Author Topic: PC153: The Ghosts Of New York  (Read 23447 times)

Ocicat

  • Castle Watchcat
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3722
  • Anything for a Weird Life
Reply #25 on: April 27, 2011, 11:22:29 PM
Calculating, I'm going to have to step in here with my moderator hat on and tell you to remember the forums One Rule.  Saying you find the story offensive is fine, attacking the author is not. 



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #26 on: April 28, 2011, 02:01:55 AM
There was no peace in the end of this story. There was no conclusion or resolution.

The "protagonist"  would disagree with you, I think. At least that's how I perceived her thoughts and actions at the end. Also, remember the other ghosts eventually disappeared, when people "forgot" them. And by forgot, the story, to my mind, doesn't mean the person, but the horror of how the person died (since these spectres are really just that, an echo of those awful few moments). My perception of the story was that as the world in general "moved on" as it were, so too would these fragmentary spirits. If looking at it that way helps at all.




Calculating...

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Too much knowledge never makes for simple decision
Reply #27 on: April 28, 2011, 02:59:11 AM
And by forgot, the story, to my mind, doesn't mean the person, but the horror of how the person died (since these spectres are really just that, an echo of those awful few moments). My perception of the story was that as the world in general "moved on" as it were, so too would these fragmentary spirits. If looking at it that way helps at all.

how do you forget the horror of how a person died and still recall the event? the horror is part of the event, it is what makes the event significant. its doesn't make us comfortable to think about and i'm sure many people would like to forget certain details and aspects, but like i said before, you cannot dissect something (person, event, blog post, etc.) and still have the feelings/results/lessons learned/what have you. life does not work that way, there are no singular events. take the narrator-ghost for example. she didn't know if she was good or bad, but in the end reasoned that her soul was "spared" the memory of her death. what about the parts of her that were bad? what about the good parts of her? are we to assume she retains her good and bad memories, as she retained her memories of the last few moment of her life? in this weird afterlife does every person's soul get split up, evil-memories-you ghost being tortured without knowledge you were ever good, while good-memories-you ghost lives in bliss? and if this ghost world is based on living memory, does evil-memories-you ghost disappear when everyone alive forgets your evils? or good-memories-you ghost go away when all the good you did is forgotten? and what about relative-morally-right-memories-you ghost vs. legally-wrong-memories-you ghost.  are you even you after all of that breaking up? and props to anyone else who can follow this line of thought

I don't know who you are or where you came from, but from now on you'll do as I tell you, okay?


Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #28 on: April 28, 2011, 03:06:16 AM
Who can say what else happens in the suggested afterlife? That wasn't really what the story was about IMHO. But it does make for some interesting speculation. By forget I meant more.. moved on, didn't focus on it as much. I would think that for the sake of sanity you'd have to stop focusing on that aspect of the loss eventually. Rather than just erase it from your mind, that's not what I meant.

I'm probably being too vague. Having a bit of trouble putting what I mean into words.



Calculating...

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Too much knowledge never makes for simple decision
Reply #29 on: April 28, 2011, 03:17:14 AM
i think i understand what you're trying to say, and in reality that's how it works. we grow around the pain accepting or rejecting it, but still moving beyond it. however in the story the other ghosts specifically say "forget", and more than once. and as far as moving on goes, if it were just simply accepting the pain, remembering the victims not just for the specific pain of how they died or focusing on the aspects of their deaths, and eventually moving on, why were the other ghosts around still? the little boy ghost that jumped into the river, he should have disappeared long ago, same with the factory girls. people don't hold vigils for them anymore, their jumps were not recorded and played in the media. any living memory of their jump is long dead and gone, so why are they still there? and why just jumpers? of all of the violent crime that has happened in new york, why do only people falling to their deaths get that painful ghost part of them removed?

or am i just spending way too much time analyzing this story cause i still can't figure out why it bothered me so much?

I don't know who you are or where you came from, but from now on you'll do as I tell you, okay?


Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #30 on: April 28, 2011, 03:26:36 AM
I think its not unreasonable to ask those questions, and its possible I'm inserting my own meaning into the story. I don't know; I found the story moving, not disturbing. Just trying to clarify why I suppose, but it's a bit challenging to do, just as you say its hard for you to say why it upset you so. That's frequently the way of things with extremely emotional subjects.



Scattercat

  • Caution:
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4904
  • Amateur wordsmith
    • Mirrorshards
Reply #31 on: April 28, 2011, 12:50:13 PM
i think i understand what you're trying to say, and in reality that's how it works. we grow around the pain accepting or rejecting it, but still moving beyond it. however in the story the other ghosts specifically say "forget", and more than once. and as far as moving on goes, if it were just simply accepting the pain, remembering the victims not just for the specific pain of how they died or focusing on the aspects of their deaths, and eventually moving on, why were the other ghosts around still? the little boy ghost that jumped into the river, he should have disappeared long ago, same with the factory girls. people don't hold vigils for them anymore, their jumps were not recorded and played in the media. any living memory of their jump is long dead and gone, so why are they still there? and why just jumpers? of all of the violent crime that has happened in new york, why do only people falling to their deaths get that painful ghost part of them removed?

or am i just spending way too much time analyzing this story cause i still can't figure out why it bothered me so much?

A) The other events were still remembered - written down in history books, etc. - just not strongly remembered.  The story implied that the "echoes" grew more vivid and more focused on the moment of death when the living were still strongly attached to them, and the more distant that connection, the more freedom the "echoes" had and the less they were tied to the time and place of their deaths.

B) Why only falling people?  I suspect that was part of the overall theme of "The universe is unfair and incomprehensible and full of pointless suffering.  What will you do about that?"  The story posits a protagonist whose eventual answer is, "I will stop caring about myself and try to help others feel better despite the awfulness."  Other people may have different answers. 



Calculating...

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Too much knowledge never makes for simple decision
Reply #32 on: April 28, 2011, 02:01:04 PM
Still goes back to the issue of being remembered. Horrific events are remembered throughout history because they have valuable lessons for the living on how to prevent other horrific events from happening in the same manner. If we choose to forget these events in order to spare the victims we loose the significance of the event and their deaths truly are meaningless. If we "move on" while still remembering the event but choosing not to think about the victims death, we're not forgetting the victims allowing them to fade away and the signifigance of their deaths is decreased. If we continue to remember the event, the victims, the lesson, and the horror, the ghosts fall eternally with no reprieve. There is no peace or somewhat happy ending to this story. See the problem?
I can accept the "universe is unfair so just deal with it" response for why only jumpers have ghosts, but it really feels too simplistic to me. It just makes sense that there would be other ghosts besides jumpers. The only thing I can think of is that these ghosts cannot see or communicate with each other if they died in a different way. I had not looked at the story that way as a sacrificial story of personal comfort for the greater good, but even that feeling cannot persist for eternity. Eventually all the people personally affected by the event will pass away and the memorials will be less personal and more educational. And then we return to the issue of being remembered

I don't know who you are or where you came from, but from now on you'll do as I tell you, okay?


acpracht

  • EA Staff
  • *****
  • Posts: 229
Reply #33 on: April 28, 2011, 02:18:07 PM
I'm sorry, Ocicat, but in the interests of watching the watchers... how, exactly did Calculating attack the author? I reread it again to see what I missed, but I'm just not seeing it. It seems to be right on track with critiquing the content and context of the story. I see no direct attack on the author.

Thanks!

-Adam

P.S. - or was there a removed comment that I'm no longer seeing...?
P.P.S. - Ah, I see there was an edit on the post. Most likely so. If this is the case, please disregard...

Calculating, I'm going to have to step in here with my moderator hat on and tell you to remember the forums One Rule.  Saying you find the story offensive is fine, attacking the author is not.  
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 02:24:19 PM by acpracht »



Scattercat

  • Caution:
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4904
  • Amateur wordsmith
    • Mirrorshards
Reply #34 on: April 28, 2011, 03:13:25 PM
If we continue to remember the event, the victims, the lesson, and the horror, the ghosts fall eternally with no reprieve. There is no peace or somewhat happy ending to this story. See the problem?

You're being a little too reductionist.  This isn't D&D.  You can't rules-lawyer the DM by pointing out that the Everflowing Flask is one "vessel" and the "Bless Water" spell specifically targets "one vessel" and not any preset amount of water.  In other words, the story posits that victims of a tragedy become ghosts locked into that moment of tragedy, and that the more people think about them, the stronger the bonds holding them to that pain.  This is a broader metaphor for the idea of tragedy, suggesting that much of the pain we suffer is the pain we feel ourselves in remembering and thinking about the tragedy, and that this pain is not what our departed friends and family members would want us to feel.  You are reading the story and extracting the rules, but then you're applying them as though they were written down in a book and subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court of Tragedy Ghosts, and you're then becoming upset by the nth-iteration conclusions you're drawing. 

If you read (listen to) the story closely, it's pretty clear what's going on thematically: the protagonist comes to grips with her suffering and concocts a meaning for herself in the midst of a confusing and patently unfair situation.  The specific metaphysical details (only jumpers?  personal or impersonal memories?) aren't really relevant, much less clear or unambiguous or written in stone.  The protagonist doesn't know that she really is a shard left behind; she's guessing just as much as anyone else.  She chooses to believe that because it gives her a frame for dealing with her situation and working for the good of herself and others.



Calculating...

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Too much knowledge never makes for simple decision
Reply #35 on: April 28, 2011, 03:31:50 PM
You're being a little too reductionist.  This isn't D&D.  You can't rules-lawyer the DM by pointing out that the Everflowing Flask is one "vessel" and the "Bless Water" spell specifically targets "one vessel" and not any preset amount of water.  In other words, the story posits that victims of a tragedy become ghosts locked into that moment of tragedy, and that the more people think about them, the stronger the bonds holding them to that pain.  This is a broader metaphor for the idea of tragedy, suggesting that much of the pain we suffer is the pain we feel ourselves in remembering and thinking about the tragedy, and that this pain is not what our departed friends and family members would want us to feel.  You are reading the story and extracting the rules, but then you're applying them as though they were written down in a book and subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court of Tragedy Ghosts, and you're then becoming upset by the nth-iteration conclusions you're drawing. 
If you read (listen to) the story closely, it's pretty clear what's going on thematically: the protagonist comes to grips with her suffering and concocts a meaning for herself in the midst of a confusing and patently unfair situation.  The specific metaphysical details (only jumpers?  personal or impersonal memories?) aren't really relevant, much less clear or unambiguous or written in stone.  The protagonist doesn't know that she really is a shard left behind; she's guessing just as much as anyone else.  She chooses to believe that because it gives her a frame for dealing with her situation and working for the good of herself and others.

You lost me with the D&D reference, but I think I understand your meaning. I guess I'm looking too closely at the rules and possibility. Like I said before, I'm probably over analyzing because I STILL cannot figure out why this story got under my skin so much. I still cannot get around the idea of forgetting the victims or the pain or horror or whatever. I think it's that idea coupled with the eternal suffering of the innocent, which goes back to the idea of "the universe is unjust". I'm making myself dizzy with my own logic.

Acpracht, there was an edit to remove the offending comments. However I was responding to the author's own post on the feedback, and personally I feel that if authors want to be involved inthe comments on their stories they should not be exempt from criticism. That being said I will still abide by the rules and play nice.

I don't know who you are or where you came from, but from now on you'll do as I tell you, okay?


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #36 on: April 28, 2011, 04:02:11 PM
Calculating, I do appreciate you grappling with this story and posting your thoughts, especially considering it was such a difficult story for you. Thanks! I realize this was a difficult story, and I've been reading through all the feedback and commentary with great interest. Hell, I've already started putting together the feedback segment for this ep. You people are awesome.

Acpracht, there was an edit to remove the offending comments. However I was responding to the author's own post on the feedback, and personally I feel that if authors want to be involved inthe comments on their stories they should not be exempt from criticism. That being said I will still abide by the rules and play nice.

FWIW, it's fine to criticize authors (and readers) in these forums, even when said authors/readers are participating in the conversation. God knows it happens all the time, and our authors (I think) generally appreciate the amount of feedback their stories receive here. That said, there's a difference between criticizing the story the author wrote, and criticizing and/or attacking the author in question. Ocicat mentioned our One Rule because it felt like you were doing the latter.

Let's direct further comments about moderation and what's appropriate to metachat (feel free to start a new thread), and talk about the story here. Otherwise, carry on.  :)


Scattercat

  • Caution:
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4904
  • Amateur wordsmith
    • Mirrorshards
Reply #37 on: April 28, 2011, 04:10:58 PM
I feel I must point out that I pulled the Decanter of Endless Water/Bless Water trick once.  My Str 6 Dex 10 cleric fought off a half-dozen ghouls single-handedly with that maneuver and the judicious application of the "geyser" option.



iamafish

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • Thoughts from a Fish Bowl
Reply #38 on: April 29, 2011, 07:02:09 AM
jumping in late on this story, because I only just got round to listening to it. My life has been beyond hectic in the last few weeks.

I must say i wasn't really a fan of this story. I didn't find it offensive, nor did it anger me, I just found is slightly underwhelming. I guess the reason i disliked it can be best explained with reference to this week's story about Hurricane Katrina, so some very minor spoilers are coming up if you've not listened to that yet.

The think about Saints and Sinners (ect) is that it will still be a very effective and meaningful story in ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred years. It won't matter that the disaster has long faded into history, the story will still be tragic and it will still effect the people who read it in a deep and meaningful way. Meanwhile, once 9/11 fades from our collective consciousness (and it will, eventually), this story will lose its effect. It will not be a deep, meaningful tale of tragedy and loss. People wont have long discussion threads about it and no-one will refuse to listen to in because it touches a nerve.

The problem with this story is that it feeds of the fact that 9/11 is still very raw, especially in the USA. As a Brit, i don't have anywhere near the same emotional link with 9/11, so this story really didn't do much for me. It was interesting for a while, but it never really picked up. It made no effort to connect with me and draw me into the story. It seems to be written on the assumption that 9/11 is a sensitive issue for the reader/listener (a pretty safe assumption in the USA atm). By contrast Saints and Sinners drew me in and made me sympathize with people in a disaster to which i have no personal connection. Something actually happened beyond the initial shock of the disaster itself, whereas this story was stuck in that single moment of shock, without ever going past it and trying to draw people into the story for the human element. We never related to the falling girl and no plot to speak of ever happened, so i was left wondering why i should care, beyond the fact that I have great sympathy for everyone effected by 9/11

I guess the best way to summarize my thoughts on both stories is to say that Saints and Sinners would be effective, even if it wasn't about Hurricane Katrina, whereas Ghosts of New York would be far less effective if it were about anything other than 9/11.


cbjames

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Reply #39 on: May 02, 2011, 12:21:18 AM
Mark me down as a fan of this story and of it's author.  It's brave material.

One thing I think has been missed in the comments here is the nature of ghost stories.  I'm far from an expert, but isn't the major cause of ghosts a violent or unjust death?  Don't the ghosts usually have to come to some sort of resolution over this before they can find peace?  If that is the case, then events like September 11 and the Triangle Shirt Factory fire would produce a lot of ghosts. 

That said, I do think iamafish is right about this story vs. Saints and Sinners which is the better story.  I do hope that PodCastle will continue to run stories like these.  Not every week, or even every month, but every once-in-a-while. 



hcp56

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Reply #40 on: May 03, 2011, 06:17:36 PM
This is the first time that I have bothered to comment.  I listened to this story today, after hearing Osama Bin Laden had been killed.  So the events of 9/11 have been on my mind since Sunday night.  I'm a New Yorker, I guess.  I have lived here in Manhattan since 1988, the longest time I have lived at any one location my entire life.  I was here in 1993 and had friends that were in the WTC building when it was bombed.  I was here on 9/11 at work when my mother called me from the west coast to tell me that a plane had flown into the WTC and sat in a conference room all morning watching it all play out.  All my relatives were close calls.  My sister-in-law had the sense to evacuate after the first plane hit directly across from her on the opposite building.  Information was so scattered, I did not know if my brother who was visiting and flying out that morning was in any of the planes; he wasn't.  Near misses all.

This story made me cry.  I almost stopped listening, at the beginning.  I wasn't offended.  It was certainly thought provoking.  I certainly appreciated the inclusion of the other disasters from NYC history (100th anniversary 3/25/2011 of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire) to balance the horror of 9/11.

I guess I consider myself lucky.  I experience the fear and shock of the event, but not the deep grief of those who actually lost friends and family.  If I had, maybe I would feel differently about this story.



Makeda

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Reply #41 on: May 03, 2011, 11:58:03 PM
A very interesting story.  I enjoyed it for the most part.  I think that the ending went on a bit longer than I needed.  At the moment she turned to a fellow "jumper", I was satisfied that the main character had changed enough to satisfy me.  But, it was still a good story.

I appreciated the author's willingness to take an old convention: that ghosts are shadows reenacting their lives and/or deaths to its logical conclusion with the 9/11 deaths.  Somehow, most ghosts stories don't stop to ask how ghosts feel about reliving their lives over and over.  But then, most modern ghosts stories treat the ghost as an unconscious recording of an event, not as an actual sentient being reliving an event. 

I also appreciated that she was able to wrestle a "happy" ending out of this story.  It was possible that she could have ended with the protagonist merely accepting her fate.  Instead, she finds a way to both accept her fate but also help a survivor and a fellow jumper.  Good job! 



Sgarre1

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • "Let There Be Fright!"
Reply #42 on: May 04, 2011, 12:09:28 AM
Quote
I appreciated the author's willingness to take an old convention: that ghosts are shadows reenacting their lives and/or deaths to its logical conclusion with the 9/11 deaths.  Somehow, most ghosts stories don't stop to ask how ghosts feel about reliving their lives over and over.  But then, most modern ghosts stories treat the ghost as an unconscious recording of an event, not as an actual sentient being reliving an event. 

This distinction is one of the prime points in Nigel Kneale's THE STONE TAPE ("does she walk?")



jjtraw

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Reply #43 on: May 06, 2011, 04:02:08 PM
This probably won't be one of those stories I listen to over and over. It was rough. I cried. I got some catharis out of it. And I appreciate the bravery of the author for writing the story, and Podcastle for airing it. Thank you. And thank you for the warnings beforehand, also.

I do want to say that the whole bothersome plot point about the ghosts persisting until they are forgotten? That theory was postulated by the ghosts themselves, who clearly didn't know what was going on and were trying to figure it all out. when human beings (perhaps even psychic echoes of human beings) are confronted by something incomprehensible, they make up a story. That's how religions and superstitions can be constructed. So here we have this not-quite-a-community of ghosts, constructing a religion of sorts to explain their situation.

There's blame in the story they created, which makes sense, considering the story was created by these angry, hurting beings - it's the fault of the living people, who won't forget us! Why won't they forget us!

I am a living person, affected by tragedy. I *cannot* necessarily forget the dead, and am not convinced the dead are best served by forgetting. So it's a horribly disturbing explanation they came up with. But in my reading of the story, I did not get the sense, even in story rules, that it was the true explanation.

We never really know why the ghosts are there. We don't even know that our protagonist's comforting theories at the end are right. It's the dead, trying to make sense of the tragedy. As we all must do.



Devoted135

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1252
Reply #44 on: May 06, 2011, 07:58:00 PM
Wow, this was a rough one and I appreciated the warning at the front.

On the one hand, I'd like to be able to take a step back and discuss the story for itself, like we'd do if it was set at the scene of a made up tragedy in a made-up world. But I figure the author would have written that story instead, if that was what she wanted. So I'm left with trying to wrap my head and heart around this story, and that's just hard.

I will say that as much as I don't like this version of the afterlife (specifically the torture part, not the waiting to be forgotten part*), I thought it was treated well and personally I wasn't offended by it. I think I'll be mulling this one over for a while.

 

*I've previously heard a story in which everyone who dies goes into a cafeteria-like holding room and has to sit around and wait until the last time that anyone will ever utter their name. This really sucks for people like Einstein and anyone who gets incorporated into a local legend (think Mrs. O'Leary of the Great Chicago Fire), but in this story they're only bored, not tortured.



acpracht

  • EA Staff
  • *****
  • Posts: 229
Reply #45 on: May 09, 2011, 04:37:09 PM


*I've previously heard a story in which everyone who dies goes into a cafeteria-like holding room and has to sit around and wait until the last time that anyone will ever utter their name. This really sucks for people like Einstein and anyone who gets incorporated into a local legend (think Mrs. O'Leary of the Great Chicago Fire), but in this story they're only bored, not tortured.


The book is called "Sum" by David Eagleman, by the way, and it's excellent.



Devoted135

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1252
Reply #46 on: May 09, 2011, 07:07:00 PM


*I've previously heard a story in which everyone who dies goes into a cafeteria-like holding room and has to sit around and wait until the last time that anyone will ever utter their name. This really sucks for people like Einstein and anyone who gets incorporated into a local legend (think Mrs. O'Leary of the Great Chicago Fire), but in this story they're only bored, not tortured.


The book is called "Sum" by David Eagleman, by the way, and it's excellent.

Thank you! I think I originally heard it read on one of my podcasts, but I had no idea when/where, so now I can check out the whole collection :D



Skimble

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Reply #47 on: May 13, 2011, 12:29:27 PM
I think what I found uncomfortable in this story were the implications that could be drawn from the details as presented.

Firstly, all the ghosts were fallers. While this might simply be evidence of the universe being random and uncaring as some of you have suggested, there is a more sinister interpretation. Regardless of the circumstances, deliberately jumping from a tall building is suicide. According to some theologies that's a mortal sin; sin enough to damn the soul to perdition for all eternity.

This may not be at all what Ms. Pelland intended when she wrote the story, but it was the first thing that jumped to my mind and I felt that it overshadowed the deeper meaning of the piece.

I was also slightly disturbed by the idea that ghosts linger in this tortured state until they are forgotten (irrespective of whether the whole ghost lingers or just the echo of the person's death). I think using this concept in combination with a disaster that remains so fresh in the memory of many was... unwise.

Finally, I was dissatisfied with the protagonist's sudden 'realisation' that she was just the echo of her death and that her 'real' self may have gone on to a better afterlife. To me this smacked of wishful thinking that had no effect on her tortured existence, only offered false comfort.

There was no happy ending here.



Atras

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Reply #48 on: June 10, 2011, 01:52:21 PM
Wow, just listened to Dave's tortured covering of the feedback on this episode, and I had to come and see the thread for myself.  It isn't nearly as terrible as I feared it would be, too many people take things too personally.

Terrible things happen all the time.  I have known people who died in car crashes, gun shots, wars, accidents, suicides and one person who died on 9/11.  The pain of losing someone due to a terrorist act is no greater or lesser than any other way, and if an author wants to use this point of history as a way to draw us into the suffering of one soul, more power to her.  If it had been some mentally ill person who was our "protagonist" for this story, it would have felt like a moral condemnation of the main character.  Since it was someone forced into a terrible choice, in a way that nearly every American could identify how such a choice could be made (and with our knowledge of the outcome of the choice to not jump) it is instead a haunting story, and a damn fine one.

You have every right to be offended, and go ahead and choose not to follow this author anymore, but realize that life is not here to make you feel warm and comfortable all the time, and being challenged with difficult subject material is part of life.

Editors and Author:  Keep making the hard choices when it feels right.  You don't need to always find a happy ending, even if it is in the fantasy genre.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 08:29:00 PM by Atras »



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #49 on: June 10, 2011, 01:59:29 PM
Hi Atras,. I'm glad you enjoyed the story, I did as well!

I would suggest telling others to "grow up" is not perhaps the most polite way of saying you disagree with their point of view, though. I know if someone told that to me, I'd get defensive/annoyed rather than acknowledge any point you made. I thought you made your point quite clearly in the rest of your post. :)