now to the commentries!
taking stuff one step at a time, responses to things on D's blog, which, horrible friend that i am i have yet to properly reply (and i do find our friendship slightly gimli-legolas. D's so elf, i'm so dwarf. we got to know each other through gaming. ie: killing things)

about writing:
keep it up, D. i'll never be a writer, but you could be.
about literature:
why study literature? why do we value it so? a part of me says it's because some people want to feel more elite than others, those who are "too good" to get their hands dirty working. another part of me says that the soul needs sustenance, it's the words and the songs that carry us through the day. that we need to be reminded why we do what we do, that there is meaning and purpose. and the grief and the joy and the loves and the hates and everything that makes us what we are demand expression lest they become lost and meaningless. we need the poets and the writers and the singers because they speak for us, who are mute or otherwise able to express ourselves only in the most basic of ways.
about nature:
old friend, i hate to say this, but i really hate wild-and plantlife. am i like most typical engineers and think that nature is messy or badly designed? nope. i acknowledge the inherent order in emergent behavior and the amazing ability of evolutionary schemes to build better than almost any top down design approach. what i do know about nature, though, is that it doesn't answer to me. and that's a problem. out there, we are "at the mercy of the elements" indeed. and that lack of control is unsettling. (not to mention sleeping in the rough is uncomfortable, the bugs are a menace and it's always wet and icky...) i believe that i can manipulate my environment, and there's no real reason not to as long as i'm good about it: don't make a mess, basically. nature is a challenge, yes. to be seen for it's beauty, but also to be confronted and overcome. for what are frontiers for if not to go beyond the horizon?
on our group:
my thoughts on who we are
myself: yes, battlemage works. but i also like hitting things, so it's iffy. *grin* not ftr/mage because i hate not being able to cast in armour. sometimes i think pal or cleric suit me fine because i take up causes too easily.
D - bard. soc. definitely elvish to some degree. *grin*
X - elven wizard - oh yes. our resident mastermind. more H these days, though
V - human priest - too damn true
C - halfling thief - *laughter* yep! dead on.
i'd add nessa too, but the jury's really out here. i like to say halfling cleric, but she insists on human rogue or mage and her brother on priestess of lollth. i suspect most of the people she knows would classify bbrn or fighter, though.
on kine:
coooool! http://www.shagrat.net/Html/cows.htm>www.shagrat.net/Html/cows.htm
niiiiih!
don't get me started on the coolness factor of all this.
on society:
"Crime and the problems of a modern society arise from those-who-have's turning a blind eye towards the needs of those who do not. The people who do something wrong are those who society has rejected or cast aside, or those who have gone wrong somewhere."
i would like to be able to say that if everyone was brought up right, there wouldn't be crime. but then i'd simply be advocating mind control on a mass scale. there will always be those whose actions are not acceptable by society, those we call criminals. and there there will always be those who actions are nor wholly moral, like those who would ignore the suffering around them. i don't know if any case can be clear cut. one could argue that the criminal (in most cases, anyway) should know better, should be able to choose not to commit the crime. for is that not what free will means? that our choices are ultimately our own? but part of the onus also lies on society: that individuals might be tempted to unacceptable behavior, and that placing them in this sort of situation is society's fault. it is, after all easier to be law abiding if one is well fed and comfortable.
On God:
i'm still going with my (what E calls, anyway) "orthodox" view of christianity. i believe in an omnipotetent, omniscient and all loving God. and i believe implicitly. for someone who doesn't go to church i bizzarely have the equivalent of the white wolf game system's "true faith" trait. God watches over me, He walks with me, and i do my Creator's will. on reflection i realise that my relationship with God is representative of my only means of relating comfortably with authority: trust and mutual respect. a partnership.
On IRS:
damn i wish i still remember what we learned at JSIST! thanks to b, though, for subjecting me to java shop-talk for 2 years straight. good programming rubs off.
On laptops:
fujitsu's bloody ex! eek! i'll help you find something cheap! build a desktop! (i feel like largo now *grins*)

2 rants about class behavior:
am annoyed (well, was. i'll never meet them again) with some people in my math class because they're bloody disruptive. maybe it's because i don't enjoy drawing attention to myself, but what's with this shouting out bad answers, waiting for our TA's correct answer and then saying "i meant to say that!"??? do you gentlemen enjoy making fools of yourselves? (and i cringe everytime you do this, people...) maybe what i mean to say is: please don't torment us by acting happy that you don't have a clue. or maybe you really are truly happy about what little you know, or that you don't know. but damnit, this whole underacheiving attitude really gets on my nerves.

i share 2 classes with this idiot who asks inane questions, and then acts smug as if he understands the deep mysteries of whatever. sprouts off tidbits of information (like thougts about the nature of space time) from which i can tell he doesn't know jack shit. oh god, what an ass. you want to talk space-time? come on, lets play with the tensors, touch the warp and woof of reality itself. knowledge isn't there to impress people with. it's to act on or to understand for its own sake. loud smart aleck. ugh. and he isn't even competent...