I was just wondering, and it’s no use asking the mister because he’s on the couch watching footy, so thought I’d ask you: do I need a Second Life? It’s tempting, because this one, the First One with which I was gifted, is a teensy bit exhausting right now, and likely to remain so for some time. Would it be any different with a Second one? Or does it just make things twice as worser?
There’s no need to answer. It’s all rhetorical. Isn’t it?
Heh, rhetorical.
I prefer to ignore the bits of the First Life that are dropping off my lazy Susan – and just snatch the odd bit as it rocks by me. An idea borrowed from Pav, who uses Saturn’s rings as a much more elegant example.
A Second Life, I definitely could not handle. Especially if it has four kids, five siblings and seven in-laws in it. Well, the kids are fine…
You don’t NEED Second Life, but you’d be good on Twitter. It’s all one liners.
A virtual life, in addition to the actual . . . I wouldn’t want to be further pixilated.
Hmm. I think if you want a second life you should write it in a novel. That site looks a bit .. erm … sad?
Second Life strikes me as infinitely depressing. Like a spotlight on the inadequacies of my current one. Like my boobs would be perky, I’d live in a lovely house without my mother as payment, we’d have a more than decent bank balance and so on and so forth. After my blog, facebook and twittering, I’m thinkning I’ll leave Second Life to the young ‘uns.
No, you don’t need Second Life … blog & Facebook is enough, what with the busy First Life, too. (I can’t even do Facebook, me.) You may never re-emerge if you enter it …
you’ll feel different after the lads are back at school
kim, that is one of the most insightful things I have ever read about Second Life…I shall stick with just the one…