tigers and humans (as well as lions and humans, and crocs and humans) have evolved in a predator-prey relationship. it's not like that with bears or wolfs or even with leopards. there is absolutely no way to get one of these things to see you as anything more than food. it just boggles my mind that due to whatever arrogance or religious thinking or whatever else, people don't realize that we are not at the top of the food chain in certain parts of the world.

even with that taken into account, the general understanding of any kind of beast is that once they kill once they will kill again. this is the reason we kill crocs and wolves and mountain lions that get one of us. so, i don't understand how the tiger was not put down by law enforcement after it's first victim.

ok, this describes me pretty well, except perhaps the manipulative part (i'd rather avoid people altogether than try and turn them into personal puppets), but what's the problem if i'm happier interacting with a book or a guitar than a human being? in the context of spectrum politics and individual rights, it strikes me as more of a question of economics. it kind of makes me a "free rider", but there's not much i can do about it besides go through some kind of brainwashing. on the other hand, if we modified our economic system to focus more on using technology as a distributive tool, then we could all be happy introverts living in our closed realities as we walk around from one machine to the next. so, is this a negative disorder, or are we actually pushing the genome forward?

yeah, this sounds remarkably like rush a little later in their career. *shrug*. hope people are having fun....

roll the bones, guys...

this is the first i've heard of this. the rush comparison is honestly pretty astute, but it's not absolute. the verses are very rush. i didn't pick up any ayn rand references, though, so i think it's safe for general consumption. really, it kind of sounds quite a bit like early 90s pumpkins, too, dontcha think?