OVERTHINKING THINGS THEATER PRESENTS: EXPRESSION

     With Caitlyn Jenner (she/her) in the entertainment news yesterday, I've once again been thinking about the often maddening encounters with people talking about gender, etc. online. It seems we, as a society, are now at that point where we need to come to a consensus on how to use English's various binaries because if the internet (stereotyped through Tumblr) shows anything, it's that there exists a significant group of people pontificating on these very things but either using the terminology inconsistently, unscientifically, or even illogically.
      The basis for these thoughts lies in biology, specifically with how life is classified into various kingdoms, phyla, families, orders, and so forth. I would not expect the following proposed usages to take over common everyday speech, but instead to act as a technical reference.
      The way I see it, there are certain fixed things about us and certain constructed things about us with former being biological in nature and the latter being largely made up by society over the course of history.

      My aim, in this decidedly unscientific presentation, is to attempt to bring some order to the mess that's been created through millennia of assumptions.

      From my various readings online which come primarily from comments sections, comedy articles, social issues sites, linguistic pieces, and from the occasional actually scientific piece I would gather that there are four broad categories to human expression: sex, gender, orientation, and identity.
      Allow me to explain how I've come to perceive the difference between all four.

SEX:

     Of all the categories, sex is the most scientific (in that it can be objectively determined) and it is fixed (i.e. it cannot be changed). Its basis is your genes, something we presently have no way of altering wholesale after birth. Your sex is your XY or XX designation. Biologically, this is male and female respectively. So to refer to oneself as male or female is to refer to one's genetic definition only regardless of any subsequent categories.

      In life, the XX and XY combinations are the ideal and are also by far the most frequently occurring. However, there are rare births featuring XXY and XXX combinations for instance. Additionally there are rare births for those born with both types of genitals (though I'm not aware if only one, both, or neither are functional) and those biological males (XY) with androgen insensitivity syndrome who develop like women but have no ovaries or uterus. For those rare births, the term intersex might be most appropriate. Whether to use the terms intermale or interfemale, however, I do not know. That would require more discussion.

      Finally, there are those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery. While this does not change their genetic sex, for the sake of compassion, I think we can allow the prefix trans- to be appended to either male or female to describe such a change with trans-, in this case, to carry the meaning "made into". Thus a transmale would be a genetic female who underwent that surgery.

GENDER:

      Gender, of all the categories, is the most socially constructed one. It's probably also the most confusing one to read about online as it will be used interchangeably to refer to sex, gender, and identity (as I will be using those terms in this essay). Because I've studied Linguistics, I would suggest taking a page from that discipline and use the terms "masculine" and "feminine" to label the respective poles of the spectrum.

      It is here that I will mention that gender is not a binary, but a spectrum. For a psychological analogy, I refer to introversion and extraversion. When you learn about the Myers-Briggs types, you learn that people are predominantly either introverted or extraverted, but they are not only one or the other. Also, when one is stressed, they will tend to behave in the opposite manner (that is, a introvert under stress will exhibit extraverted tendencies). Overall, gender is a lot more like a probability.
      For instance, my test results put me at 85% introverted thus making it very safe to assume that in any given situation, my behavior will exhibit introversion. Extraversion is possible, but unlikely. I imagine I would behave rather extravertedly if I were to find myself in an involved conversation about Babylon 5, for instance :-)

      I've come to see gender the same way. There are typically masculine things/ideas/activities and there are typically feminine things/ideas/activities (as well as a whole suite of neutral things/ideas/activities I'm sure). If one were to make a list of those things and have a person check off what they like and don't like, you would surely find "manly men" selecting typically feminine things and "girly girls" selecting typically masculine things. These things/ideas/activities have nothing to do with one's sex, orientation, nor do they have anything to do with one's identity but as with introversion and extraversion, one will find that their preferences are predominantly one or the other and that gender expression is ultimately a bit fluid as one encounters new things/ideas/activities and as culture redefines those things/ideas/activities over time (pink used to be a masculine color for instance).
      I don't believe the fluidity of one's gender is very great but I do believe the line that defines our masculinity and femininity is ultimately fuzzy the more you try to focus in on it. From a distance the line will look sharp, but as you draw closer to it, the fuzziness of its true nature will show. Philosophically this also means I don't believe anyone could be perfectly balanced between the two genders because it would be, by nature, unstable. Though I suppose if the fuzziness of one's gender line were close enough to the masculine/feminine dividing line, the linguistically consistent "neuter" or "neutral" would be appropriate, or perhaps the more common term "androgynous". Again, a matter for debate.

      It is, though, because of this belief that I find the terms "bigender" and "genderfluid" to be as ridiculous as the term "ambivert" (to describe someone who feels both introverted and extraverted). Genderfluid is redundant because the very nature of gender is that it is fluid, though unlikely by more than a small amount over any given time. Bigender, like ambivert, reveals a misunderstanding of the spectral nature of the term. We're all "bigendered" as we are all "ambiverted".

      Gender, like light, is a spectrum with its poles labeled. On one side there is violet (masculine) and on the other, red (feminine) with a whole rainbow in between.

ORIENTATION:

      Like sex, this is a fixed quality but unlike sex, I don't think there's any way to objectively test for it that I'm aware of so one must accept the interpretation given by the person experiencing it. Orientation describes one's sexual attraction only and for the sake of clarity, sexual is referring to sex in the biological sense.
      Orientation from what I can tell is a pair of binaries, the largest of which is heterosexual (attracted to the opposite of one's biological sex) and homosexual (attracted to the same as one's biological sex). The less common two would be bisexual (attracted to both sexes, though not necessarily equally) and asexual (attracted to neither sex).

      Anecdotally, it seems when one is heterosexual or homosexual, they are very strongly that orientation, like practically 100% so. The question for me is, how much overlap in terms of sex and intimacy would be permitted before one is considered bisexual by the population at large?
      I remember reading in the New York Times about a man who was bisexual but who admitted his attraction to women was much more fully formed making male intimacy difficult. But I also wonder if, for the sake of example, a man told a woman he had sex with 100 people, 5 of whom were men, would he be bisexual? What if it were 2? Or 10? It seems to me, whatever the number, it must be low because the idea (speaking for myself only) of having sex with a man is a never-go and being sexually intimate with a man is incredibly uncomfortable to even think about. From watching porn, the closest thing to male intimacy I could imagine being even remotely acceptable to me would be participating in a train (2 men, 1 woman) and the most gay heat-of-the-moment type thing that wouldn't necessarily freak me out would be if the woman in that scenario sucked on both our dicks at the same time for a moment. But anything lingering would skeeve me out quickly. Double penetration (one dick in the vagina, the other in the asshole, a.k.a. DP) also feels very gay to me. Not sure if even the heat of the moment could overcome that (the difference being the former was not my choice/out of my control and the latter would most certainly be). But even holding a man, stuff like that...no, I'm very very heterosexual. I'm diverting quite a bit, but I'm hoping you see what I mean.

       I don't know what the incidence of asexuality is in humans nor do I know what the psychological threshold for such a label would be. I'm looking at it from a heterosexual (i.e. a clearly defined orientation) viewpoint when I say even if I weren't attracted to any females (or males for the sake of completeness), that if asked, I would still say I'd rather be with a woman than with a man thus making me heterosexual even if I have no plans on doing anything about it. In other words, I'm treating the idea of asexuality like celibacy. But I'm going to assume unless medical evidence is presented to the contrary, that like transgender, asexuality is a thing even though my mind can't grasp it.

      One final note. I've also read the term "pansexual" used online. I don't know precisely what the current users of that term are getting at, but I think the term could be co-opted here. As I stated before, I'm heterosexual thus meaning I want to have sex with women. However this does not include women resulting from genital reconstructive surgery. I want to have sex only with women whose parts were factory installed. Therefore, I would take the term pansexual to mean someone who would have sex with those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery (transsexuals). The prefix pan-, though, would probably have to be appended to hetero- and homo-.
      So, for me, if I would have sex with a transsexual, it would make me panheterosexual. A panhomosexual would be the "sex with same" counterpart and a pansexual would be a bisexual person who would have sex with transsexuals. I think that makes sense.

      Additionally, undergoing genital reconstructive surgery would necessarily change your orientation. A female heterosexual after surgery would be a transmale homosexual. I think that follows logically.

IDENTITY:

      Identity would be how you present yourself regardless of the previous referents. The simple binary in common speech would be you're either a man or a woman. For labeling purposes you'd either be cis- or trans-. If you are cis-, your identity conforms to your sex and if you are trans-, your identity does not.
      Oversimplifying, a cisman is a male (by sex) who feels male, thus identifying with his biological sex and a transwoman is a male (by sex) who feels female, thus not identifying with his biological sex. This, until recently, has been considered a mental disorder but medical consensus has come to realize that trans- is merely a variant, albeit an uncommon one, and thus should not be treated as though insane.

      For proper labeling, one should always use either the prefix cis- or trans- (cisman, ciswoman, transman, transwoman). Man and woman without any label would be common speech and an assumption borne by the speaker based upon his or her analysis of your social presentation. In other words, "how you look" to the speaker. I guess one might think of the difference as how words like "chemical" have both proper and common uses. Using man and woman without prefixes would be the rough equivalent of using chemical to refer to man-made compounds and with the prefix would be like using chemical to refer to substances which cannot be physically separated into components.

      I suppose, like for orientation, if a person undergoes genital reconstructive surgery, then their trans- identity would necessarily shift to a cis- one. It feels internally consistent even though I'm unsure if it's "correct" or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      I think this covers all the major bases. The results are a mouthful but I'm not looking to replace common speech. No, my goal is to create a consensus-driven consistent technical description for proper classification of basic human expression. It is by no means complete, but I am hoping, rather, is for it to be a start from which debate may flow and help bring about codification.
     As for which pronoun group to use, in regular conversation I would suggest that if you don't know, that you politely ask which pronouns the person you're addressing would prefer.
     In writing, keep pronouns internally consistent and use basic compositional techniques like an initial parenthetical for clarity.
     For example, in writing, when one first uses a common organization name, it is first spelled out and then followed by how it is more commonly known or will be subsequently referred to as in parentheses. "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for collecting income taxes". So, when writing, when the subject is introduced, it may be followed immediately in parentheses with the person's preferred pronouns. "Mary Smith (she/her) likes to play basketball." or "Jake Jones (she/her) tells us that her favorite band is Green Day."

SUMMARY:

Sex = male/female, optional inter- (for atypical sexes) and trans- (for those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery)
Gender = masculine/feminine, optional neutral or androgynous (for those whose gender is very close to the masculine/feminine divide)
Orientation = hetero-/homo-/bi-/a- (appended to -sexual), optional panhetero-/panhomo-/pan- (for those whose attraction includes transsexuals)
Identity = cis-/trans- (appended to either -man or -woman)

Examples:
--- A masculine male heterosexual cisman would be the prototypical "man" in common speech. He is male by sex (that is, XY), masculine by gender (shows greater propensity for liking things/ideas/activities typically associated with men), heterosexual by orientation (sexually attracted to his opposite, i.e. females), and identifies with his sex (i.e. male).
--- A feminine female heterosexual ciswoman would be the prototypical "woman" in common speech.
--- A feminine male heterosexual cisman is the same as the first example except that his gender shows a propensity for things/ideas/activities typically considered feminine by society.
--- A masculine female heterosexual transman would be a genetic female who identifies as male, is sexually attracted to males, and shows a propensity for things/ideas/activites typically considered masculine by society.
--- A masculine transmale homosexual cisman would be the same as above except the person would have undergone genital reconstructive surgery.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT...

     I was thinking about the old Power Rangers series earlier this week. If you remember the show, the Power Rangers were color-coded (red, yellow, blue, green, black, and pink) and even when not in uniform, their street clothes were curiously color-coded as well. I'm sure this was done in real life to make things easier for the show's intended audience's age range but I was left wondering why this might happen for real given that it might appear like a bad move security-wise.

     I thought it would be funny if the Power Ranger teens were looking at old photos of themselves prior to their being summoned by Zordon, pointing out how weird it is that Kimberly (the pink ranger) isn't wearing pink in this photo and that Billy (the blue ranger) isn't wearing anything blue. And then they laugh about it because Kimberly and Billy love pink and blue respectively. Then Jason (the red ranger), showing a look of concern, asks to see a photo of him and notices he's not wearing any red and none of the remaining rangers have this color fixation way back when.

     Jump scene to them confronting Zordon who tries to change the subject while strongly suggesting he's guilty of something. They then pressure the more impressionable Alpha-5 to get an answer and he finally caves and admits one of two things (whichever is funnier to you):

a) That Zordon is many hundreds of years old and can no longer see as well as he once did so he put a spell on the rangers to compel them to wear clothes matching their ranger color assignment so that he could more easily distinguish the rangers out of uniform.

or

b) That Zordon cast a spell on them to compel the rangers to always be wearing their respective colors because, well...(Alpha-5 clearly nervous)...Zordon says that all humans look alike to him so he used this spell as a way to tell you all apart when not in uniform.

SENATOR SHUFFLE

     A letter to the editor in a recent issue of the New York Times wondered aloud about adding to our number of Congressmen in the House, raising the number from the current 435 to an unwieldly 3,100 in an effort to bring down the number of people each Congressman represents from the current approximation of 1 for about every 708,000 people (though that number varies by state as each state is guaranteed one Congressman regardless of population) to 1 for every 100,000 which the writer felt better approximated what the Constitution had originally set out (1 for every 30,000 - which, if used today, would result in the United States having 10,267 members in the House of Representatives while still only having 100 Senators).

     Now while I can accept the idea of increasing the total number of Congressmen somewhat. Maybe 650 - get it? Cuz that's 13 times the total number of states? And there were thirteen states when the Constitution was ratified? Moving along...

      I am actually more interested in the Senators. Each state gets two regardless of population but their districts are apportioned by population (within their respective states) like the House of Representatives. But why not apportion them differently?

     The recent debate over gun ownership rights and regulations thereof sparked by the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school massacre brought about two major mindsets of those in this country. No, not liberal and conservative, but rather that of rural and urban. In a survey showing gun ownership throughout the country, the suburbs fell almost precisely in the middle of the two regions. However, for the purposes of what I'm about to suggest, I will be lumping the suburbs in with the rural.

     When looking at the debate surrounding this issue, one finds that it is the rural regions which are very pro-gun and the urban regions which are very anti-gun. It suggests to me that the two regions have very different priorities and not that one particular priority or the other is necessarily wrong. Just that, perhaps these perspectives, one that of rural and the other of urban ought to be what is represented by our Senators, rather than some gross approximation of half the state's population.
     Sure, more people live in the cities than in the suburbs and small towns but the apportionment of the House is already determined solely by a state's population so why not apportion the Senate on the basis of mentality, specifically the rural/urban divide?

     It would seem a sensible idea to me.

     Hell, and if we're gonna argue for increasing the size of the House of Representatives, why not do the same for the Senate and give three Senators to each state? That way, one can exist for each of the three mindsets of this nation: the rural, suburban, and urban.

STEAL THIS IDEA, part XIV

      Have you ever heard of Krampus? No? Well, he's basically Santa Claus's evil twin who kidnaps especially naughty children to bring to his lair for drowning, eating, or transport to Hell.

(read about it here for more details)

     My idea is for a slasher film featuring Krampus as the killer but instead of looking demonic, looking exactly like Santa Claus which would enable him to get close to his victims since they would let their guard down for Santa.
      I picture him riding in a sleigh pulled by eight flying decaying corpse reindeer (with glowing red eyes of course) reined with rusted chains and the sack on board would be filled not with toys, but with the many weapons he would use to kill his victims who are presumably on the Naughty List. The weapons could be Christmas gift themed if you must like a doll whose head once removed reveals a dagger (let's say).
      In the end, the Final Girl almost dies but is saved at the last moment by the real Santa Claus, who in the course of the attack would reveal Krampus's true form before dispatching him.
      The world's naughtiness could be what keeps the creature from ever dying permanently thus allowing for many sequels if need be.

      Given this creature's modus operandi, the cast should all be people who would be on Santa's Naughty List, even the Final Girl.

      Stupid holiday fun!

      Or you could play it as more a children's horror film and have Krampus with the same M.O. and disguised as Santa Claus. The film could feature several naughty children and one goody-two-shoes. The naughty children are kidnapped one by one before Christmas (perhaps taken via temptation by whatever form of naughtiness they symbolize - a Seven Deadly Sins for children). The goody-two-shoes makes a plea to Santa Claus who appears and together they rescue his/her friends and save Christmas.
     .....Unless you want to go all in and have the children be killed in which case the goody-two-shoes and Santa would have to work together to rid the world of Krampus once and for all.

STEAL THIS IDEA, part XIII

     Just a quickie. I had this thought walking to work looking up at the dark night sky and imagining how terrifying it would be if the darkness were actually just the eyelids of some incomprehensibly large beast and watching the "eye" open before me, an impossibly gigantic iris and pupil staring down at me.

     I'm guessing this would be the kind of movie/show which ends badly for the protagonist.

STEAL THIS IDEA, part XII

     Whenever asked what my superpower would be, I would answer (semi)jokingly in one of two ways: it would either be to know when I'm "half-tired" (so I'd know when to turn around and go home) or to be able to declare Mulligans on life.

     A Mulligan is a golf term for a do-over. Therefore, today's idea to be stolen is that of a superhero whose power is to undo the last few seconds to last few minutes of his life.

     I favor the teenager bestowed with this power to be able to manipulate it by either seconds or minutes, but no more. Let's say five minutes for the maximum (or some quirky, but relatable number to a temporal equation, if such a number exists). Basically I want it to be manipulatable for one reason: I have this vision of him during a montage asking out every girl in school to see who likes him and who doesn't.

      I'm sure this gimmick has been done before to some extent. It feels familiar like that Adam Sandler movie Click. I just want to see it in the superhero genre. It sounds like it has possibilities.

      You would have to figure out exactly what his power does like, is it universally applied? Does all of existence get undone except in his memory of his mulligan period? Is it simple time travel (simple, he says...)? Is it more a ranged thing like, let's say the Men in Black memory erasers (meaning anyone within sight of him is affected)? Are there people (arch-villain I suppose?) who are immune to the effect? And why? Does he continue to age despite the mulligans (meaning that if he overdoes it that he will eventually be noticeably older than he should be - a few seconds here and there add up over time)? Stuff to think about...

     One thing he definitely cannot do is repeatedly use the power to travel further back in time. I guess some limitations could be if he goes back thirty seconds, he cannot use his power again for thirty seconds (that is, until he's "caught up"). He also cannot go back to a period he mulliganed.
     Using the previous thirty second example:
     He's caught up to himself and ten seconds more have passed. He could mulligan back ten seconds, but he could not mulligan back even eleven because that would place him back in a period he had already mulliganed. Make sense? Perhaps it could be rationalized both as a limitation and a means for avoiding time paradoxes. These rules are reminding me vaguely of Time Cop now :-)
     Basically he has one chance to re-get it right. Sure he could stall and mulligan again later but those moments where he can't use his power could prove deadly.
     I can envision him getting into difficulties despite this ability like, let's say he's been within a sniper's scope for a minute and he mulligans back forty seconds for another reason. He'll still be in mortal danger so it's not like this power lends him effective immortality. He would have to use it smartly to wield it effectively. Something a teenager may not be prone to doing.
     If he has to have a sidekick, perhaps a complementarily powered hero who can see up to a few minutes into the future? Perhaps they meet because this person noticed the future didn't turn out the way he saw it (which shouldn't happen so long as he does not tell anyone what will happen) - it leads him to figure out (please don't call him this) Mulliganman's identity or something-or-other. Of course, such a person could also be a villain. I dunno.
     I would be open to him being able to go back further, like an hour or even a whole day. Given his inability to use his power for that entire period, it could lead to some interesting stories. Relive an entire day, but having to do it like a normal person and unable to reaffect anything that happens that day. Is he ultimately a coward without his power?

     Have I said enough to get the ball rolling?

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)  

STEAL THIS IDEA, part XI

     I've played several fighting games before and one thing they all have in common is a timer. Each round/match has a time limit. If you don't knock out/kill your opponent before the timer runs out, then the winner goes to the one with the most energy/life remaining. That's fine and all, but what bugs me is that this rule also applies to the final fight.

Timed out? I guess my dreams of conquest are over...

     That guy, Zankuro, a demon samurai warrior, will permit you to defeat him simply because sixty seconds have elapsed. How honorable...but also, how stupid. He's the BAD guy, right? M. Bison, who is trying to take over the world and Shao Kahn, who is trying to rule two dimensions, also possess this bizarre honor code. I could see maybe the non-decisive rounds being able to end by time out. After all, that's how the game's been played up until this point. It would make sense. Even the sub-bosses leading up to the final fight would be fine. After all, we can assume that they were "dealt with" by their leader for their failure.

Is M. Bison making a jerking off gesture?

     But what if, in a decisive round, when the timer elapses...the game continues?

     Believe me, when you get to these rounds, they're tense. Victory against these brutes can only come from both a patient offense and an especially patient defense, but sometimes it's not enough and the timer is your only ally. Your stress builds up; you're ultra-tense watching in your peripheral vision the timer. Five... Four... Three... Two... One... and because  you're ahead, you breathe a sigh of relief. It feels like a cheap victory, but it was a victory nonetheless. At that moment, you relax the controls and loosen up.

     Now imagine the game continuing. Maybe the boss taunts you if he speaks or simply laughs as the game continues and he (almost certainly) beats your ass into next week perhaps even with a super-duper special move he was saving for just such an emergency.

Is that your best?

     It would be awesome, and (for the first time at least) you'd never see it coming.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

PERMAPUPPIES AND EVERKITTENS

     I wonder if scientists ever will one day engineer dogs and cats which never grow out of their juvenile forms?

     My guess is that they would be lab creations which would be implanted into normal dogs and cats. They would be birthed and just live out their lives in their adorable awkward forms.
     I'm certain there would be moral/ethical objections, but I really can't see there not being a market for such creatures. Perhaps more so with dogs since certain breeds grow a lot more than cats ever do. I think of the difference between my Uncle's golden retriever as a little puppy and this giant hunk of muscle it has since become as a good example.

     This concept could also extend to chickens and ducks which have such adorable juvenile forms but grow up all too fast.

     I guess this could also count as a STEAL THIS IDEA to be used in a movie taking place in the future. Why not?

Try not to love them. Go ahead. I'll wait...

STEAL THIS IDEA, part X

     This is kind of like a twist on It's a Wonderful Life. I was thinking of a film where the protagonist is suicidal. Since it would be dramatic, he is saved moments before he would die from a self-inflicted wound by a mysterious person who takes it upon him/herself to convince the protagonist that life is worth living. The course of the movie could have the protagonist introduced to people this person associates with.

     I don't want the reason for this guy's desire to suicide to be known: it's not important at first. It's just a jumping off point. He just believes he needs to die because he is sinful and a bad man. The advertising goal of the film should be to make it like a redemption drama; a feel-good film if you will. The kind of film which would restore your faith in humanity.

     However, I want a sense of uneasiness about the protagonist...that something isn't quite right about him. It could be played off as parts of his past that we the audience would forgive because the protagonist is a better person now (let's say) or genuinely sorry. I want there to be an uneasiness about why these people are helping him. Nothing obvious. No creepy organizations or outfits. They should be like regular psychiatrists doing their jobs and doing their jobs properly and competently, although perhaps they emphasize the spiritual a bit more often than a professional psychiatrist ever would.

     As for the twist, I want the person whose life is saved to actually be a very bad person, or rather, someone who will become a very bad person. Say it's a time-travel adventure in disguise. We learn the protagonist is being driven to suicide during the film by people coming back to make sure this person never lives long enough to do harm (make it like it has to be suicide or else someone will take the protagonist's place - maybe s/he has followers/believers already?) and that the people who save him/her and perhaps also fight the ones who had driven him/her to suicide (action flick?) be people on the protagonist's side.

     I just want the audience being tricked into rooting for the wrong people. Subtle clues throughout (the kind you would miss or overlook on a first viewing) can give away that this is a person not worth saving.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

STEAL THIS IDEA, part X

     Quick one. Every time I pass by mirrors arranged so that you get the Hall of Mirrors Effect, I have the same idea for a science-fiction tale à la The Twilight Zone.

     When you stand between two such mirrors, you see yourself reflected over and over again apparently to infinity, but not actually infinity because you are blocking that exact point. Even if your head were the size of an electron, you still couldn't see the technical infinity point. It's impossible, thus the crux of the story.

     What if the protagonist found a way to see the infinity point either by design or by accident? What would he see? What would he learn? What would be the consequence? This feels like a tale H.P. Lovecraft might write and I really cannot see anything other than some Lovecraftian horror awaiting anyone who dared to peer into the infinite.

      What awaits such a man? Monsters? Madness? An unforeseen world? A glimpse into the future? A glimpse into the mind of God? Who knows? I'll leave it to your imagination.

     I see this tale being an allegory to drug addiction. Like you're only "allowed" one look, but it is so intoxicating (or whatever), that you will spend the rest of your life chasing it, trying to see it again just like how it is said that your first high is the best and you spend the rest of your night chasing that original high but you can never reach it again. Does the protagonist drive himself mad trying to do so? Does he die in the attempt? Does anyone believe him or what he thinks he has found?

     I kinda see the story ending with the man dead, but with a relieved look on his face. Yeah, he found what he was looking for alright...but it cost him.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

STEAL THIS IDEA, part IX

     Costello showed me the film, "House of a 1000 Corpses" the other day and while I cannot say I liked the film, that's not the point of this entry. What I couldn't help but notice was that while the two guys seemed very interested in what they were doing (investigated strange attractions across the country), the girls really could not be bothered.
     Now, being a horror/slasher film, these good times inevitably turn sour and our may-as-well-be-nameless characters get caught up in a terrifying experience from which none of them will escape. No, I'm not giving a SPOILER ALERT for a ten year old film. Now while it is entirely fair to say these characters were doomed from the moment they picked up Baby, who was hitchhiking in the rain, I'm not really so sure.
     Evidence that they were doomed anyway comes from the five abducted cheerleaders mentioned offhandedly by a news anchor earlier in the film. Cutaways in between scenes show them being tortured and killed all the while these kids are downstairs eating dinner and holding conversation with the rest of the weird family while Baby's brother fixes their car (he also caused their car to break down in the first place by shooting out the tire). So yes, they may have been doomed no matter what.
     However, it does all seem fun and games (at least for the non-cheerleader guests in this house), but each of the two girls were really annoyed by this experience. Denise, just scoffed at everything and Mary grew quite jealous when Baby seemed to be putting moves on her boyfriend during a performance she was doing of a Betty Boop song. At that point, when threatened, Baby pulls a knife on Mary threatening to cut her and blah, blah, blah tension raised. Their car was fixed and they were asked to leave by the mother. They do so, and are again ambushed by the other brothers and the torture-fest begins for all.

     But what had me wondering is, what if the girls were appreciative like the guys were? Or what if they simply hadn't come? Would they have been allowed to leave the house unscathed? Yes, that would have made for a pointless film...not that the actual film was any less pointless.
 
      Anyways, what I had in mind was making a DVD extra in which the characters are spared. This would take some planning. I'm using House of 1000 Corpses as an example because the girls' reactions seem to be what gets the action moving. Imagine if they weren't there? Done properly, only a few alternate takes would be needed and you could drop a line early on in the film where the guys complain that they should have left the girls at home (something to which the girls can agree).
      Activate the DVD extra, and the girls stay home (perhaps seen in a cutaway phone call wishing they could have come or some other bullshit), the guys end up at the same place, but they have a good time, the car gets fixed and they go off on their way. Fade to credits (this would be a much shorter film). It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure book and it could still end creepily like one of the guys thinking he's seeing a cheerleader being dragged to a shed or pleading from a window or them simply happening across part of a cheerleader's uniform.

      In summation, write a horror film where it is clear one character gets the horror ball rolling and if that one character weren't present, everything would have turned out just fine. Write the film so that character can be neatly cut out of it using a minimum of alternate takes and alternate dialog since I'm guessing the budget will not be high. I imagine that is where storyboarding comes to the rescue.
      Anyways, that's my stupid idea. Take it from me. Get it out of my head...

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

STEAL THIS IDEA, part VIII

     Some quick jokes I thought of (I hope!).

     Have a comedy which takes place a few decades in the future after say, the protagonist falls into a coma or was abducted by aliens for like forty years or whatever...I really don't care. Just so long as he's in that kind of a future. It might help if he was a child when he went missing and though aged, is still a kid at heart like Lion-O from the Thundercats whose body aged while in cryogenic suspension, but his mind remained the child he was when originally frozen.
     Anyways, have the kid stumble upon a Nerf gun exclaiming (something like - not a dialog writer here), "Awesome! They still have Nerf guns!" He grabs it, points it at something all the while his (now older) friends scream, "NOOOO!!!!!", and fires actual bullets into something (or someone if this is a black comedy - said shooting victim need not die...flesh wounds for comedy!). The friends then explain to the man-child that Nerf stopped making real guns and bullets back in the 2030s when sales started lagging for the company (or some other bullshit explanation). Additional layers of the gag being the real gun still looks like a cheap plastic toy (tradition, amirite?) and the fact that a Nerf gun is in an adult's house (with no children...can establish that in prior scenes) going unnoticed by the audience. The Nerf gun can also associated with a famous gun brand like Winchester Nerf Revolver :-P

     This one's for the girls. There's a store called Forever 21 in my area (may be a nationwide chain...I'm kinda hoping it is for this gag). Have a parody store for fat girls (if you wanna be mean about it) or BBWs (if you're going in a prideful direction) called Forever Size 21.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

STEAL THIS IDEA, part VII

     A curious thing I have tended to wonder about is the way good and evil are depicted in literature and film. Why is good almost without exception depicted as beautiful, colorful, bright, warm, etc. and evil is dark, cold, ugly, and terrifying? Yes, I know sometimes they are depicted as otherwise, but their final form conforms to this kind of type-casting and I've wondered why this is so.

     The thing about being good is that it is hard and that it is a constant struggle. While a reward is sometimes promised as in religious afterlives, really being good is an endless battle. Being bad is what is easy. Sometimes simply doing nothing is enough, but the idea behind such sinfulness and its temptation...what makes it tempting in fact is the ease with which such sins can be carried out. It's easier to be furious than it is to be patient. It's easier to be invidious than it is to be kind. It's easier to be arrogant than it is to be humble. Etc. and so on and so forth.

     Which brings me back to the physical depictions of goodness...

     I'll keep with Judeo-Christian symbols mainly because that's how I was raised... I don't understand why heavenly beings look the way they do. Why should they look so inviting? I would think a more appropriate angel would look in such a way as to create doubt and unease to the observer. If being good is difficult, or at least the more difficult choice, then following a creature of goodness should parallel that doubt. Something about them should give you the creeps. Something about them should make you wonder why your friends are so willing or even able, to follow them...like it's a trick or something. I'm not saying they should have glowing red eyes and sharp claws. What I'm saying is they should never be giving you this feeling that what you're doing is the right thing and also, even when "you've seen the light" so to speak, they don't suddenly become beautiful as a reward. No, they stay that way forever and there is no goal because being good is an endless struggle.
     Wherever these creatures would lead you should be uncomfortable as well. I picture it being too cold or too hot and too dim or too bright as though the idea were to cause you to give up; to turn around and go back. It's always a struggle...


     I would think at least part of the reason they should appear this way would be to avoid being used. You don't need to be faithful to feel like you could trust a being cloaked in life-giving light with a fair face talking in reassuring tones but you might think twice about approaching a creature that speaks in hoarse, disconcerting whispers bathed in shadow. To merely approach such a creature would be an act of faith that it was not luring you into a trap but perhaps it gives off subtle, ever so subtle, clues that it means you no harm; that all this shadowy nonsense is a bluff to keep those who would use it away.
     But just because you trust it, doesn't mean that it will reveal its "true angelic form" to you. The shadowy creature would be its true form already. If it made such a transformation, then it would actually be a demon trying to lure you into a(n after)life of complacency and leisure instead of good deeds which benefit the system as a whole rather than just you.

     Selfishness is Hell because it is easy to care only about your wants and desires and difficult to care for others over yourself. And for that reason, demons and Hell itself should look like a kind of paradise. It should be full of things to do which make you happy and full of things which would bring about personal fulfillment. And it should feel good to be there because why would you want to leave such a place?
      Even if you've figured it out that good is hard and that this version of Heaven I'm conjuring is hardly a pretty place, remember it's endless so you would be bombarded with the temptation that you've done enough; that it's okay to stop and take your reward because you have earned it. Taking the reward is the wrong step because it is not a reward. There is no reward for goodness. The reward is yet another temptation to be resisted.

      I think I'm painting a picture of Heaven and Hell which roughly parallels the idea of entropy and when discussing entropy, it is important to know that in the end, entropy always wins. Perhaps it kind of works. If only God can be perfect, then no human soul could ever survive the Heaven I've described...not forever anyway. I guess that's where forgiveness comes in, but this was supposed to be about visual depictions, so I'll leave it at that.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

$20 PAC

     You want to limit the influence of money on politics or at least make the money that goes into politics more democratic? While a lot of laws would need to be changed to even get this idea off the ground, here's what you do. It's simple, possibly elegant, and definitely stupid.

     The maximum donation a candidate/incumbent can accept from a person (or corporation...thanks Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission decision) is twenty dollars ($20). Twenty bucks. That's it...even from himself. The person doing the donating would have to be at least of voting age (preferably registered to do so as well, but I won't advocate that just yet) because if you can't vote, you cannot participate in the system. I don't know how much of this country is over eighteen, but you have to figure at least half making a minimum possible total of about 150 million people which, multiplied by the maximum donation of $20 would be $3 billion dollars per Presidential candidate (though considerably less for each lesser one as I don't think you should be able to donate to people who are not in your district and thus cannot vote for).

     What is the point of this donation limit? For me, the idea is that even the poorest of the poor should have at least twenty dollars to spare for charitable purposes and I will consider donating money to a candidate seeking election to represent you in government as a charitable donation. Each person gets one vote and that is considered fair. No matter how wealthy or poor, you only get one. Money should really be no different. Why is it considered fair that a billionaire can tap his vast fortune to run for office, saturating the landscape with advertisements and socials, or that the well-to-do can donate vast sums of money to a candidate or party? Does that not give them undue influence? Isn't it supposed to be, "Let the best man with the best ideas win" and not "Let the most moneyed man win"? It's about ideas, not dollars...right?

     Therefore, limit the dollars to something more equitable. Candidates would need to get many donations to run a campaign or would have to actually appear at non-partisan sponsored events to debate one and other. They would need to listen to the people because they would need the money to get (re)elected. Politicians would be unable to shut them out. I admit this idea sounds terribly impractical but then I also think, "Who was the last President we've had who wasn't already wealthy?" We've had some rags to riches stories (Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln come to mind), but by the time they were in office, they had some cash to play with. Would it be so wrong to try a little something different?

     And while we're at it, eliminate the direct primary too. Let the political parties who back these candidates actually choose their candidates again. Direct primaries bring out the extremists on both ends and we end up with unelectable candidates as a result. If the direct primary is eliminated, then I will allow people to donate $20 to a political party in addition to a candidate. Maybe it can be a matching donation thing. For every candidate you give $20 to, you can also give $20 to their party assuming the candidate is represented by one.

     Deal?

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

STEAL THIS IDEA, part VI

     I'm thinking about getting a couch for my apartment. I figure it will make my place look more inviting than does a lone chair. Of course what should be (in my opinion of course) a simple decision of "I like the way this looks" and be done with it has turned into a "You can't get this because it doesn't match your carpet/wall/other furniture" stand-off.

     There are a lot of couch designs out there...excuse me, sofa designs, but their available colors (if plural at all), tends to be meager. My thought is this and it's entirely possible that this has already been done, but how about a standard sofa? I'm sure you can picture one in your head. A stereotype of a sofa. The kind you might find drawn in a comic or cartoon. That style. You see it, don't you? It's not impressive in terms of, uh...architecture (?) but it's functional and damn it! looks like a cou...sofa. But a standardized design.
     And totally in addition to your store's other stock, but unlike the other sofas you have, it can be upholstered in any color or pattern of fabric. Made-to-order perhaps via the internet using your showroom just to show the design and feel. But standard for people like me who want a sofa but not the headache that comes with one.

     And understand, I'm not implying "cheap" when talking about this sofa. It can be of fine quality, but it needs to be a mass-produced, sturdy design. There can be a couple of models, but only a few, otherwise it would be defeating the purpose of this idea. Their primary commonality being that it can come in any color or pattern.

     Actually this standardization idea could apply to most types of furniture including beds, dinette tables, chairs, coffee tables, book shelves, dishes...even cars. I have a feeling this kind of furniture would not go over well with women, but they're not my target demo here. I'm speaking for bachelor men who are aware of color-matching (but don't necessarily understand it) and want to make that good first impression in terms of that but who can't be bothered to look at multiple models of desirable-looking pieces only to find out they don't work with your current decor. Go to the showroom, show a picture of your living-room, and the helpful salesman will give you appropriate colors and patterns to choose from and voilà! you've just bought a cou...sofa!

     I  don't know. I'm sure you get my point.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

THE ANSWER IS THE WAR OF 1812

     It's been a long time since this country has been invaded by a military force bent on conquering it and it was that thought which had me wondering. Let's say it happened again, the United States comes under invasion from a powerful and serious enemy, how many people do you think would take advantage of the situation to settle some old scores and blame it on the invaders? I have to believe it's somewhere between "more than a few" and "less than a lot". Sure, sure...the survival of our great nation is at stake but then again, that's what the military and militias are for, right? Meanwhile you know some asshole has been holding a grudge against his neighbor for like twenty years because he built a fence tall enough to block his view of the valley or maybe that neighbor who stole your husband away from you? That bully who picked on you mercilessly at school every day? That jogger who didn't pick up her dog's leavings? That guy who cut you off on your way to the supermarket? You can't tell me NO ONE would take advantage of this...

STEAL THIS IDEA, part V

     This one's kind of a throwback to children's cartoons of the '80s like Captain Planet. The purpose of this show would be to teach children how to use the internet properly, responsibly, and ethically.

     The overarching storyline I see is one where, let's say, a cargo ship from an advanced alien race breaks up in Earth's atmosphere depositing pieces of technology humans are not yet supposed to have all over the planet. Since this would not be a show about adults using this technology in horrible ways, I figure because, y'know...magic, the technology could have been (this could be done in the show's opening narration by the way) "protected" from misuse by adults until it could be collected by the alien detective sent out to find the missing pieces.
     Children, however, being unaffected by this "magic", stumble upon this technology, learn to use it and use it in ways which are hurtful to themselves and/or others until at the end of the show, the alien detective catches up to them and takes the technology from them (or perhaps convinces them to surrender it) but not before explaining why it was wrong they were using it in the way they had been.

     The technology the children find which would serve as the lesson of the week would be an exaggeration of current technology and/or problems with its use. For example, an episode could be done about hot-linking. In this case, the technology involved might force a person to be in more than one place at once against his will, diminishing him by forcing him to expend energy he might not have otherwise. Another example could be about citation of sources. The technology in such an episode could maybe give a student an edge in class but in fact, is actually plagiarizing. Perhaps, the technology steals the knowledge from others so the student can pass it along as his own and preventing the person who originally had it from remember they had in fact done it first. Depending on the age-level of the target audience, examples involving cyberstalking and cyberbullying could be employed as could anonymity and protecting one's identity online.
     The show could also feature a throwback feature with a vignette at the end of each episode showing a child how to properly use such real-life functions online. Using the previous examples, how to properly display a picture and how not to hotlink. Hopefully not done in too preachy (or stupid) a way.

     The alien detective should not be the main focus of these adventures. Merely showing him/her/it on the trail because each misuse of the technology would lead him closer to it. He could have an animal sidekick...probably with dog-like attributes, but I've never been a fan of such creatures. Whatever you do, please don't make the animal sidekick talk...please.

     Any questions? Leave them in the comments and I will happily elaborate.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)

STEAL THIS IDEA, part IV

     This idea is not entirely original, but nevertheless, I would like to see it done. Malcolm in the Middle did a version of this when Reese found out that Malcolm's sort-of nerd friend Cynthia had developed breasts over the Summer. Reese came up with this elaborate plan which would result in him touching her boobs. Malcolm attempted to thwart his brother, but Reese was always one step ahead of him until Malcolm, in a fit of frustration exclaimed in front of Reese and Cynthia, "What's her name? (starts at 17:04)". Malcolm finally exposed Reese for who he was and as usual for the show, it ended badly for both of them.

     Now what I was thinking was a movie-length version of this rough idea. A rom-com if you will where a man falls in love with a woman and through happenstance never learns her name. I think we've all been in this situation where we've forgotten a person's name and we end up relying on some stroke of good fortune to find out because asking is embarrassing. I remember one girl in college who followed me around but whom I wanted nothing to do with so I never asked her her name. This did not stop her from talking to me and for an entire year until one of my later friends ended up meeting her and I overheard the introduction, I had gotten by on "you". It's amazing how far the 2nd person pronoun can carry you.
     Since this movie would nominally be a comedy, I'm guessing standard absurd conventions may take place preventing the character from learning his lover's name. I admit in this modern age this idea would be difficult to pull off. The movie might have to be a period piece taking place in whatever pre-cellphone, pre-internet era is currently popular.

     The thing is, I don't want the fact that he never learns her name to be the focus of the movie or its jokes. I want his not knowing her name to be the twist and something that the viewer isn't picking up on. I want these characters going through a relationship and having it never occur to him that he's never used her name nor has he heard her use her own or a friend because, like I've said, "you" can carry one very far in conversation. Done well, what I would like to see is the man proposing to her and realizing in that moment, he has no idea what her name is. And remember, other characters can speak her name, just not in front of the man character, but like I've said, I don't want his ignorance to be convoluted.
     As for whether or not the movie ends happily or unhappily after that point, I haven't decided... I also admit the idea of such a relationship progressing to engagement in such a manner is extremely unrealistic so a compromise, that it's a whirlwind romance taking place over a few days might be better. It would also allow for a sad ending with the woman pointing out the fantasy of his love for her to him (don't quote me, but something like, "How can you love me as much as you claim if you never even bothered to get my name?").

     Okay, I'm done. Steal this idea!

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)

STEAL THIS IDEA, part III

     I don't think I can read "part (number)" anymore except in Harry Plinkett's voice :-)

     Just a quick one today, a thought for a joke...albeit a severely dated one. It's entirely possible Family Guy has already done this but a cursory internet search yielded nothing.

     Imagine a cut-away joke or even just a freeze-frame joke of a Japanese band called Japanson. Get it? After the group Hanson of "Mmm-Bop" fame? If it's a visual gag, no further joke is needed...but if a cutaway, they should be singing a parody of "Mmm-Bop" I would say in the form of a rhyme and that rhyme should reference something Japanese. If I knew the language, I would supply an example. Or you could go lazy and just have them sing "Mmm-Bop" with a Japanese accent ("Nnn-Bappo"?)


DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)

STEAL THIS IDEA! part II

      This is an idea for television and, to a lesser extent, movies. I don't know if it would be possible to do given the various unions involved but what I would want to see is a television show where another story is going on surreptitiously in the background.

      These background characters would never have any lines. It would be a totally mimed story which the camera work of the show never draws attention to. Admittedly this idea would probably have worked better in a pre-internet television series because, let's face it, the internet is full of assholes who like spoiling everything and nobody knows how to respectfully keep their mouths shut while the show is unfolding.

      This is a simple example, suitable for a sitcom, which commonly features scenes in a public environment. Such stories could either be planned to play out over the course of a series or new stories could be done seasonally.
      A couple has an entire relationship in the background culminating in marriage. It could start with a non-descript man visible, but not obviously so, in the background with a different woman peas and carroting each week for a couple of episodes. But then, the same woman is shown with the same man over the course of the remaining episodes. Again, nothing which draws the attention. You couldn't show him giving her a gift, but a gift could be present on the table. You couldn't show his proposal, but you could have her ring glint in the lighting. If you keep their "storyline" going, she could be seen visibly pregnant in later episodes and later still, with a baby or two. A similar version could be with an old couple. After a while, one disappears and later still, the other one disappears too alluding to the obvious. Perhaps they were longtime customers and a photo of them on the wall could appear.

      The key point to all this is subtlety. If at any point, it is obvious to the viewer that they are being made to see something, you're doing it wrong. What these background characters are doing can't trump the action of the characters whom the show is based on. It would probably help if these mime-stories don't take place each episode so as not to be too obvious. The stories themselves would have to be simple and decipherable by mere visual cues and/or through heavy use of symbolism (e.g. floral arrangements since most flowers have certain implications associated with them).



DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)