As I've mentionned to a few peole in the last couple of days, I've been feeling somewhat multiplicitous (or, depending on my mood, fragmented) for the last few days. The hazard of conciously subdividing one's sense of self into a myriad of anthopomorphic characters is that, when somehting comes along which primes, challenges, or otherwise focuses your attention on them, these facets of oneself can take on lives of their own for a bit. I've been noticing very clear changes in my own behaviour over the last 72 hours which I'm confident passed totally unnoticed by most of those around me and were barely noticable even to the few who know me best. In such times when one's selves are getting away from oneself, the most valuable thing one can do is to go through some exercises which reinforce who you are, as to what makes up who you are. Tonight, you will all have the pleasure of joining me as I reflect upon a group of people who have made more of an impact on my development than any other single group of people (although we must acknowledge that most people are not easily fit into any kind of group, and there are *individuals* who have made a hell of a lot more difference).

By my calculations, it is the English teachers in my life who, as a group, have had more of an impact on my development than any other group. I've studied a lot of topics over the years, and I've passed through a lot of social circles (sometimes like a soft breeze, unnoticed, and sometimes like a disruption of kaiju-like proportions), but it is my English teachers who have had a very profound effect on me. We present now a brief list of some of the professors I have had (no names attached) and how they have been an influence to me. In some cases, this influence may not seem very significant to readers... As they say, I guess you had to be there.

Grade 11 English Class: In this course, the class read several books (which I no longer recall) and looked at some plays (which I have long since forgotten... I think we read Inherit the Wind, which I recall enjoying somewhat). The class also did a lot of creative writing although, looking back as Eric 4.0 at Eric 3.0, mine was not very creative... or good. The important thing which this professor said to me, besides asurances me that I had the potential to be a brilliant writer with practice, was one piece of advice: show, don't tell. These three words had a tremedous influence on my thinking processes, and as I learned what the phrase meant, it served me more and more. Anyone can put pen to paper (or keys to board) and say what happenes... only those who embrace writing as an art can *show* the reader how a thing happens and why. This isn't merely a question of describing things, although drawing a clear image in the reader's mind is a major part of it... it's a question of putting a sense of reality (or unreality) into the work. In addition to serving me well in my writing, though, the advice has truly served me well in that most important of all areas of my life: gaming. I've played with a lot of storytellers and dungeonmasters, but the ones I've always looked back upon as being the best were the ones who didn't tell the stories... they stuck you into them, kicking and screaming. Even I would never be so conceited to say that I too have this great power which sets games apart and puts characters on pedastals the players never forget... But players have told me that when I describe the game, they often feel like they're a part of it and not merely a player. At these times, it is the words I learned in English class which I come back to again and again.

The second teacher we'll consider tonight (don't worry, there's only three of them) was my professor in grade ten. Although it was an excellent course, it isn't this class from which I really benefitted. I had the same professor for a media literacy course, and as people can imagine, it's a topic I took to. Ironically, the vital lesson I picked up here was one the professor was trying very hard *not* to teach. Besides telling me many times how wonderful and clever I was (something I heard a lot from English teachers over the years) and giving me little mind-puzzles to play with (which she most assuredly did *not* give to most students), this teacher tried to teach us that deception is a tool of the corrupt and the manipulative who abuse others to get what they want. She tried to teach us how the media lies to us and that the truth was a tool we could use to understand the media around us and protect ourselves from manipulation. She taught us, basically, that truth is better than lying. You can all guess how well I internalized that message. What I took from that class was that the world is filled with liars, and what's more, the liars profit from their lies. I learned that lying was fun, and that lying is an excellent way of getting things done. I learned that lying gets you what you want, but what's more, that lying is an art unto itself. I don't like to boast about my storytelling ability, but when it comes to lying, I feel confident saying that I've become a very fine artist indeed.

Finally, we look back upon my English teacher from the first semester of my time in CEGEP. I was forced to register late for all my classes, due to some misunderstandings which resulted from my being registered in an experimental program blending natural science with whatever the hell classes I felt like taking. When it came time for me to register, only a few English classes were still available, and all of them had been avoided by other students for good reason. The open courses were things like extra-intensive Shakepeare or histories of poetry... as well as one class where the bulk of the grade not only came down to making a public speech, but in fact, the course itself was dedicated to rhetorical speaking. Like most students at that time, I hated the idea of standing up in front of people and talking, but it was that or His Bardliness, and besides, I'd had... well, a premonition, really... that the course was one I ought to take. In addition to receiving the usual praise of my genius, I had the pleasure of spending the next three months with a professor who taught the class ancient Irish ballads, sang swear words to the tune of "row row row your boat," gleefully encouraged that students show their chaotic side in their work, actively encouraged creativity by giving out bonus marks, and, of course, taught us skills for public speaking which have served me very well, not only in my gaming and my other shady activities but also in my psychology courses where a huge amount of course work tends to depend on oral presentations. The course is also where I met two of the closest friends I've ever had, one of whom is probably my best friend and the only real confidant I have, and my meeting them is not only due to my having been in this course but also due to the direct intervention of the course's teacher. It might also be added that I was going through this course during the weeks when Eric 3.0 was being replaced by Eric 4.0, and I feel that this course was instrumental in the version change; I place the actual moment of upgrade as being less than two hours after I gave my term presentation in that course.

So there we go: not everything I ever needed to know was learned in an English class, but a significant portion was. I doubt I'll devote an Entry to any of the other influential professors I've had over the years (unless one of them is reading this right now, which isn't bloody likely), but none-the-less I am forced to look back and acknowledge that my English teachers have been some of the most formative figures in my life... even if they did it by mistake.

As the flood... well, trickle... of new readers continues, I have received questions asking me to explain yet another of the somewhat ill-explained concepts found in these entries. Among these questions: who or what is Forsteri? To make up for my not giving a real answer to this one, due to lack of time, we instead proudly present a section from the Holy Files of Forsteri: The teachings of the Silinist Church.

Forsteri teaches...
knowledge, like money, is worthless unless it gets passed along to others, although it is nice to keep some around just to amuse yourself with.

never bet money when the odds are against you.

the best praise is from a friend, even when it's a criticism.

look both ways before crossing the street.

there is always one more fool.

it is better to have loved and lost than to have been mauled by a cheetah.

what goes around comes around.

get in the first shot.

carry a pocketknife everywhere.

carry a pen everywhere.

only a fool takes himself seriously all the time.

confusion brings enlightenment.

order without chaos is stagnant, but chaos without order is wasteful.

jokes are funny.

deception comes easiest when the truth is comfortable.

wisdom is relative.

cookies are nifty.

c is for chaos, that's good enough for me.

it's all fun and games when someone loses an eye.

duck.

eep.

music lubricates the soul.

comfort breeds complacency.

danger breeds stupidity.

stupidity begets stupidity.

some of the best books require coloring in.

ooh, shiny!

not every devil fell from heaven. Some chose to go down, and some sauntered vaguely downwards.

it's only ethical to insult someone if you're willing to let them insult you back.

the truth is concrete. Which means, of course, that it is man-made and painstakingly shapped to appear a certain way.

do not bury the book. Only bury the fool who tries to cause trouble using it.

if it happened to "a friend of a friend" it's not true, ever. Except for the one about the crocodile in the sewer; that really happened to a friend of a friend of a friend of mine. Really. And now I'm going to go play D&D.

Last Entry's chatroom gag brought in more feedback than any single Entry so far in this journal; two readers even had sufficient interest to look at the page's sourcecode (and of course, they found the easter egg/legal disclaimer I'd hidden there, just for that possibility). This has nothing to do with tonight's Entry.

Of the five, perhaps six people I consider to be my closest friends, only one, as far as I know, reads Journal. This, too, has nothing to with tonight's Entry.

Finally, ravens in Yellowstone national park have been found to be symbiotic with the wolves there, following those wolves and eating the carrion they leave even if the wolves make no kills and actually bypassing the kills left by other species. Interesting as this is, it, as well, has absoluetly nothing to do with tonight's Entry.

This is in part due to the fact that I am stalling as I write this, gambling that a main point for tonight will occur to me before I hit the point where I would need to begin typing it. I have not yet thought of a topic for tonight, but on the other hand, I haven't yet run out of distractor text. So far, so good.

Uh oh...

Don't panic... Keep typing while looking around... let the eye fall on anything nearby and wait for inspiration to - oh, good, there we go.

There are to my knowledge no players of Warhammer Fantasy who read this forum, myself included. I dislike the game because it is far too rules-intensive; you have to have a lot of rules for a working battle-simulation game, but I'm a somewhat chaotic person and I can't quite cope with the level of complexity in such a game. That said, I find the world in which the game is set quite interesting - over the years, the nice folks at Games Workshop (which, for those who don't know, was co-founded by Steve Jackson, who today brings us such joys as Munchkin and Chez Geek) have fleshed out a huge, elaborate and rich fantasy world, the most recent addition to which is a new army: the Ogre Kingdoms.

Ogre Kingdoms is the only warhammer army book which I have actually read the entirety of, because the ogre race developed within in a complex and fascinating culture which obviously had a huge amount of work put into its development. The race is interesting because the warhammer world is generally populated by races which are either very good, very evil, or caught between the two - this is an inherent weakness of the fantasy setting, where the temptation has always been to run to ethical extremes ever since Tolkien put pen to paper and gave Satan some gold and a finger-size. In creating the ogres, the writers sought to create a race which was absolutely wholly neutral, neither good nor evil.

I think they failed spectacularly, but it is still a very cool book.

The ogres are a race dominated by eating. They are always hungry and capable of eating nearly anything. As they descend now from their mountain homes to attack the other races, the rationale is that the nation is too large to feed itself without expanding outwards. Certainly, the authors say, their ogres are cruel, capricious, mean-spirited torturing cannibals, but they aren't evil, they just have a might-makes-right attitude and the belief that if they *can* take it and eat it, they earned the right to do so. I take some issue with this thesis, as, indeed, andbody with a strength of 6 (D&D stats, equivalent to a strength of 1 in warhammer stats, to be clear) would.

In my opinion, evil is less a question of action than of intention. When I rule the world and institute mandatory alignment testing of humans, I do not intend to punish people simply for being evil, I only intend to punish them for *acting* evil (.e., *being* stupid). To be a cannibal and a torturer (of unwilling victims) is an evil act and an evil intention, in my opinion, and I take some issue with the idea that a race which does these things is neutral on the grounds that they do not subscribe to traditional moral values. The excuse that "it isn't my moral code so it doesn't apply to me" stops working for you as soon as you interact with someone to whom that code does apply... which is why I torture so few humans and why I often seek penance afterwards.

To sum up: a race might be morally neutral even though they maim, torture, kill, and eat, but when they start *laughing* about having done it, as the ogres are described (and drawn) as doing, they stop being neutral.

What does this all have to do with anything besides warhammer, some readers might be asking? I can already picture receving a letter which reads that if I feel this way, I ought to write GW and not fill my Journal with such thoughts. My response is that it's an ethical question and not just an issue of gaming theory... up until what point can evil action remain morally neutral? There's an awful lot of social commentary in Warhammer, and this is a question I find personally fascinating and culturally relevant to the modern, capitalistic, expansionist (and very, very hungry) society.

Of course,I not only laugh very loud at my own sins but also am shamelessly and proudly commercialistic and materialistic (and expansionist). To this, I can only say give my usual response: at the very least, I'm turned away from the dark side enough to ponder the morality of my hobbies.

And when the conquest comes, it'll be for your own good.

Postscript

Today we launch the newly designed chatroom to accompany this page. To open the chat room in a new window, click here.

I'm currently in the space of a bit of writer's block, having received no interesting questions for a little while and not having had any particularly witty ideas for an Entry (evidenced by the length of time since the last humour Entry). Tonight I'm just plain short on time and, circumstances having relegated me to the emergency backup computer as opposed to the beautiful machine where I most commonly work, I'm not able to just sit back with a stack of music and some comic books and wait for inspiration to strike. Thus, tonight I will take the weasel's way out and post one of my pre-prepared Emergency Backup Filler Entries: more definitions from the Imperial Plagiarized Encyclopedia.

This'll teach you people to not send questions. T'is a doom come of your own hand. So anyway...

Coffee: A naturally occuring stimulant found in nearly all Gamer-preferred drinks renowned for its ability to stave off sleep, if not prolong functionality.

Death: 1: The natural process of all things proceeding from Stuff that Works to Stuff that Don't Work No More. 2: A semi-cosmic entity known to dress in lots of black and wield farm implements to deadly effect. 3: A severe impediment or a minor inconvenience, depending on the situation.

Dice: Any of several theoretically random geometrically shaped objects used to add an element of chance to a variety of games and life-or-death situations.

Entropy: 1: a measure of the used-up energy in a closed system, which used to be good productive energy but now is just heat and is slacking off. 2: The ongoing degredation of all matter and energy in the universe into waste heat (and, not to put too fine a point on it, nothing). 3: The scientific measurement of non-mathematical chaos in a (usually thermodynamic) system.

Heaven: 1: A form of afterlife common to a variety of religions and spiritual paths which, despite wide variations in thematic elements, typically incorporates an eternity of happiness and promximity to one's god(s). 2: Any situation that couldn't realistically get much better but does anyway.

Hell: 1: A form of afterlife common to a variety of religions and spiritual paths which, despite wide variations in thematic elements, typically incorporates an eternity of pain, suffering, boredom, or other inconvenience. 2: Other people.

Muppet: A specific form of puppet known for its cartoon-like features and behaviours as well as an ability to interact with non-puppet life-forms on a nearly equal basis.

New Toy Syndrome: The condition of an individual who has been rendered temporarily catatonic, insensate, or manic due to exposure to a new and usually shiny desired object or entertainment.

Penguin: 1: A flightless, aquatic bird native to arctic regions known for its poor defensive strategies, friendly nature, high intelligence and proficiency at tricking its conspecifics to dive into the predator-infested waters first. 2: The metaphysical representation of the silliness of the Universe.

Silly: The condition of a thing which exhibits a lack of common sense or sound judgment by choice and only when appropriate.

Stunt: 1: A potentially dangerous physical maneuver. 2: An unusual, unituitive, iconic or particularly effective use of a metahuman ability.

Time: 1: The Universe's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. 2: A semi-linear progression through ordered and causal events generated by the perceptual illusion of existing in a Universe defined by the laws of causality. 3: A magazine.

Wilde-Heinleinian: A term referring to the philosophy, school of thought, or conception of justice which is constructed from the basic principle that stupidity is the source of most infractions against the Universe and sentient life, and that stupidity (and particularly human stupidity) is a flaw which is to be risen above and expunged. Derived from the writings of Oscar Wilde and Robert Heinlein, and drawing heavily from numerous other authors and thinkers.

Two days ago, I received one request that since last Entry was preempted by a game of Warhammer, today's Entry ought to be a battle report of that fight. However, I didn't take notes on the battle, I don't want to bore the non-gamers who read this, and finally, I don't want to make my opponent look bad (at least, not while naming names and armies). Suffice it to say that my 1500 points of Necrons obtained a margin of victory of more than 1600 points, aquitting themselves in the manner one would expect of the Aerican Empire's premier fighting force.

Instead, tonight's Entry is in response to a request that goes back several weeks, when I got this letter.

"Eric,
"As long as you're answering people's questions, you should tell them things they really don't know. How about something like 'the top 10 things noboddy ever knew about Eric?'"

So anyway...

Thing #1: Eric is terrified of werewolves. As those close to me know, I'm actually afraid of quite a lot of things, being a generally cowardly individual. I can honestly say that I'm afraid to one degree or another of deep water, reptiles, canines, humans, insects, country music, fruits that grow on trees, nuts, wood, cars, open spaces, enclosed spaces... But I am actually afraid, in the sense of feeling measurable fear, of werewolves. Numerous Freudian reasons can be offered for this, such as being afraid of losing control, afraid of unseen things, and afraid of the beast within all people, but in truth, I think I just don't like the idea of getting ripped to bleeding chunks and having what few intestines I possess eaten while I watch. I'm perfectly comfortable playing games like Werewolf-the Apocalypse or reading lycanthrope-based novels, but for some reason I just don't like werebeast movies and they are the only branch of horror films which I don't watch.

Thing #2: Eric believes the research which argues that violent TV and videogames are bad for kids. Having read the professional research and even taken part in some of the studies, I completely believe that violent TV and games do make children more agressive and anti-social. The evidence is nearly irrefutable, and even if only some small percent of suceptible children are really vulnerable, it's still a statistically significant number. Yes, I'm totally convinced that violent TV and videogames are bad for us. I just don't care.

Thing #3: Eric isn't just unwilling to use profanity -- he's psychologically incapable. Eric 2.0 never had the opportunity to use profanity and Eric 3.0 felt it was beneath him, but Eric 4.0 generated with a complex system of mental blocks in place. In addition to there being several questions which the Eric 4.0 is incapable of answering under any scrutiny less than a One True Question, there is a lengthy list of words which I'm simply unable to use or even write without spending a point of willpower. Over the years, many people have been amused by the fact that I don't use profanity, but it isn't a concious descision... I couldn't speak those words even if I wanted to. Naturally, as anyone who's spent any time with me knows, it's those particular words which I can't use, and I have no problems with the act of swearing itself, as has been made smegging clear to people.

I could have written an Entry tonight, but instead I'm going to play warhammer. In its own way, this is exactly the sort of thing the Journal exists to inform you of, so my work is done.

I have always had more trouble grasping concepts in physics than in any other hard science, and the difficulty I traditionally had in such courses sometimes makes me forget that, while my grasp of the material I ought to know at my education level is weaker than it could be, I'm orders of magnitude more advanced than the average person out there who has never so much as studied basic mechanics, let alone quantum theory and electromagnetic waves.

This brings us to the topic of Entropy, which I'm inclined to feel is something every gamer ought to have a decent grasp of. It would probably be good if non-gamers understood it, too, as it's a fundamentally nifty concept, but we should set small, achievable goals.

Webster's dictionary defines entropy as... well, it's complicated, so we'll skip right to the Imperial Plagiarized Encyclopedia (you all knew it's what I was leading up to), which defines entropy as "1: a measure of the used up energy in a closed system, which used to be good productive energy but now is just heat and is slacking off. 2: The ongoing degredation of all matter and energy in the universe into waste heat (and, not to put too fine a point on it, nothing). 3: The scientific measurement of non-mathematical chaos in a (usually thermodynamic) system." That's not much use either, so here's the *very* simplified version.

Entropy is what you call the tendency for energy to be lost as heat and become unusuable. Energy changes form constantly... for example, fuel in a car stores chemical energy, and when it's ignited, that energy is converted into kinetic energy, which makes the car go. Whenever energy changes form, some of it gets lost as heat, and can therefore not be used again (whereas the energy which isn't lost makes the car move, turns into potential energy when the car goes over the cliff, and converts back to kinetic energy when it lands on somebody, and so forth). Entropy is therefore a measurement of chaos in a system because heat is considered to be the absolute chaos and lack of order -- once energy has become heat, it is diffuse, more or less uncontrollable, and doesn't form convenient shapes the way matter does. Finally, entropy is often associated, in the gaming context, with the manipulation of probabilities... I personally have no frelling idea why this is, and I wish someone could explain it to me.

It is on the topic of order and chaos that I disagree with the physicists, but this should come as nor surprise to the clever reader.

The tricky thing is that physics has decided that matter is ordered and heat is disordered... physics looks at the particle level, such that solids don't move much, liquids move more, gasses move lots, and heat moves everywhere and doesn't use its turn signals. I make a poor physicist because I'm less interested in the microlevel of particles than I am in the macrolevel of Stuff. At the macrolevel, the final result of entropy is lots of free-moving and chaotic heat energy but no other matter or energy... no living creatures running around, nothing falling off of other things, no computers shutting themselves down when you're trying to make copies of videogames (kids, don't copy software! Software piracy is bad, and is used here purely for rhetorical purposes!). When the universe is devoid of all energy save heat, there is no thought, no matter, and nothing to do... well, anything. Physicists call that a disordered system, but I ask in turn, what could be more orderly than an empty system?

Chaos is what we have today. Energy changes form suddenly and without warning; elerctrical potential becomes microwaves which becomes accelerated speed in the molecules that make up your spaghetti, and it all happens at the mercy of more-or-less random occurences at best or through the deliberate action of living things (usually stupid things) at worst. The fact that energy in a system is accessible and useable does not make it orderly if the idiots using the energy are chaotic and, let's be frank, dumb.

True order exists only in a system devoid of all Stuff. It need hardly be specified that, above all else, order is boring fnord.

I really should specify that these opinions *are* based on a solid scientific education and a strong understanding of fairly high-level physics but are, of course, mediated by my love of disagreeing with people and my open worship of chaos. I strongly advise against anyone trying to use my logic on, for example, a thermodynamics exam. Unless you don't like your teacher...

Here's an Answer I've been saving for the proverbial rainy day, and looking outside, I'd say it's a good time for it. Since beginning to play it seriously a couple of years ago, I've been asked many times to explain the rules to one of my favourite games, and while it's never seemed tocatch the imagination of anyone else the way it has mine, none-the-less many people have been entertained by the idea of this most wonderful of games. Therefore, let the rules now be set in stone (so to speak) and be officially recorded: here is how you play Mock That Human.

The origin of Mock That Human goes back centuries, but its break into the mainstream came several years back in the online comic, PvP (which any reader of mine ought to be a reader of). I don't have the date of the actual strip handy, sad to say, so I can't point people to it directly, but if anyone here follows the series, you'll probably remember the strip in question. The punchline was "mind the undertow."

Mock That Human works best with between 3 and 6 participants; this can sometimes be hard to find, but luckily, only 2 of the participants need to actually be playing (or, for that matter, have ever heard of the game). A minimum of two participants are designated Mockers, while a minimum of one participant is designated the straight man. The purpose of the game is for the straight man to say soemthing apparently innocuous and for the Mockers, in as little time as possible and in as few words as possible, to mock whatever the the straight man said. Here is an example of play, taken from real-life experience a few days ago.

Straight man (has never even heard of MTH): I was in the lab for five hours yesterday.
[five second pause]
Player 1: I can mock that human in seven words.
SM: Huh?
Player 2: I can mock that human in five words.
SM: What are you-
P1: Three words.
P2: I can't beat three. Player 1, Mock That Human!
Player 1: Ahem. "[Actual punchline cut due to profanity]"
SM: I hate you guys.

Each player judges the others' Mockery, and general consensus determines if a line of Mockery was good enough to score a point. If the straight man is aware that a game is being played, they also receive a vote. If the line delivered was insufficient, then the player with the next lowest bid delivers their line, and so forth. Whichever player scores the best Mockery that round scores one point, and play continues until an agreed-upon score is achieved by any player or team.

Real Life Example 2:
Straight man (who has knowingly agreed to play): I just went to Florida for my vacation.
Player 1: I can mock that human in ten words.
Player 2: Seven.
Player 3: Six.
Player 2: Four.
Player 1: Two words.
Player 2: Mock That Human!
Player 1: "Arms tired?"
[Silence]
SM: No, I don't thnik that's a winning line.
Player 3: Have to agree. Could've been better.
Player 1: Okay then, who had four words?
Player 2: I did. "Pity you came back."
[Silence]
Player 1: It beats mine, but not by much. Anything better?
Player 3: "And boy, are my arms tired." I think four words wins this one.

Mock That Human is an extremely difficult game because it requires the players to not only be witty, but also to be concise and to be fast; I freely admit that I myself am only a beginner, able to be only two out of the tree in most cases. None-the-less, the quest continues for people to match my skills against, so that in the future, everyone will be playing Mock That Human.

Today's Entry will be repitition for many readers, but is none-the-less worth posting. Recently, the Journal has earned a sudden influx of readers who are unfamiliar with the greater workings of my universe and are thus at an understandable disadvantage in terms of comprehending some of the contents of this Journal. Among the points which these readers find least comprehensible is my frequent to the point of nauseating assertion of inhumanity, and while my close friends generally have already heard this speech, it has never actually been set down in the Journal despite my having been writing this for two-thirds of a year. Thus, for posterity, this Entry shall explain the evidence of my status as a non-human lifeform.

We must begin by defining what a human is. The Gamers' Dictionary defines "human" as "any of a wide range of living or pseudo-living creatures which meet any two of three criteria and which choose to define themselves as human: 1) possessing or possessed of Humanity, 2) bearing a humanoid physiology and anatomy, and 3) acting or thinking in a manner considered Humane." For those who choose to doubt the Dictionary's validity, Webster defines human as "adjective: a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature. Noun: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens); any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs." For obvious reasons, I choose to go primarily by the Gamers' Dictionary, but it ought to be apparent to most readers that the GD and Webster are getting at basically the same points. We shall consder these points separately.

1) Possessing Humanity: Humanity can be defined as the quality of having such feelings as compassion, mercy, and respect for humans. To possess humanity is to feel these things deep down in the core of one's being; a person with a lot of humanity, we say, is someone who feels these qualities as an intergral part of themselves. I don't. While I certainly have been proven capable of mercy and compassion (or, more commonly, pity and contempt) I don't tend to just feel these things the way humans do. I feel compassion towards people I like, but not to anyone I dislike, and more significantly, not for people who I just plain don't know well.

2) Bearing a humanoid physiology and anatomy: Physiology is defined as the working processes that allow an organic creature to function, while anatomy is defined as the gross physical structure and individual parts of that organism. While my gross physical structure is human... basically... my internal structure is significantly altered, and entire vital organs are absent from my structure which, by all rights, a human really ought to have. Since these parts are missing due to my genetics coding for non-functional organs, I cannot be said to be entirely human physiologically either, and in fact everything from lactose intolerance to my system's adaptations which allow me to absorb and synthesize vitamins that humans can't mean that I am not human... or, at least, not entirely human. It's amazing the difference it can make to be missing just a few simple nerve clusters.

3) Acting or thinking in a manner considered Humane. This one is very similar to item 1, but there is a subtle difference. To be possessed of humanity is to have internalized the rules of humanity... to act humane, however, is to act upon these impulses. A person who has lots of humanity might not act humanely, and a person who acts humanely might do it for reasons other than humanity. The distinction is sufficiently significant that the two can be considered separate aspects of being human. To act humanely is defined by Webster as "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals." Again, while I am fully capable of acting with compassion towards humans, I don't tend to, and while I am quite likely to act compassionately towards animals, that's only because the only animals I'm typically exposed to are small, cute, fuzzy ones -- spiders who enter my territory are summarily executed without trial. I am able to act with consideration towards humans in general... but typically don't bother except for considering a select few.

Now, the definition which we choose to use here requires that, in addition to choosing to label oneself a human, one must meet two of these three criteria above. On a good day, I can be said to meet one of the criteria... maybe... but I never, ever choose to label myself as human, which merely cements what has already been logically deduced: I am something else entirely. I have no idea what I actually am and thus I haven't tried to name my species... I don't know if I'm a new species, a subspecies, an evolutionary branch, a genetic mutation, or who knows what, and it's difficult to test something like that. Why is it hard to test? People out there who have studied evolutionary biology, consider what is the single criteria most commonly used to deduce if two organisms are of the same species, and you'll see the problem.

The biggest criticism that can be made of this whole premise... besides the validity of the three criteria of humanity listed above... is whether, by repeating endlessly that I'm not a human, I'm trying to convince everyone else, or myself. I consider myself to be pretty well convinced, at least conciously, and suffice it to say I don't walk around telling myself I'm not human unless there are people around and it's relevant to the conversation. Furthermore, I am *not* trying to persuade other people of this when I talk or write about it. People will either believe me, choose to keep an open mind, or disbelieve, and in whichever case, I see little reason to try to persuade them. However, this Journal exists to make public my thoughts and opinions for those who are sufficiently bored to be interested in them, and thus, this Entry was pretty well mandatory.

Remember, I deeply hate your species but, if you're reading this, I probably don't hate you. As long as you don't act too human.