Chayyliel

The inability to apply specificity to the subject is the reason I had to generalize so much of my response. Frankly speaking, it's only possible for an individual to speak for and make assumptions about culture's they personally experienced. If you're asking me to specifically state what makes someone a bad person, I can do so for North America, the country from which I hail, because I've had experience living in the United States, and Canada. I can't, however, specify to you what might make someone a bad person in Georgia (Europe), for example, because I've not made the personal experience in their culture to note it. It'd be inaccurate to make the statement, as well, simply from reading about the area and it's culture. The attributes which make a bad person are also unique to every individual, though some groups have a motif, if you will, as to those standards. This uniqueness amongst individuals in the separate populations, though, make applying specificity even harder. So, we have to use that bell curve again, apply different definitions, and take note of what the population's majority think of the matter and use that. We also have to consider the large number of differing cultures and societies with differing views on the matter, in which every single point-of-view cannot be taken into account, so we cannot speak for everyone in naming attributes which make a person 'bad' simply on our own. Digressing, I guess the real fact is you can't actually put a finger on what makes someone a bad person.

If you want a brutally honest answer, I've got one. So, this graph will represent what a population views as good. The center of the bell, denoted as the Greek letter Mu, will indicate that the population views the action performed as 'good'. One standard deviation is considered normal for our purposes, but this also means that 68.2% of individuals perform inherently 'good' activities, and the population will label that person as 'good'. The further away from the center an action ranks, the more inherently 'bad' that action is. So we have to note that roughly 27.2% of a population (13.6% X 2), performs inherently neutral or frowned-upon actions, depending on distance from the center at which the action is scored. A society would label these people normal, neutral, or without a label generally, although special cases arise. The outer 4.3% of the bell would denote, 3 standard deviations from 'good', that the performed action will be perceived as 'bad' and thus the population would label the individual a 'bad person'. As you can see, from the definitions we've applied to the above graph, a 'bad person' is merely a deviation from a 'normality' which invokes a label from the population which the deviation occurred therein. Of course, the action from which the graph applies to is subjective, and will apply different standards under examination of different actions, and will effect differently on the individual dependently upon the societal, religious and personal views of the scrutinizing population. Hopefully this clears some things up. I can clarify if necessary.

Just some quick, honest advice from me. I know this thread was started a while ago, and some good suggestion have been made, analyzed, improved on and reworked. However, that being said, out of experience into the year 2011, an important piece of the puzzle is often overlooked by the majority, and much of this puzzle piece is to be had in order to complete anyone's persona/facade (whatever you're going for I suppose). That is, 'classy' isn't defined by how you look physically, or how you dress. Of course, some people will rush quickly to the fastest searchable online dictionary, and quickly conclude from one of the many definitions of 'class' that style, indeed, plays a huge factor, and I'd be wrong to tell you it doesn't. However, you have to consider at the same time, that, some of the best-dressed individuals in this day and age can be the most uncouth scoundrels! So, I'm not going to sit here and preach how to be classy by any means, because for each person there's a veritable wall of options you can employ. Dressing stylishly will denote the respect you have for your look, and there's some vital integrity to be had there, but being classy would require that you not only look it, but you exude it. Hold yourself to a personal standard of varying degree, by no means low but by no means terribly high, and people will react subconsciously. Find out where your class comes from and amplify it, but always remember, never push it so much that your head ends up too big to fit that trendy hat on. No one likes a Scrooge.

I tend to get annoyed when people don't pick up on things as quickly as I do, or when I'm explaining something that makes complete sense and they don't get it... I think it's a terrible attribute to have. >.< Then, this is assuming I pick up on things more quickly than most people, denoting a degree of superiority complex.. and it also assumes that I'm good at explanations, or what I'm explaining makes sense universally, which is a bit hypocritical IMO. It's problematic because, y'know, what if I don't explain things well? What if they make sense to me and no one else? Then it comes to the counterpoint that: "What if they aren't understanding because, yet again, I picked up on it and they haven't?" It just makes me seem like more of a terrible person because I'm assuming this, and it'd no doubt lead to more assumptions about my abilities with regards to another individual's. I'm in no way assuming that I'm superior in any way to anyone, but in my opinion it seems to come out that way when I dissect the logic in it. Anyone else have this issue? :/

Currently browsing through a book called Whodunits: More Than 100 Mysteries For You To Solve, where you're delegated a scenario of your chosen difficulty, and you're to answer question at the end such as "who committed the crime?", or "what gave him away?". It's actually quite fun!

I just picture it like one of those websites that deals in the sale of knives, swords, etc. You have display items which, frankly would work like the real deal except for the fact it's made of inferior materials and craftmanship. The fact that the katana is designated 'ornate' adds to the sense that it's of the display quality, as ornate weapons in the past were mainly donned to indicate position, power, social status, or financial status, and had no real combative value. You do, on the other had though, have combat-ready weapons which are made contemporarily for the sake of practicing in the art of the sword, but were used in the past in actual combat, which the ornate katana does not fall under this category... So in reality a vanity item based on this example would never provide any sort of advantage, and should be treated as such. Just a thought.

I really liked that interview S U O M I! The responses felt very genuine, like you're disillusioning a proverbial 'machine' which produces EXP, revealing it as nothing more or less as another individual like any of us. Not that there aren't many people who do, or don't think about you in that respect (In no way am I trying to be offensive), but seeing the words in stone with your very own eyes, I think, is a very important part of the 'discovering' process, that is, discovering what kind of person S U O M I is when you haven't actually had the pleasure to make the acquaintance in avatar (Not sure if that was a run-on sentence? Haha). Good luck! Really, though, I'm sure you wont need it because you have that multi-faceted driving force: that overbearing confidence every day; the certainty that what you're doing is right. I wish I had friends whom so substantially would donate to my cause! Just goes to show how much confidence they can put in you, and that's a very obvious positive connotation. I'm jealous :P Till next time eh? Chayyliel