I have a very interesting entry today, and by interesting I mean existent. I truly think that's enough to divide this entry from most days'.

Second opening: I have a bad habit. That habit is editing. I edit my posts -- oh God! -- before I post them. It's not a fact I'm proud of. It's not even a fact I'm fully aware of, but I'm aware of it enough to gasp out this diary entry pleading for help.

You see, while often editing a post before posting it remedies trivial mistakes like writing "and" instead of "a", and while it frequently lets me rephrase my sentences with more logical precision and cogency, hurried edits in fact introduce far more shocking and glaring ruptures in meaning and exactitude than those they withdraw.

Dearest journal, I point you to this wretched example.

You see, a glance had exposed to me the inappropriate narrowness of referring merely to Google, and not to groups such as Google, but alack, I mangled my sentence with an incomplete revision.

As is often my wont, I criticized myself as an AC. I also criticized others. But my tears trickled unabated; my shame, frothy and wild as it beat against my mind, was unrelenting.

This is not a story, then, of an awesome man -- no, not quite as much as it is a story of that man suffering a frenetic fussiness that fields far fiercer faults than those it fixes.

So accept, dear journal, the apologies of a tired, wheezing old wheeze-bag, whose wheezing is just too self-aware.

It had to be said.

P.S. I hope it didn't sound like I thought Locke wrote the Declaration... EDIT WahhhhH!H!H!HH! How's this for in-site insight?

Others say China is something you can only find within YOURSELF!

I don't know myself, I'm just putting both views out there in the hope of stimulating valuable debate as to which is the most compelling, or at least the most persuasive, for many compelling things are openly fictitious. Obviously we are in a quest for truth, here, and what man finds as compelling is very often not what is true; if the truth be damning or bland, alternately, often man will find it less than appealing to confront; nevertheless, we are depending on what I hope will be a unanimity of perception on persuasiveness to determine truth, after all, as I expect some Deep Within to gasp the words through the bodies of Slashdotters.

Thoughts on what China is, thoughts on my thoughts about your thoughts, or just plain old thoughts? Post away. Post away, and let this internet website rise far above its humble origins as a harbour for binary exchange -- let complexity, instead, trample polar certainty, and let the shades of your perception answer with tenacity and brutal rationality the swaggering absolutism of Slashdot's conception.

The Captain's dim eyes peered out from under his hat.

"Sorry, I don't speak foreign," he said.

I stepped forward, further into the dust, which was abrasive and intrusive, having been scorched by the sun and prodded by the wind into my pores.

"You mean there are dialects of foreign?" he exclaimed with mild surprise. He then snatched up something to chew off the ground, but he didn't bother to look at it or even turn -- connoting a familiarity with chewing items off the ground he evidently believed was impressive. Yet the chewing upon which so much nonchalance had been staked proved harder, much harder, than was anticipated and a sound like the stirring of gravel slipped from his lips; the Captain couldn't crack the stick that had turned out to be a rock -- nor could he stop chewing it without abandoning his original intention of being impressively indifferent. Blood tinged the tips of his lips; his gums were bleeding and his eyes spilling small tears.

I began to talk over the noise. I confess I was roused at once by the merits of the prospects I revisited in their recitation: I spoke with relish -- and with the grace it often inspires. From the captain my words elicited several more grunts of dull interest at the distant foolishness of things foreign.

(even if what it informs you of is wrong)

Due to recent fears that "zaxios" will become misused and misrepresented, I hereby declare "zaxios" as an unregistered trademark. I had it first (and well before that with my email address). I should have it last, and I should brutally crush any third world countries that disagree and think that royalties to me should not excede their GDP. Consider the trademark enforced by the fact that I use it regularly on Slashdot. Anyway, it's not a real word, I made it up and it's mine - and I wish I had the ability to defend it using some exotic strain of unfairness. Suddenly a supporter of frightening new powers for IP holders,

Yours severely,

zaxios (TM)

P.S. This is my serious face, people

I've been using Slashdot for 67 posts now and I think it's time I offer some views on Slashdot's moderation system. Firstly, I think it works surprisingly well. With discussions of Slashdot's size, anyone actually using Slashdot as a news site who wants to read interesting comments depends and can depend on outsourcing their earlier levels of discernment ("this is interesting, I'll think about it more" or "this is not interesting") to moderators.

The main issue that disturbs me when reading posts' modding - and when fulfilling the duty myself - is the occasionally tendency to oversimplify Slashdot moderation into, "I Agree" and "I Disagree". A comment can be "Insightful", whether or not you agree. As I said, though, it usually works out, in my opinion, accurately; insightful posts eventually end up highly moderated regardless of the popularity of their ideas. The issue is just that inevitably, what you consider insightful is swayed by ideas you, personally, most identify with.

But I don't think we should be modding down comments we disagree with. Indeed, what I find to be a consistent problem is overly enthusiastic modding down. I think the open-ended descriptor "Overrated" and the vague one "Redundant" facilitate this. Case in point. I don't agree with what he said. And, in this case, I don't think he what he said was actually insightful, informative, interesting or funny. He didn't deserve to be modded up. But it also wasn't offtopic, flamebait (in my opinion), redundant or a troll. He provided a valid opinion that the mods disagreed with.

I draw attention to this point because I modded him down "Overrated" before I thought about it too much. His post should have been left as "Normal". It was nothing special - it didn't deserve to be lifted into general readers' consideration - but it was a legitimate post.

Perhaps I don't understand the mod system. But if I do, I understand it that posts are modded down because they are not relevant or are abusive. This post was merely unpopular. It should have been left at 1 (which was how I found it - I don't know if it started at 2 or 1).

My thoughts. Uninteresting but legitimate posts I think should just stay at their default score. Good ones, that fit one of the positive descriptors, should be modded up. Only posts that do not fit within the discussion should be driven down to -1.

I recognize the difficulty with this. Namely, that if a post is modded to say, 3, Insightful, and you don't believe it deserves to be there, you mod it "Overrated". By the time you click "Moderate", it might already be at 0. That's an issue that moderators will undoubtedly encounter and about which little can be done. My fundamental point is that I think that the mod descriptors shouldn't degenerate into "I Agree" or "I Disagree". Something to consider. Happy Slashdotting!