy hanging out of his unzipped pants: it's amazing how hard that erection can get when you're dead! Likewise, what boots and concrete can do to a skull.

In short, after that physical attack, I can handle the verbal sticks n stones & give back what I got. And if someone says anything about my family, i'll give them more.

My first goal is to dialogue with Rand-followers, in order to learn more. My second is to measure their pov against my own, obviously brainwashed at Dust Bunny U. This is important because of the mutual hostility between colleges and Rand, as if they speak two separate languages.

So i'm for a reconciliation, of sorts, yet acknowledge that there will be none if the hard questions aren't asked. To this end, I'll only quit prodding when I finally decide that Randism is totally worthless, and by consequence should be looked upon as a a cult activity. Hopefully, this will not happen.

And if it were only a coding activity, I could have gotten sufficient data from just going on site and observing. This is not a psycho-anthropological field trip.

Lastly, you're the third person who's written me about the fissile element, although the first to suggest that Randism is 'fissile' by intent. The demerit to this behavior is to cultify the group by driving people away. We can therefore assume that many more out there are intimidated because they're simply not as used to the verbal rough and tumble I am. So is this the intent of the site administrator?

Sincerely, Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, my point is that I deeply respect her...

...She gave the rubes what they wanted to hear, and made lots on money doing so. 'Hardly anger, but rather delight on my part.

So you respect someone who would lie for money by pretending to promote ideals in which they don't actually believe. Do you realize you've just revealed you would do the same? The irony is that even if you said something you subjectively believed to be a lie, but was objectively good and right and true, it would still better the life of anyone who believed your "lie".

So this is my response to the long odds of your proving Ayn Rand to be a liar for money. For even if a liar speaks the truth, it is still the truth, though it will never morally benefit the liar.

If nothing else, you'll generate some entertaining discussion and even that can be of value. :smile:

The internet is virtual anonymous interactive public television, so no actual harm can come to anyone regardless of what words might appear on their monitor. So as long as the discussions remain within the boundaries of decency, it should be fun.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not take too many jabs at Rand for the bristles to stiffen and for discussion to be degraded.

William,

It's not the jabs against Rand.

Michael Prescott can make outright whacks at Rand and it works. See Reversalism: A Philosophy for Living It Up. (It's also on his blog here. I find that hilarious. Some on the Rand side criticize me for laughing. But dammit, it's funny. :smile: )

The thing is Michael knows how to write.

Man, that got me thinking. It's been a while since I've talked to him. I might go engage him on his blog in a few days. He's a good dude.

The issue with this girl is she doesn't write well. The only thing she does is call people names to get some heat going. That works, but it's a brush fire. A couple of minutes pass and it's out. People move on.

You and I are on different sides of an intellectual divide, but I know you have the ability to step out of the core Progressive storyline and isolate the effectiveness of what's going on. (I have the same ability on my end.) Do that and read some of her writing and come to your own conclusions.

From my view, it's not the bashing or even the name-calling.

It's the mediocrity.

That's the problem.

One of the main writing errors people of this persuasion make (but not all--there are some very good Progressive writers, frankly some very good anti-Rand writers of many different stripes**) is they keep themselves in their writing. They practically laugh at their own jokes--constantly. Their subtext is never a complement to their message, which good writers know how to do, but instead "Look how clever I am, look how I can pooh pooh my target, wasn't that last one just the mostest?" (snigger snigger...)

And the more they do this, the more they fall into bashing the caricature stereotypes presented on the Progressive side. I believe this is because the only people paying attention after a while are sparring partners and the church choir, and they resonate more when stereotypes get trashed than at other times. (Yeah, I know. That's true for some mediocrities on my side, too.)

I know you see this in bad writers. With your brain, you have to. And it's boring.

It's not just bashing and sniggering, either. Daniel Barnes, for a great example, is always welcome on OL. I like him. (I probably satirized him a little too hard for his comfort, so it's been a while, but he's a big boy and can take it. He sure dishes it out. :smile: ) Now this guy's a Rand basher and sniggerer par excellence. The thing is he writes well. Maybe not a great writer, but good. He knows how to engage the reader by being interesting, not just snarky.

I've caught this girl cheating and faking a few times so she can pretend to win an argument and make posture. That's a big deal in my world for keeping my respect. (You, for instance, I respect. We disagree a lot, but I could never imagine you making shit up to win an argument. You always come well sourced and well-reasoned.) What's worse, the girl has gotten to the Monty Python black knight level a few times. I just don't see future in that, so I've stopped taking it seriously.

She's young and can learn, but those are some pretty serious bad habits. For myself, I've lost interest in engaging with her. I'm getting too old to keep swatting the flies of stubborn mediocrity. The only reason I'm discussing this right now is because the issue of talent itself is interesting and she's here in people's faces for the moment. It's a case study of sorts.

Michael

** You yourself are an excellent writer and you just sit on your talent for some damn reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Brant making it personal, assigning you to the bad side of the ledger, and essentially trying to insult you off the board, or to at least rope you and bridle you, in an effort to make you observe the verities. You strike the bone when you subtly or not-so-subtly imply that those who follow Rand or rank her high in the Pantheon are rubes, dullards or cult members.

All in all, this is an officially welcoming place (as evidenced by MSK, forum owner and policeman, and welcome wagoneer), but at times a pretty insular bunch. It does not take too many jabs at Rand for the bristles to stiffen and for discussion to be degraded.

Now William, it's all personal. Always has been on all the boards I've ever posted on and with everybody. You're no exception, to say the least. And as if I of all people was a Randroid. My "bully" remark was Eva's attempt to cauterize this thread with a big, irrelevant digression that normally would start its own thread. It's like one's sexuality. It infuses all one says and does integrated into the totality of a person.

It's all personal.

--Brant

I ain't no computer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re hostility: Three years ago, as a seventeen year old freshman, a rather huge guy choked me from behind with is forearm, in an attempt to rape me. This last fact was made clear by his thingy hanging out of his unzipped pants: it's amazing how hard that erection can get when you're dead! Likewise, what boots and concrete can do to a skull.

In short, after that physical attack, I can handle the verbal sticks n stones & give back what I got. And if someone says anything about my family, i'll give them more.

There may be some truth inside this bullshit, but it has no verisimilitude. Lacking such you are coming across more and more as someone who makes stuff up as she goes along. But you didn't kill anybody. I know all about killing people and you're no killer. You're a putz.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Eva can prove she's Eva Mathews a 20yo college student. I don't think she has a college ID. I even have some serious doubt she's a woman. I doubt everything about her.

--Brant

waiting to apologize

waiting for Godot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not take too many jabs at Rand for the bristles to stiffen and for discussion to be degraded.

William,

It's not the jabs against Rand.

Michael Prescott can make outright whacks at Rand and it works. See Reversalism: A Philosophy for Living It Up. (It's also on his blog here. I find that hilarious. Some on the Rand side criticize me for laughing. But dammit, it's funny. :smile: )

The thing is Michael knows how to write.

Man, that got me thinking. It's been a while since I've talked to him. I might go engage him on his blog in a few days. He's a good dude.

The issue with this girl is she doesn't write well. The only thing she does is call people names to get some heat going. That works, but it's a brush fire. A couple of minutes pass and it's out. People move on.

You and I are on different sides of an intellectual divide, but I know you have the ability to step out of the core Progressive storyline and isolate the effectiveness of what's going on. (I have the same ability on my end.) Do that and read some of her writing and come to your own conclusions.

From my view, it's not the bashing or even the name-calling.

It's the mediocrity.

That's the problem.

One of the main writing errors people of this persuasion make (but not all--there are some very good Progressive writers, frankly some very good anti-Rand writers of many different stripes**) is they keep themselves in their writing. They practically laugh at their own jokes--constantly. Their subtext is never a complement to their message, which good writers know how to do, but instead "Look how clever I am, look how I can pooh pooh my target, wasn't that last one just the mostest?" (snigger snigger...)

And the more they do this, the more they fall into bashing the caricature stereotypes presented on the Progressive side. I believe this is because the only people paying attention after a while are sparring partners and the church choir, and they resonate more when stereotypes get trashed than at other times. (Yeah, I know. That's true for some mediocrities on my side, too.)

I know you see this in bad writers. With your brain, you have to. And it's boring.

It's not just bashing and sniggering, either. Daniel Barnes, for a great example, is always welcome on OL. I like him. (I probably satirized him a little too hard for his comfort, so it's been a while, but he's a big boy and can take it. He sure dishes it out. :smile: ) Now this guy's a Rand basher and sniggerer par excellence. The thing is he writes well. Maybe not a great writer, but good. He knows how to engage the reader by being interesting, not just snarky.

I've caught this girl cheating and faking a few times so she can pretend to win an argument and make posture. That's a big deal in my world for keeping my respect. (You, for instance, I respect. We disagree a lot, but I could never imagine you making shit up to win an argument. You always come well sourced and well-reasoned.) What's worse, the girl has gotten to the Monty Python black knight level a few times. I just don't see future in that, so I've stopped taking it seriously.

She's young and can learn, but those are some pretty serious bad habits. For myself, I've lost interest in engaging with her. I'm getting too old to keep swatting the flies of stubborn mediocrity. The only reason I'm discussing this right now is because the issue of talent itself is interesting and she's here in people's faces for the moment. It's a case study of sorts.

Michael

** You yourself are an excellent writer and you just sit on your talent for some damn reason.

William,

Oh, he's just upset because I contradicted him on Kahneman: he wrote

>>Systems 1 and 2 are not heuristics (that is if I remember what I studied). They are virtual-like divisions of convenience<<<

My response was thatsystem 1 is 'heuristic', while system 2 is the contrary.

I likewise disagreed with his use of 'virtual', which in terms of empirical research would indicate lackof real evidence (ie 'virtual' particles in quantum physics create a 'field').

Without the psychobabble or the personal denunciations, let's just say that he takes on- the- spot refutation rather seriously...

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some liars who lie so much the truths they tell are lies too.

--Brant

that's Eva, not the person pretending to be Eva--who knows much of anything about that person except that person?--according to "Eva" she's now going to stomp me and with good cause--but she won't, she can't, for the only way she can is to prove who she says she is, which, btw, would be as easy as pie for any real college student

I'm stomping Eva--that is, nobody--makes me a bully?--all I see is a middle-aged guy hiding behind a computer trying to maintain his phony ID

college student?--bah--when does this student go to class, study for a test, write a paper, go on Spring Break, give a shit about OL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now