The Netizen

Essay on Twilight Part 2

If you haven't read the first part of this essay, you can at this page:
Continuing from where Posterous so rudely cut off the article. Still taken from: http://twilightsucks.proboards81.com/index.cgi?board=twilight&action=display&thread=220 and again with the disclaimer: edited here mostly for language and with a few other modifications, additions and omissions.

Science, pt. 1

Now, I love fantasy. I am completely willing to suspend disbelief about fantastical elements.

But when an author specifically incorporates science into her fantastical story AND GETS IT WRONG (or at least is monumentally stupid about it), that’s when I have a problem. Stephenie Meyer is WAY guilty of this.

Quote:My reasoning was, why should the sun burn them? That seemed like a very mystical kind of thing, and my vampires are more science than magic to me (whereas my werewolves are more magic than science).

 There you have it, fangirls. That’s why we’re allowed to criticize Meyer for her bad science.

Nessie
1. Edward's sperm.... Or, why Edward should be infertile.
There are a variety of problems here, so let's go through each of them.

A. "Edward is frozen! His sperm survived!"
Edward has been a vampire for several, several decades. If unused, sperm survive inside the testes for a few days, let's say between 3-7 days. Outside the body, they survive a few hours. Inside the female, they can survive up to three days. Additionally, sperm require a specific temperature to survive; specifically, around 96 degrees. That is why the testes draw up closer to the abdomen for warmth when males are cold ("shrinkage" when swimming, for example) and why they "drop," or extend away from the abdomen, in a hot shower (as the body heats up).

Remember what happens when humans turn into vampires? Their body supposedly dies. Their body stops generating heat. All conventional wisdom, therefore, says that Eddie's sperm ought to have died within a few hours of his human death. And although Meyer describes Edward as "icy" and "frozen in time," he isn't actually frozen. He's a corpse. So, the argument that Edward's vampiness preserves his sperm (which, by the way, he didn't ejaculate that sperm for over 100 years...yeah, okay). So

So much is being made over this reproduction business, let's address other things as well.

If vampires are supposed to be dead, they shouldn't even move. They don't breathe, yet they laugh, cry, and sigh. Could someone explain that? If the all important reproductive system is supposed to shut down in a vampire, than so should production of anything else like tears, spit, anything a healthy living human body makes.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that Edward did have some viable sperm. The question is: why was Nessie half vampire. Since vampires don't age or grow or produce body fluids other than venom (...more on that later), Edward's sperm could only have been human. Why was Nessie not fully human, then?

B. The chromosomes changed! Like in, um, the rest of us body!"
Ah, Meyer's "chromosome" explanation. Haha, good one. More on that later.
But for now, let's make this explanation a simple one. The difference (and why mammals can make babies) between body ("somatic") cells and gametes (ovum, sperm) is that body cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes (=46) and gametes have only 23 chromosomes, period. Further, the ovum's 23 pairs match up to the sperm's 23 pairs. When they fuse, they create a zygote with--wait for it, now--23 pairs of chromosomes, just like somatic cells! Thus, gametes are called haploid cells because they have half the number of chromosomes as somatic cells (diploid cells).

So what does all that basic biology talk matter? Well, here's the thing, in plain speech. Those gametes went through a delicate and complex process (meiosis) to arrive in their current form. There's no way that a vampiric "virus" or whatever could transform them into a viable vamp_sperm without totally messing them up because they aren't the same as somatic cells. Even if this vamp_virus could somehow alter the genetic code of somatic cells (thereby turning each of Eddy's cells (and therefore, sets of DNA) into vamp cells, that same process would not work for a haploid cell without irreparably damaging it and rendering it useless in terms of baby-makin'.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow Edward's sperm was viable, with its vampness intact (25 singular chromosomes...>eyeroll<). Meyer says that Nessie was born with 24 chromosomes (presumably 24 chromosome pairs). This does not make sense.

I've seen Twilighters use the mule/ninny defense, saying that horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62 and since some mules has 63, it "works" for vamp/humans and therefore dhampirs as well. Besides the fact that mules getting 63 is a total crapshoot, here are some reasons it doesn't.

Humans have 23 very specific chromosomes.
Vampires (and for the sake of the discussion, let's assume that this is possible) have 25 very specific chromosomes.

Human 23 match with the vampire's first 23 (assuming they are the vampire's original human chromosomes).
Human gamete has 0 left over, Vampire gamete has 2 left over.

Now, presumably, it's those 2 extra chromosomes which give the vampire its vampire traits.

What are those vampire traits?
Well, vampires are humans' predators. They hunt, kill, and gain sustenance from humans. This is NOT the same as the donkey/horse relationship, two animals which are very, very similar genetically - i.e., four-legged mammals, hoofed, living, herbivores, part of the equidae family and the equus genus. Horses and mules don't cannibalize each other.

Saying that a human and vampire can cross-breed is like making the argument that tigers and antelope can cross-breed. One predates upon the other. They have extreme genetic differences. Humans are living, omnivores, mammals, members of the hominidae family and homo class. Vampires are an altered state, not exactly living, not exactly dead, but would be dead without feeding on the blood of others, humans (or animals in Ed Cullen's case.) They are sanguinivorous, asexual, and since while they're possibly a member of the hominidae family, they sure as hell don't qualify for the homo genus (also, because they're not real and based on fantasy, but then again that's the point of this whole discussion - the absurdity that Meyer tried to explain vampires scientifically). Not only that, but they are humans' natural predator (strength, speed, DaZzLe!).

Long story short? THEY DON'T MATCH UP TO HUMANS.

Besides that, even if those two left over chromosomes somehow joined up with each other, it'd probably result in some really messed-up congenital defects (...they arguably did, but whatevs). They would not result in a perfect little creature like Nessie.

What about Nessie?

> Unless Edward's sperm doubles as Miracle-Gro, Nessie ought to grow very slowly.
> She should also require a more balanced diet, seeing as blood is actually very poor nutritiously and her body wouldn't get the required nutrients and fuel to sustain her metabolism and creepily SuPEr!growth.
> This is also the reason that Bella's gallon of blood as her tasty pregnancy supplement is completely baseless. Blood has very low nutritional value as well as being bad for humans if they ingest too much of it. If anything, Bella ought to have become very sick and starved to death if all she was doing was drinking blood. There's a reason vampire bats have to ingest ridiculous amounts of blood in order to survive.. It's because blood sucks as a food source.
> If Renesmee does grow fast, then chances are her extra chromosome or two would really screw that process up (...like, say, Down's syndrome, aka trisomy 21 [an extra chromosome! Why does that sound familiar?], which causes developmental problems in the brain as well as some physical oddities, like smaller, almond-shaped eyes, protruding tongue, shorter limbs, etc.).

c. "Yeah, but Edward doesn't have sperm! He has venom!"

Meyer has said (and I'm paraphrasing), "there are a lot of things that venom does."

Well, that's true. One of those things is that it gets into the bloodstream, it starts vamping a person. Given the fact that Edward banged (ha. ha. ironic?) Bella hard enough to leave bruises and the fact that she was a virgin... Chances are good that his venom_sperm should have come into contact with torn hymen or, once ejaculated into her uterus, should have been absorbed into the bloodstream. Meaning, Bella would very quickly have experienced a burning sensation inside her body and I really don't want to imagine Edward sucking that venom out in an effort to de-vampify her.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the venom somehow passed through her vagina, uterus, and into her fallopian tube where it reached the mature ovum.

So what? Venom, simply put, isn't sperm, and it lacks the properties to qualify as such.

There's this thing about sperm that makes it special. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty details of it, but there's a complex hormonal response within the egg and within the sperm that make it possible for the sperm (about 0.05 millimeters long) to penetrate and fertilize the egg (visible to the human eye). Not only that, but it's human sperm which are capable of going through this process.

But, let's say that venom could do the job, too. Now, as far as I know, there aren't any human elements to venom (especially as it's apparently lethal to humans). So, if somehow the venom got to the egg, there are a few scenarios that would play out:

> The venom's acidic (or basic, dunno which) nature would go Wicked-Witch-of-the-West style on the egg, destroying it completely (considering the egg is pretty fragile, and if venom can dissolve a contact lens in a few hours, then it would definitely mess up an egg).
> If the venom didn't destroy the egg, then it would make the egg all vampire (remember, no human element)... and the egg would not mature at all. It would die, and then become a "frozen in time," dead egg.
> It would not turn the egg into a super-special super-speed growth demon spawn.

So. There you have it. Why Edward's sperm should exist, why venom doesn't work, and why Nessie's only possible origin is magic.

"But it's fantasy!"

This is one case where that argument works, kind of. Meyer was an idiot to try an explain her vampires via science. It's a cardinal rule of fantasy that if your explanation won't work, find one that does. You know what explanation works for vampires? Magic. Call them supernatural; that's what they are. Using science as a bizarre crutch for your fantasy only ruins your continuity and your world's logic and it brings down the writing to the level where I have rendered her plot completely unworkable by the application of basic biology. The reason this is a problem is because it is yet another symptom of Meyer's complete botch when it comes to basic writing technique and theory.

(More examples below)

Science, part 2

1. Diamond-skin & body-heat
Meyer says about the vampires’ sparkle motion power that “their skin hardens into a diamond-like substance (only harder). This material has prism-like qualities. The sun does not damage the skin regardless of the reflecting.”

…The problem with being “harder” than a diamond is that diamonds aren’t, you know, flexible. Now while it’d be an interesting idea (and alternate solution to the vampires-don’t-go-out-in-sunlight aspect of vampire lore) if they suddenly turned to stone in the sunlight, Meyer doesn’t do that. Their skin is just diamond-like. How do they move? It should be impossible.

About body heat: We learn from the approximately 234250907811 times that Bella says it that Edward is cold and hard and pale and icy, even when they’re in bed together. Again, what human in their right mind - oh, but this IS Bella we're talking about here... My question is this: how does Edward’s body NOT absorb Bella’s body heat? It’s not as though his body can’t react to other forms of energy, so why does Bella’s delectable 98.6º flesh have no impact on him whatsoever, other than smelling like a tasty meal to him...? If you hold a rock in your hand, the rock eventually warms up. If you sleep next to something cold or at room temperature, you’ll eventually warm up what you have touched with your body to at least some degree. In theory, since Edward isn’t keeping ice cubes in his pants (we don’t think), he should always be room temperature, which means that to a human’s touch, he should feel slightly cool. In hot weather, he’d feel warmer. But seriously—perpetual iciness makes no sense at all. It makes no sense that Bella wouldn't be extremely uncomfortable when in close contact with him. Could you lie comfortably and fall asleep cuddling up next to a man-sized reptile (room temperature vampire) or ice block (Edward Cullen?)

2. Beauty (and omg, sparkles!)
I’ve ranted on about this elsewhere, but for the sake of covering my bases I’ll do it again. Why do vampires suddenly become Greek gods/goddesses upon transformation? Fans like to say that their beauty makes them attractive to their prey, making it easier for them to catch wee, sparkle-struck Homo sapiens. There are two problems with this, namely that the text contradicts that theory and that even if it were in the text, it makes no sense scientifically.

What does the text say?

Much fuss is made over the vampires’ inhuman beauty, yet Bella is the only idiot actually ATTRACTED to it. Edward says several times how other humans are instinctively afraid and wary of the vampires ON SIGHT; so how does that make any sense whatsoever with the theory that their beauty is a secondary adaptation for hunting? Answer: it doesn’t.

MRSA [the bacteria which had mutated to be resistant to penicillin and other antibiotics reproduced to create MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant forms of bacteria] It's the idea that on average, the strongest, most-adapted organism will survive (and therefore procreate) and the weakest, least-adapted organism will not (and therefore its gene set is nullified). A lot of biologists argue that reproduction is the overarching biological need in all organisms and that all behavior works to that end.

What does this have to do with meyerpires and how pretty they are?

1. Vampires are already pretty much indestructible as well as the perfect predator for their prey; they are infinitely stronger, faster, and supposedly smarter. Thus, the following questions must be asked:
A. How could beauty have evolved as an adaptation when hardly ANY of them die (meaning that even an ugly vampire would be able to feed and survive), and even if they DID…
B. THEY DON’T REPRODUCE. Vampires are not BORN; the only possibility for genetic diversity (reproduction & genetic recombination) is completely NULL thanks to the idea that females are infertile (more on the males later).

“But making a new vampire IS reproduction”

No, it isn’t. In Meyer-land, humans become full vampires rather than half-vampires when turned. This means that there is no sexual reproduction happening because, as we know, sexual reproduction requires two separate sets of DNA (and in the vamping process, the human’s DNA would theoretically combine with the vampire’s to make themselves a half-vampire… this doesn’t happen.). If it was asexual reproduction, like mitosis, then the newly-turned vampire would be an identical copy of its maker, but again this obviously isn’t the case. The only possibility then is that Meyer’s version of vampirism is more like an STD than anything—that is, a virus or bacterial infection that happens to transform its host into a sparkly, scintillating, stunning monster.

So what does this prove, exactly?

Simple: that the vampires’ beauty makes no sense and serves no purpose other than to Mary Sue-ify and Gary Stu-ify the Cullens (and of course Bella).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But Bella gets to make her own choices!"

This is an argument that I've heard not just from fangirls but from the Great Smeyer herself, and while it seems compelling at first glance, the fact is that it's just as bad an argument as many of the others I've addressed over this series.

But why?

If men can choose to remain a bachelor or to be promiscuous without judgment, so too should women be allowed that choice with the same repercussions (or lack thereof) as in men's case.

So, let's bring this back 'round to Twilight. What choices does Bella make? Let's sample three of her decisions throughout the series.

1. She chooses to follow James' instructions at the end of Twilight
If you're arguing for Bella as a strong female character because you think she is "allowed" to make her own choices, this is one bad example. Why? Because she chose to *follow a man's instructions* instead of making up her own mind. She's still following a man... This choice ends up not being a choice at all, and it is a bad move. It revealed Bella as stupid and incapable and led to Edward needing to swoop in to save her. Why? Because she, the weak and silly woman, was too dumb to see through James' unoriginal scheme and to her detriment made a bad choice because of that. This doesn't prove that Bella is strong and on equal footing with the men just because she made a choice. In fiction, the existence of the decision is not so important as the results of that decision themselves and how those results affect the perception of the decision-maker. Here, Bella's decision forces her into the weak damsel in distress figure yet again, thus propelling the charges of sexism even further.

2. She ignores Edward's mandates against visiting Jacob and La Push.
This one is a bit tricky. On the surface, it seems like an empowered decision. If you push deeper, however, more unsettling truths emerge. For example, why does she stay with Edward despite his abusive actions? Why does she submit to his attempts to control her behavior the rest of the time? Then, if you turn to the action itself (and forgive me but I don't have a copy of the book on hand), Bella says something to the effect of 'I know I won't get away with this' or 'I know Edward's not going to be happy' (or something like that), acknowledging his role as an authoritative and dominant partner. She doesn't like his behavior. She doesn't appreciate his attempts to control her, yet she exhibits no sense of strength or empowerment and Meyer treats the event like Bella's "breaking a rule" (Edward's rule) rather than having the right to do as she pleases. Not only that, but when his actions finally do irritate her--after she realizes that he removed her engine--she doesn't dump him or bitch at him or say, "take o
ff, I'll do what I want" - instead, she leaves her window open. Even though Edward imposed his will on her and upset her with his abusive and controlling act, she doesn't respond. She doesn't get angry. All in all, she thinks of herself as powerless and acts powerless. The choices of an empowered female? I think not.

3. Her "choice" to become a vampire.
Throughout the series, this was the one thing that simultaneously irked me and made me glad for her character. On the one hand, I was annoyed that she wanted to give up her humanity, her future, and her friends and family. The fact that she had zero ambition other than gluing herself to Edward's side for the rest of eternity bugged me. On the other hand, I was glad that she'd made a choice and stuck by it even in the face of Edward's obvious disapproval and anger over her decision. In books 1-3, Bella did intend to become a vampire. But there are three problems with that. 1) Her becoming a vampire was contingent upon Edward's agreement (Edward's choice), 2) it took the Vulturi's decision and the Vulturi's timeline to make Edward agree, not hers, and 3) becoming a vampire was never within her power to begin with. It was an illusion of choice, not actual choice. However, Breaking Dawn completely destroyed whatever tenuous thread of empowerment existed. She didn't get to choose to become a vampire--she was unconscious. She was dying, a broken and bleeding husk. Edward decided when the time was right. Edward chose to make her a vampire. Bella didn't have any choice in the matter at all, from beginning to end. Becoming a vampire was completely out of her control and even if it weren't, even if Edward was going to abide by her wishes and make her a vampire in some special candlelit room... that was taken away from her. That illusion of her "choice" was irrelevant in the end because it was Edward who made the decision.

So, what "choices" does Bella make?
1. The "choice" to nearly get herself killed due to her monumental stupidity.
2. The "choice" to submit to abuse, even though it's emotionally damaging.
3. The "choice" that didn't actually give her a choice.

Those don't sound much like choices to me.

Additional links

Sixty-Five Is Not a Few!

(download)

Just a few questions I had

-No, you didn't have these questions, you were "tagged" in a chain note and absolutely couldn't resist the temptation to answer them due to your addiction to chain notes.

65 Questions You've Probably Never Been Asked...

-Since when is 65 "a few"? And yes, I've been asked and seen these questions asked repeatedly in chain letter surveys like this one.

you know the rules. tag people
in this note (including the person who tagged you!) to learn more about people.
Also, try to tag people who you've tagged in other notes, sometimes you learn
things in new notes that you didn't know before about them.

-Sure, and make a huge obnoxious pest of yourself by abusing the tag feature and spreading the survey chain far and wide. One looks like another, and Facebook Notes is already being terribly misused in this way.

-To show how unoriginal and same old boring crap this thing really is, here are questions I've seen in many of these. Why people never tire of answering the same things just because it's presented only slightly differently every time is beyond me.

2. What color is your favorite hoodie?
3. Would you kiss the last person you kissed again?
5. How are you feeling RIGHT now?
6. Whats the closest thing to you that's red?
7. Tell me about the last dream you remember having?
8. Did you meet anybody new today?
9. What are you craving right now?
12. Are you emotional?
14. Do you bite into your ice cream or just lick it?
15. Do you like your hair?
16. Do you like yourself?
18. What are you listening to right now?
35. Ever been in love?
38. Last time you cried?
40. Favorite time of the year?
41. Do you have any tattoos?
45. Favorite color?
52. Do you like your life right now?
57. How often do you talk on the phone?
58. The last person you held hands with?
59. What are you wearing?
60.What is your favorite animal?
63. Do you have a job?
64. What was the most recent thing you bought?

-All of these turn up again and again in these chain notes.

Then, there are always a few utterly ridiculous, stupid questions to add to the pointless boring ones, such as:

13. Have you ever counted to 1,000?

-Uh, no. I do have a life.

17. Would you go out to eat with George W. Bush?

-Why? What's the point? He doesn't even know I exist.

-So there you have it. Junking up Facebook notes or other blogs with this stuff really misuses the services, and makes your posts extremely boring and annoying to read. Who wants to read a bunch of stupid meaningless questions about you that will be forgotten until you post the next tear-jerking boring chain note?

Books

(download)

"Books
"The BBC believes most people will have only read 6 of the 100 books here. How do your reading habits stack up?"

Oh, and have you actually found an article written by someone at the BBC to prove this statement? Furthermore, what does it matter? Has everyone at the BBC read this list of books?

"Instructions:
Look at the list and put an 'x' after those you have read."

It's not even a well put-together list.

"2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien ( )"

Skip down to:

"16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien ( )"

Hello, the Hobbit is part of the Lord of the Rings.

"33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis ( )
36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis ( )"

Wake up, the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is part of the Chronicles of Narnia.

The list consists of books that I have read, watched in movie form, have heard about, or all three, and yes, I'm familiar with the stories of more than just 6. Many classics more famous for their titles than anything else. I don't understand why they included Harry Potter in that list, but at least Twilight was not included, that would be a laugh.

Facebook Chain-Addicted

(download)

Facebook has gone chain-addicted mad!

Don't people ever get sick of filling out these stupid random chain surveys?

"Your First..."

It was 25 randoms, now it's 25 firsts. It starts off with:

"1. Who was your FIRST love?"

It ends with:

"25. Who will be the FIRST to repost this?"

That is a hint to keep it going.
--

"44 ODD Things about you!"

So 25 things wasn't already too much, now it's 44.

"If you opened this, FILL IT OUT! Learn 44
things about your friends, and let them learn 44 things about
you! Tag the person that sent it plus others."

No thanks.

Getting tagged in a personally written note is great. Getting tagged because a friend fell for a chain letter isn't so great.
--

"3
Now, here's what you're supposed to do...and please do not spoil the fun."

That phrase is also found in the "bunch of questions" chain letter. It was manipulative there and it is here as well. You're not spoiling the fun by refusing to answer a viral survey.

"Create a new note, copy and paste this message, delete my answers and type in your answers. Then tag a few good friends and family INCLUDING the person who tagged you. The theory is that you will learn a lot of little known things about your friends and family. Have FUN!"

Just like the "25 random things" "40 odd things" "bunch of questions" chain letters.
--

"Yes or No
You can ONLY answer Yes or No!"

I'll answer however I choose or not, thank you.

"You are NOT ALLOWED to explain ANYTHING unless someone messages or comments you and Asks!"

How interesting would that be? Not very. This would result in even more boring chain note posts than the usual questionaires.

"Now, here's what you're supposed to do... And please do not spoil the Fun. Copy and paste this into your notes , delete my answers and type in your answers. Then see what happens."

That was already said in "3" and the "Bunch of questions" and it's still bollox.
--

Another one going around on Facebook is called

"I Want to Know More About You!"

It claims:

"Here are the rules - post this list on your profile (in Notes) replacing my answers with yours. Tag people to do the same thing. If I tagged YOU, it's because I want to know more about YOU!"

No, you tagged somebody because this chain note says so and you want to answer more meaningless questions about yourself which are either boring, pointless, or things that should probably remain private.
--

"The list
You just got tagged and now you're it!"

Again, this is not a real game of tag. It's a chain note. Real tag is not a viral scheme.

"Just copy and paste and put your own answers in. The purpose of this is to get to know your friends better and it's so much fun!"

-Fun for the people who originate these things, seeing how far and wide their junk gets mass-produced. Not so fun for people who find out their friends have fallen for another chain note that gives them an excuse to answer a bunch of pointless forgetable questions about themselves yet again.

"Here are the rules - post this list on your profile (in Notes) replacing my answers with yours. Tag 25 people to do the same thing."

So it's back to 25 things and notifying 25 people you have just done another chain note.

"If I tagged YOU, it's because I want to know more about YOU!"

That's the exact same claim in another "More About You" chain survey as well and it's just as flimsy. You only tagged because the chain letter says so and you like answering the same boring types of survey questions about yourself.
--

"Name-ology
Let others know a little more about yourself, re-post this as your name followed by "ology"

Sounds like it might be fun, but it's just another chain note survey with a huge load of the same typical questions found in every other chain.
--

"Distant Memories"

At first glance, the title suggests it might be a survey that asks about your distant memories.

A look at the instructions shows it might actually be a fun game to play, if it were not for the obligatory tagging x number of people. Don't be fooled by the fun appeal, it is still a viral chain letter scheme.

"1. Put your music player on shuffle.
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. YOU MUST WRITE THAT SONG NAME DOWN NO MATTER HOW SILLY IT SOUNDS!
4. Tag 10 friends who might enjoy doing the same as well as the person you got the note from."

No thanks to the tagging madness. The results of this thing is a song title answer for each seemingly random question about you.

This song game would actually be a game and a lot of fun if it was played in person with several people taking turns answering the questions around a table together. but Who in the world wants to read all this nonsense cluttering up their friends' blogs and notes in this pathetic viral version?
--

Senior Year in Highschool chain letter!

"Fill this out about your SENIOR year of high school! The longer ago it was, the more fun the answers will be!! FORWARD with name of high school and graduating year in the subject box. Send this to all your friends, but don't forget to send it back to me."

Why send copies back? If everybody did that, the internet would crash because of all the copies of chain letters, and it's already slowing up because of them as it is.

Why give all that info about school? Do you realize you are sharing all this info with all sorts of people who you probably don't even know if your Facebook notes are set for public viewing?

Why not just have a conversation with your friends about school instead of posting some silly questionaire chain?
--

A chain letter for couples, what next?

This one probably hit right around Valentine's Day 2009 and continued after that date.

"Couples questions
This is about you and your spouse or significant other ... not just you. Come on, play along - inquiring minds want to know! ;-) Just copy this post into your own notes & change the answers!"

It doesn't explicitly tell people to "tag" or forward it, but the hope is that the appeal to tell all will be too strong to resist, and people will proliferate this thing even without prompting. And they have. If you answered these questions and put them in your Facebook notes, you have perpetuated a chain letter, junked up your notes, and probably ended up revealing a lot more information to way more people than you realized, and that's assuming anybody would be interested in the first place.

How important and interesting is this thing really?

Maybe it's important to you and your spouse, in which case, why not keep it between the two of you? Email yourself and your spouse a copy, print it out and frame it if you so desire and mount it on your kitchen, bathroom, basement or bedroom wall, but take my word for it, no one else wants to see this stuff clogging your Facebook notes and telling a bunch of information better kept private.
--

Before answering any of these questions in a public note, maybe you should be asking some questions of your own.

Do you really want all your 500 Facebook friends to know all of these details? Are your Facebook notes set so that only your friends can view them, or do friends of friends, or even all of Facebook have access? Don't you realize that getting tagged in a note you actually wrote that is not a viral scheme is a lot more fun and personal than getting tagged out of obligation to a chain letter?

What makes you think anyone is going to care and be bothered to read anything from you when it becomes clear you are a sucker for every stupid chain note meme survey to cross your monitor?

A Bunch of Questions...Share

(download)

The Bunch of Questions...Share Chain Letter

This chain comes on the heels of the infamous "25 Random Things About Me" Facebook meme, but it asks specific yet very meaningless questions.

It uses cunning strategies to get the mad pointless notes and tagging going.

1. The title.

"a Bunch of Questions...Share" or "Because I know you don't know how to ask...Share" or some other title with the word "share"

Why "share?"

This is all part of the big deception. Viral chain originators don't want people catching on to the fact that they are letting themselves get controled and manipulated to fill the internet with copies, sometimes mutated copies, of their junk. So "spamming" is called "sharing" in this scheme.

Already the word "share" in the title works to break down a reader's defenses. After all, sharing is generous, and everybody wants to be associated with such a lovely generous act.

2. The challenge and assumption of a person's character and ability.

"It is harder than you think!!"

This statement is apparently so important that it is followed by 2 exclamation marks.

Let's look at what it is actually saying.

It is telling you that it knows what you're thinking, and you are probably not capable of answering a "bunch" of questions such as the first one in this chain "Where is your cell phone?" the sort found in every other chain survey there is, and a very "hard" task indeed!

3. The blackmail.

"Here is what you are supposed to do...and please don't spoil the fun..."

So, before the demands are even specified, you are told that doing this thing is "fun" and if you refuse to do it, you are "spoiling the fun. This is being said to insure you will not want to be thought of as a fun-spoiler and you will follow this thing to the letter, right to the tagging stages.

Please keep in mind this viral already assumes you aren't capable of much, and that you will believe clogging up cyberspace with more survey chains is "sharing" as opposed to spamming.

4. The demands.

"copy and paste into your own note, type in your answers and tag a bunch of people - including me."

If everyone did that, they would get tagged over and over again in the same chain note by "a bunch" of Facebook friends unable to break this terrible habbit.

What followed was a "bunch" of questions typical of all meaningless chain letter surveys.

To sum it up, you are probably doing a much harder task by resisting the "bunch" and resistance does not make you guilty of "spoiling the fun."

You could spoil the fun for someone else if you do the survey and tag them. Who really wants to be tagged in a note that doesn't even mention them, and was just done because somebody felt obligated to meet the dictates of a meme?
 
Yes, you to, can say "no" to the "bunch."

25 Random Things About Me

(download)

I'm one of a very tiny minority who spotted the latest obnoxious 25 things tagging meme Facebook chain letter note for what it is and refuse to do it.

I've been tagged by a couple of people and have subsequently removed myself from their chain notes without even bothering to read them. I want to see real notes, not a bunch of chain letters in people's blogs and Facebook notes and don't understand why more people don't realize a hard sell:

"The rules are you must tag x number of friends" really = "Pass it on!" It's manipulation, and the hook in this case is the appeal of a time-waster that for some odd reason, people think is fun and interesting.

Blech.

"You've just been tagged!"

Oh, cool, (goes to check out note,) only to find there was not even a mention of me in it, and I was just one of 25 tag-victims for a chain letter because some friend felt obligated to make their quota and tag x number of people!

Gee, thanks for not really thinking of me, friend, thanks for contributing to the vast wasteland of cyber junk out there yet again, friend, and thanks for showing how well you assimulate into the chain letter-forwarding masses again and again, friend, thanks a lot! Not.

I will not do the 25 things 'tagg game' which really isn't a game, some people just call it that so it looks less like a chain letter, but that doesn't change what it is.

If you get a note that has any "rules" "suggestions" or "instructions" etc. to follow that means passing it along via the tag or the forward button, that should set off warning bells. It's a chain note and rest assured, most everybody else is unfortunately doing it or has already done it!

Like the Fun Space Super Wall spam, 25 things has been clogging up Facebook profiles and feeds so there is no getting away from it. Even if you don't do the chain, a look at a friend's profile will show the friend has either done it or has been tagged by other people who have.

If you were taken in by this meme or any other and are regretting it, deleting such viral entries from your blog will remedy the problem. In addition, it is encouraged to remove yourself from tagging by friends in all things viral.

You are not slighting anyone by taking a stand against memes and other forms of obligatory spam. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, it is not rude to break a meme.

So let's do what we can to send 25 Things back from wence it came, never to return.

Encyclopedia Dramatica

(download)

Host of episode:
"Encyclopedia Dramatica."

Reporter:
"The encyclopedia Dramatica is a wanna-be wiki site that claims to be about humor, and has one of the most unlikely names."

North American woman:
"'encyclopedia' dramatica - is anything BUT!"

Reporter:
"Its webmasters are insanely envious of the real encyclopedia wiki known as Wikipedia, whose administrators and supporters stood up to them in the face of abuse. Encyclopedia Dramatica has been all bent out of shape over it since."

Encyclopedia Dramatica on the subject of Wikipedia:
"They are fascists!"

Ex-member banned from ED, pointing out their hypocrisy:
"Fascists? Give me a break! I had my account for maybe 24 hours - they didn't like what I did to some of their pages.""

Reporter:
"She was banned from Encyclopedia Dramatica for deleting offensive content including links to some of their cherished photoshopped porn pictures. This makes the administrators at Encyclopedia Dramatica fascists by their own definition."

"The ban notice referred to the ban as a rape. Encyclopedia Dramatica admins joke about and refer to banning as rape, and this indicates they identify with rapists, so, appear to encourage it as well, and have no compassion or understanding toward people who have been raped."

"This adds more insult to injury for people who have been effected by rape directly or indirectly."

"A survivor of such a demeaning brutal attack has this to say."

Irish woman:
"There are some things that should never be encouraged or treated as a joke. Once you go through something like that, you're never the same."

Reporter:
A die-hard Encyclopedia Dramatica fan expresses the attitude she and the site share.

North American Encyclopedia Dramatica fangirl:
"Well, it's all relative, isn't it? Okay maybe getting tortured, or losing a family member was tough on them but - MY SUGGESTION to these people: get a sense of humor! Get a life! So what if they been through bad stuff? We all have! For instance, last week...The electronics store didn't have the high-def TV I wanted."

Australian woman:
"It's a site for trolls, spammers, hoaxters and bullies. It's all about getting laughs at the emotional expense of other people. There was even a hoax about Encyclopedia Dramatica shutting down unless the site received enough money to keep it going."
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:ED_is_the_worst

North American woman:
"Encyclopedia Dramatica was behind that disgusting 'Megan Had It Coming blog, a sick hoax site impersonating somebody involved in cyber-bullying that lead to a suicide."
http://www.mycrimespace.com/2007/12/10/megan-had-it-coming-is-a-hoax-part-iii-hoax-confirmed/

Encyclopedia Dramatica trolls: "I did it for the lulz."
"I did it for the lulz. Desu desu!"
"I did it for the lulz!"
"I did it for the lulz!"

Australian man:
"Take the worst juvenile behavior and the most obnoxious drunken redneck speech, and you have Encyclopedia Dramatica, 4chan, ebaum, anonymous and something awful.com, all doing it for the lulz."

North American woman mocks Encyclopedia Dramatica's pledge of Allegiance:
"'In lulz we trust!' Have you ever heard anything so stupid?"

Trolls and bullies reciting some of their jibberish:
"Desu desu!"
"Fap!"
"Fap!"
"Lulz lulz lulz lulz lulz lulz!"
"Dong!"

North American woman:
"How cute, how cool...How intelligent, how inspiring! How original, how mature. How impressive and profound! ... Not!

Reporter:
"So What is lulz?"

British man:
"Lulz, is a corruption of LOL, the internet acronym for laughing out loud. This isn't ordinary laughing out loud like normal people do online. Lulz is viral bullying and the malevolent cackling by these idiotic internet trolls. They go out of their way to harass and provoke anyone they think they can hog-tie by the emotions, rake them over the coals, laugh at the hurt reactions they get, post these hurt responses on their stupid web sites along with more ridicule. The more reaction these self-enamoured gits can get, the more they cackle. The more they laugh and ridicule, the more emotional reactions they get, and the more they mock. And it's all done very publically with loads of cussing and faked up or stolen and ripped off pictures used in their massive hate and insult campaigns."

North American woman:
"They have this really - weird, stupid lingo..."

Trolls from Encyclopedia Dramatica and associated sites:
"Desu desu!"
"Fap fap fap"
"Butthurt butthurt!"
(censor beep)

British woman:
"Fapping is what they do when they look in the mirror."

Troll: falls all over a mirror, kissing it passionately.

British woman continues to explain:
"It's their term for getting turned on."

"Desu is a Japanese word that can mean different things depending on who's using it and how it's being used. Whether it's supposed to be cute, or the Japanese version of Nana-nana boo-boo, it looks and sounds ridiculous tacked on the end of an English phrase."

"Butthurt is their term for over-reacting to a real or imagined slight."

Reporter:
"It also explains the flaming glow of the posteriors through their clothes, from having their butts hurt as a result of getting themselves banned and blacklisted from other sites."

Troll:
"Butthurt butthurt butthurt butthurt!"

Australian woman:
"If anyone actually believed the shut-down hoax and sent money to save the site, they deserved to lose their money."

Effects of realization at being suckered kicking in:
Poke
STU-PID!
BONK
 
Troll fan taken in by hoax:
"BUTT HURT!"

Australian woman:
"Encyclopedia Dramatica needs to go."

Fangirl:
"They are the best site, ever!"
 
North American woman:
"They stink!"
 
North American woman:
"Yes, their behavior is disgusting."

Fangirl:
"They are the realest, most honest web site in the world!"
 
North American woman:
"Yank it...Banish it to the depths of cyber-hell. Let it burn..."

Fangirl:
"No - they should never go away...and definitely absolutely never get shut down! That would like - DESTROY the whole world, as we know it!"
 
trolls: babbling, drooling, eating noisily, passing wind, breaking things, all sorts of ill-mannered things, finishing with a tremendous show of butthurt.

Host of episode:
"Beware that Encyclopedia Dramatica is a troll-friendly zone, Upon entering that site, be sure to leave all intelligence and humanity at the door."

New Year Calendar Birthday Chain Letter

From: somebody who should know better
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
-Yet again.
Subject: : Birthdays 2009

-As if those info collecting web site birthday calendars aren't already lame enough, this is a birthday collecting chain letter!

Live well, love much and laugh often!

-I do, and I don't need chain letters telling me to, in fact, they make me want to do anything but laugh, and don't make me feel particularly loving toward the people who insist on passing them around.

2009 Birthdays (DO NOT DELETE)

-Yes, 2009 was when I first received this chain letter, but it is sure to crop up again and again every new year. Oh, and yes, it's perfectly safe to delete this chain letter. It will not erase your memory so that you'll forget your friends' birthdays or your own for that matter. It won't give you bad luck or erase your calendar if you delete it. It won't make you and your friend have a happier birthday if you do what it says, including and most importantly, passing it along to everybody!

Let's have some fun!

-Let's get something straight, shall we? Forwarding chain letters isn't having fun. Getting chain letters isn't having fun.

See how long it gets and where this goes.

-Translation: Pass it on to absolutely as many people as you can, and make sure I get a copy back! That's right, people, that is the whole and only real goal of this thing, to be copied and spread, copied and spread all over the net, repeatedly. The birthday thing is just a hook, and sorry friend, you just got suckered by a chain letter.

This will be our big 2009 email to pass.

-And then 2010, then 2011, you get the idea, it will come again and again.

Give it a go!    364 Birthdays!

-No. I don't know a person with a birthday for each day of the year. Even if I did, I wouldn't put their names and birthdays into this stupid chain letter! Not only that, it's not like the chain letter originator or the poor sap who forwarded it to me knows the same people as me let alone somebody for every day of the calendar year. That completely discredits this chain letter for the manipulative junk it is right there. So that is that.

This is kind of cool!

-Just because a chain letter says it's kind of cool sure doesn't mean it is. In fact, it's more than kind of dumb!

Out of all of the billions of people who live in the world, there has to be somebody born on each date of the year.

-Well no kidding! But this chain letter isn't going to make you know them all!

We are going to try to accomplish the task of seeing if we can fill the calendar up with a birthday on every day of the year.

-That's already been done, by people being born every day of the year! You won't know them all by filling out and spamming people with a junk chain letter! You won't be hurt and you won't miss out on anything by not knowing them! You could get hurt by participating in this chain letter and your information gets into the wrong hands!

Add your name (NO LAST names) and your city / province (or state) next to your birth date to the list below.  Then, send this list to all your friends, plus the person who sent it to you!  Don't forget to erase the previous forwarded address before clicking "Send".

-And put your email address, location and part of your name out there in cyberspace for absolutely everybody and anybody who gets this chain letter, and by the way, requesting copies back is stupid. If everybody did that, the net would crash because of all the junk chain letters! If you want to slow the net to a slither, and risk having millions of strangers get your email address, first name, location, and birth date, which is all identity thieves and spammers need to make your life a living nightmare, then by all means, participate in this stupid chain letter and do everything it says! If you're smart, you won't do it!

Let's see if we can do it!!   Forward it, just hit the forward button then you can add your name beside the date.    If someone has already put their name in the slot for the date of your birthday, please just add your name beside it and DO NOT DELETE THAT PERSON'S NAME!!!

-Whatever. No, don't forward it, don't even fill it out. Just delete it.

Jan. 1 =

-And on it goes with the dates from the first of January to the thirty-first of December. Some names and locations were there, but whether they are for real or just inserted to look real by the chain letter originator, or actually filled out by people sucked into doing this forward, I don't know. In any case, this chain letter is a very bad idea, it's nothing but an info collector, bandwidth waster, internet clogger, it is anything but kind of big fun cool!

-When the new year comes around, how about making the best resolution of all, one that could benefit you and your friends in so many ways! Make a resolution to stop spreading chain letters!

(download)

"I 'Rescued' Your Dog Today" Yeah, right...

The "I Rescued Your Dog Today" poem.

It is a tug-at-the-heart manipulation chain letter poem that isn't what it seems to be at face value.

The Dissection of the Self-Righteous, Animal Owner-Hating, Ego-Puffing Doggy Rescue - urh, uh, *COUGH!* Poem! *Choke gag cough sputter* A-HEM! The post itself is in quotes.

*Puts on IQ-o-meter to prevent it from dipping too low due to exposure to this monitor-melting, keyboard-burning, visual and auditory-exsanguinating, mind-numbing piece of crap!* Here goes!
 
* * *
 

"I 'Rescued' Your Dog Today"

-Yeah Right...
 
"I Rescued Your Dog Today"

-You mean you bought a dog from the pound that was either 1. taken from some innocent person by animal welfare zealots in a raid, or 2. The animal had to be relinquished because of circumstances beyond its loving owner's control, and he or she couldn't find anyone to take the animal.

"A rescuers poem:"

-If you can call it that. That'll be the day when ego-puffing, ranting against animal owners and shedding crocodile tears for show over some fictional dog becomes real poetry.

"I rescued your Dog today...
The one you left at the pound,
The one you had for five years,
And then no longer wanted around!"

-What sort of creep, stalks an animal owner for five years, then dumps on them for taking their animal to the pound because their life changed, with the addition of someone in the home becoming acutely allergic to the dog, or they got a new landlord that would evict them in two weeks if they didn't get rid of the dog, or the owner became gravely ill and couldn't take care of the dog, and no one else wanted it?

-So, o' big-hearted so-called "rescuer" if you hung around this person for five years, why did you wait to speak up when this poor person was so desperately trying to get their animal placed? Why is it that there was not a lift of a finger or a peep from you to help them out, and even take the dog until they gave up and took it to the pound? You kept quiet, watching this animal owner's frantic struggle to keep their head above water and try to place the dog. You said and did absolutely nothing, and you lay in wait until you were sure they had given up the dog to the pound, so you could scream "You didn't want your dog! Look at me, I'm the big-hearted rescuer, saving your 5 year old dog from certain death at the pound!"

"I rescued your Dog today...
Do you know that he's lost weight?"

-Well, considering you were probably among those who were always harping at everybody to put their dogs on a diet and stem what you view as an obesity problem, should it be all that much of a surprise that somebody listened and changed their dog's diet to please you? So now you're not pleased after all, because my gosh, the owner had to take it to the pound, which must mean without an inkling of a doubt in your eyes that the owner was starving the dog before taking it to the pound.

"Do you know that he's scared and confused
And has lost all of his faith?"

-Uh, "faith?" What faith would that be, Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism, Hindewism, Bhudism, Sikhism, or paganism or atheism? The point is, this is A DOG you're talking about. Dogs don't have faith, that's a human concept. It's swellheaded, assuming jerks like you who make people lose faith, especially in their fellow human beings.

-But of course the dog is scared and confused, he's at the pound because YOU let him go there! You couldn't be bothered to help the unfortunate owner you knew for five years or more out, when he/she was looking to place the dog, remember?

"I rescued your Dog today...
He had fleas and a terrible cold,"

-Because you said nothing and offered no assistance when the dog owner was in trouble trying to place the dog. You caused that kennel cough and those animal pound fleas.

"But don't you worry yourself -
You've unburdened YOUR load."

-And you will give that unfortunate person who had to give up their dog plenty to worry about, you will spread your self-agrandizing tale of dog-heroism to anyone who will listen to you and those who are narrow-minded and idiot enough to hang on every word you say. You will do your bit to damage and condemn someone to hell for having to give up a dog. You will pack a strong enough emotional wallop, hoping to create a pack of animal rescuer-worshiping drones who will snarl, hiss, roar and bear their teeth at the mere mention of this unfortunate person you failed to help on purpose until they resorted to taking their dog to the pound.

"I rescued your Dog today...
Were you having a baby or moving away?"

-If you had known the owner and the dog for five years, you would've known their situation and done the decent thing by taking the dog at the first sign of distress from the owner at not being able to place it, and hating to part with it all at the same time. You didn't. You waited, strategically, until the dog was at the pound so you could buy it and fund the animal raid people, and then start making up terrible stories about how bad you think this owner was.

"Did he suddenly get too big?"

-After five years, I don't think so, and you just said the dog lost weight. That doesn't add up to "suddenly getting too big." You can't even keep your pathetic story straight in your attempt to muddy this innocent person into the ground for having to give up a dog!

"Or was there some other reason he couldn't stay?"

-You would have known the owner's situation, and you did. You've been watching the owner and their dog for five years, remember?

"I rescued your Dog today...
He doesn't play or eat very much."

-What do you expect in a strange environment? You're not his familiar owner.

"He's very wary and depressed right now"

-Of course he's wary. All animals are in a new environment. The dog was just as wary once before, when first in his owner's home, the one who kept him five years and then circumstances rudely intervened, circumstances which you made sure to exacerbate for the sake of your own ego.

"But, with time, will learn again to trust."

-If you are even half as good to him as his previous owner was. Hint, tear yourself away from your computer and the mirror once in a while.

"I rescued your Dog today...
And right here he will stay."

-Unless the time comes when you're in a situation where you can't care for him, and don't assume that can't happen to you. Then, who will have your back when the next "rescuer" uses this dog or some other animal you have to part with against you in their malicious stories designed to rip your character to shreds?

"He's found his forever home"

-You can't guarantee a "forever home." No one can.

"And a warm bed on which to lay."

-Just like the one at his previous owner's.

"I rescued your Dog today...
I will give him all that he could need -"

-So did the person you exploited when failing to help them place their dog until you were sure the situation had reached rock bottom.

"With patience, love, and understanding.
Hopefully, he forgets your selfish deed!"

-Hopefully, one day you will be faced with a situation beyond your control, and you will know what it's like to be unable to care for this dog. Then someone else might come along who is better suited to take him, perhaps even the previous owner's circumstances could change so he/she could get the dog back, although it is unlikely you would ever let that happen. So, for now, With fear and trembling, this dog is right to be very afraid to be in a home with you, you who show no compassion to a person you stalked for five years, you, who said nothing and did nothing until you made sure that owner had to relinquish that dog to the pound, you, who now sit on an animal "rescuer"'s throne of self-righteous judgement against all people forced to give up a dog for any reason. Thank God I am not your dog! Thank God you are not God.

"I rescued your Dog today!"

-You stalked and treated somebody you knew for at least five years like trash, and you caused terrible stress for them and their dog as a result. Give yourself a pat on the back and swell your ego some more! YOU, ARE AN ANIMAL RESCUER!

The "I Rescued a Human Today" Chain Letter Story

The "I RESCUED A HUMAN TODAY" Chain Letter

There's so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.

It's a chain letter story which has been circulating since at least as far back as Nov. 17, 2008, when it first slobbered all over my screen. So this dog has been sitting in the kennel and "rescuing" the same woman every day, since then, for as many times as this story has been forwarded.

It's supposedly from the point of view of a homeless dog, who believes he has "rescued" a human simply by existing ever so sadly until she comes along to take him home.

Talk about anthropomorphism to the hilt. Not nearly enough detail was written to explain whether this dog is supposed to come from a pound or a breeder, (a favorite target for abuse by animal rescuers) but it seems to be a bid to put animal "rescue" back into a really phony altruistic light.

So...this dog "knew" this human needed help, and didn't want to show her he had a bad sad past, but was only concerned for her future - uh, this is a dog we're talking about, right?

Oh well, I guess my pets have "rescued" me too, many times.

They could've left everything out but the bare details of the human looking into the kennels and needing to get a pet, and the human/animal contact and affection, the tears in the woman's eyes at the joy of getting a pet, without all that other doggy-feely nonsense.

On a more serious note, the story appears to be touting "Adopt an animal from the SPCA! or "Rescue a dog from a bad kennel and boost his self-esteem!"

Let's get this straight, animals are not little fur people. They may show preference for one person over another, but please, a dog isn't going to wish to spare the feelings of the pound workers or try to hide his supposedly sad sad past from his new owner so she won't cry any more. A dog is not going to be concerned with his own future let alone that of any other being on this earth. A dog is an animal.

Warning, sickly soppy chain letter animal story below, read at your own risk. You may laugh at how pathetic it is, or you may get sucked in and cry over what you perceive as the dog's altruism, depending on which side of the common sense fence you're on.

--

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:53 PM
Subject: I RESCUED A HUMAN TODAY

I RESCUED A HUMAN TODAY
Her eyes met mine as she walked down the corridor peering apprehensively into the kennels. I felt her need instantly and knew I had to help her.

I wagged my tail, not too exuberantly, so she wouldn't be afraid. As she stopped at my kennel I blocked her view from a little accident I had in the back of my cage. I didn't want her to know that I hadn't been walked today. Sometimes the shelter keepers get too busy and I didn't want her to think poorly of them.

As she read my kennel card I hoped that she wouldn't feel sad about my past. I only have the future to look forward to and want to make a difference in someones life.

She got down on her knees and made little kissy sounds at me. I shoved my shoulder and side of my head up against the bars to comfort her. Gentle fingertips caressed my neck; she was desperate
for companionship. A tear fell down her cheek and I raised my paw to assure her that all would be well.

Soon my kennel door opened and her smile was so bright that I instantly jumped into her arms. I would promise to keep her safe. I would promise to always be by her side. I would promise to do everything I could to see that radiant smile and sparkle in her eyes.

I was so fortunate that she came down my corridor.
So many more are out there who haven't walked the corridors. So many more to be saved. At least I could save one.

I rescued a human today.