OCP

NOOO they be stealin' my Arts

2008-04-14T18:37:00.000-07:00

There's an Internet Rumour going around about Orphaned Works Bill. Apparently, the bill would make is possible to a)use people's works without crediting, and b)kill puppies*. Except for the part where a)that's not exactly what it says, and b) the bill died in committee two years ago.

Also, the article in question is pretty much wrong, as is the big fuss on dA. Needless to say, the reasonable, considered article is being disregarded in favour of the more sensationalist slant.

*Would you trust that man? Would you? I mean, really?

littleBigPS3fanits

2007-03-09T17:57:00.001-08:00

Recently, at the Game Developer's Conference 2007(GDC), one of the several conferences and expos that have gained importance since E3 went down, down, in a later round, a new PS3 game was spotlighted, giving the PS3 some good pub for a change. And they certainly need it, since, seemingly, everything that proceeds from their mouth turns to lead.

The game in question is LittleBigPlanet
The presentation was duly Dugg, and this is where it gets really interesting. There is no shortage of PS3 fanits on digg and the rest of the Internet, and they like to make fun of the Wii and 360 for various reasons. The funny thing is, none of these are good reasons. Most aren't even valid, like they're being pulled from some bizarro universe. They make fun of Xbots for having to pay for their online. Except that it's about five bucks a month, and, from all accounts, better than the PS3 online, at least right now. And that's pretty much all they've got, except for declaring anyone who calls them on their BS points about the 360 fanboys. They make fun of the Wii for its comparitavely low power, lack of HD, 'gimmicky' controller, kiddy image, and claim all the games are glorified tech demos. Before launch, they claimed only fanboys would buy the Wii. Almost five months and over four million in sales-Nintendo literally can't keep them on the shelves-later, they're claiming that people will be tired of it in a year, after the games dry up. Apparently, the bizarro-universe includes a bizarro-Earth where developers see systems that are cheap and easy to develop for selling like hotcakes covered in crack and decide not to make games for them.

LBP looks, from the videos, like a "Line Rider meets Garry's Mod meets Super Mario Bros. meets an orgasm", according to Kotaku. I'm inclined to agree. It's basically a physics-based co-op platformer, with cute little characters, happy little music, and, biggest of all, user-made levels.

According to the Sony fanboys, it's all about the physics and the pretty.

It's amazing. They roast Nintendo for being 'kiddy' and their 'tech demos', yet when something like this comes out, those complaints are nowhere to be found. It's also something that can only be done on the PS3. Despite the game being something that could be done on the 360, easily, except Sony bought the developer. That's right, they just pulled a Microsoft, buying the team outright like Microsoft bought Bungie, the makers of Halo.

Heck, check out the Joystiq post for yourself. Watch the tasty callouts. And the fanits almost nowhere to be found.

The Cut n' Paste guide to responding to pirates.

2006-12-18T09:29:00.001-08:00

As you may have noticed, I dislike piracy. What I've noticed, in my endless war against people uploading Naruto episode 23524345 on YouTube(seriously, how could anyone think that's even remotely legal?), I keep finding the same few arguments, which can all be countered by the same few rebuttals. I even put them in cut n' pasteable forms, though due to Blogger's limitations, you may need to add line breaks. Tell your friends.

I can't get the anime/music/whatever I want here in the States!

And? How does that justify piracy?

They're too expensive!

Then save up, or don't buy it at all. And while you're at it, explain how you deserve the product despite the fact that you're not paying for it? "Gee, officer, I needed this Ferrari, but I didn't have several hundred grand, so I just took it. Is that okay?"

I wouldn't have bought it anyway!

1. Then you shouldn't have it.2. Yet it was still considered valuable enough to download. Huh.

It's copyright infringement, not theft.

1. You have something you're not supposed to, because you did not meet the owner's terms. That's pretty much the cleanest definition of 'theft' available.
2. For the sake of argument, lets say you're right. So you're performing one morally reprehensible act rather than another.

It's not fair for them to charge that much!

Nope. It 'not fair' for you to steal. According to our economic system, people can charge whatever they want for anything non-essential, whose prices are usually regulated by government. They can charge the moon, but you don't have to buy it. And if you think of anime as an 'essential', you need help.

I already own the game on NES/Genesis/SNES/etc., I shouldn't have to buy it again!

That's right. You own the game. For the NES. Not the Wii, not the GBA, not the PC, the NES. In fact, what you own is basically a pretty box, a piece of removable media with some data on it, and a software license that grants you the right to play it on the system you bought it on. Nothing else. If anyone owns the game, it's Nintendo, or the manufacturer. Not you.

Downloading anime is okay if it's not licensed in the US!

Nice euphemism use. The argument itself is irrelevant, though; the Berne Convention, first adopted in 1886, states that a copyright in one country applies in all of the signatures of the convention. Japan signed on in 1899, and the US helped create the thing. (Canada too.) It's illegal to download anime, regardless of foreign licensing status, and it always has been.

It's only anime/music/an 8-bit game!

If it's so insignifigant, why do you 'need' it?

DVD sales have risen since piracy became widespread.

DVD sales have risen since they were introduced, back in the early 90s, before piracy was widespread. In fact, they just leveled off in 2005.

If corporations didn't want us to download, why don't they stop us?

For the same reason people who don't want to be hit by cars don't just stop them; they can't. Imagine an entire army of people without guns fighting a few dozen armed Marines. The marines are better armed, but they'll eventually run out of bullets and energy, and plenty of the people attacking are just as good at hand-to-hand as they are, if not better. Getting a picture?

Of course, the fact that the unarmed masses will win doesn't justify their attack.

Questions, contributions? Feel free to comment.

Sony Defense Force ASSEMBLE! / Wii60 FTW

2006-10-17T08:08:00.000-07:00

This is the SDF. They are a poorly-designed webpage desperately trying to support their position that the PS3 is worth at least 500 bucks of real money. Before taxes. Sadly, most of their 'justification' centers around graphics. And this would've worked in the days before Nintendo cut their legs out from under them with the Wii controller. Now people are focusing on gameplay again, and Sony's dropping a brick. Their stock is dropping, while Nintendo's is rising.

And the best these guys can do is a bunch of lame macros. For example: what is this graph of? Where did it come from? And, yes, the 360 isn't selling in Japan. So what? Isn't the EyeToy itself, a ripoff of a webcam? And, this may come as a shock, but most people don't care about HD.

Some poor, deluded fool posts on the forums about how the PS3 could end Sony. It's admittedly overdramatic, but the fanboys swarm all over him.

Originally Posted by Broomcloset12It's the sad, hard truth. Look. Nobody but EXTREMELY hardcore gamers are gonna buy the PS3.
*shakeshead* yet the Ps3 sold out worldwide,and the hype is amazing

What hype? Most Sony hype has been negative. And the first PS3 preorder sold out due to limited supply. And what does hype have to do with it, anyway?

Even then, they won't be buying games that often. They just cost too much.
Um,no games cost 60 dollars,thats not that much considering most people buy less than 6 games a year.

Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?

There aren't gonna be enough consoles at launch.

There are never enough consoles at launch

Point.

Sony will rush to make more, but intrest will have sank thanks to Wii.
Um,no the wii has proven itself to be kiddie,weak,and for japanese kids

Note the complete lack of evidence as to how a console that hasn't been released can "prove itself" to be kiddy.

So they'll make a bunch of consoles at an extreme loss, and sell very few of them.
Extreme loss? sell a few of them?
wow

Note that neither of them have any actual evidence to support their points.

Yes when Final Fantasy and the vey few other PS3 games even worth renting come along there'll be sales, but in the long run Sony will end up making a bunch of conosles, sell less than 10% of them, and end up in a giant hole.

LMAO

Again, no sources. Personally, I don't think Sony is going to sell more than half of it's consoles in the next year.

And eventually the PS3 will just die a painful death, thanks to useless hardware and a pointless Blu-Ray drive (HD-DVD has already won the format war)

HD-DVD...win..format war.... LMFAO
Listen you litte fuckface,the HD-DVD hasnt won shit,its actually lost support,while Blu-ray is gaining support over 90% of Hollywood supports Blu-ray,Dell,Apple and HP support Blu-ray,Sun and LG support Blu-ray,Disney supports Blu-ray

Finally, a valid point.

and the fact that only about 10% of PS3s will be able to use the system's full potential, it's just gonna be a hard downward spiral ending with Sony going dead, thanks to low selling TVs and other electronics. Expect all big Playstation franchises to be on XBox/Wii by 2008.

The 360 is selling worse the xbox and in Japan(the only wii haven) the Ps3 outwieghs it in polls and pre-order numbers

wii60=fail

Funny, I could've sworn the first US Wii preorders sold out, just like the first PS3 preorders.

wii60 two v. one? gawd shut up Japanese Amazon sold out its stock of Ps3s in less than 10 seconds the Ps3 pwns the wii in pre-orders in Japan,STFU,

btw Wii60 is a joke,how can it be about graphics or gameplay at the same time?

Oh. Wow. Mind you, this is the guy who just said that Japan was the "only Wii haven", and in his next post he's using it to back up the PS3. And watch him ignore his earlier wrong point completely!

Heck, I'm not even sure the site is real.(NSFW)

I'm not saying the Wii60 guys aren't the same, if not worse. I mean, look at their lame macros. But they're not as annoying. But this is a pretty big OH SNAP moment. Or is it?

More news as this develops.

Microsoft ruined Office 2007.

2006-10-14T19:49:00.000-07:00

I've thought often about how MS's improvements in IE 6 and 7 were spurred by Firefox nipping at their heels. Now, get this: they done gone and made Office usable.

[link]

My first indication came when they used one of those trendy Flash videos. They're trendy because almost everyone has Flash, but not everyone wants to spend twenty minutes downloading and installing a player just to watch some guy light his farts. In short, they're just plain better.

Then I realized that the interface had all these rounded corners and gradients and stuff.

"Holy smokes," I said, "Microsoft has gone Web 2.0."

Watching the videos, I found that they had made everything, apparently, easy to find, unless you're one of those people who bleats "I'm not computer literate" everytime your son points out that he showed you how to perform this common task five years ago.

Sweet Christmas, they even have tabs.

Google better keep up.

Hooray Status Quo.

2006-09-25T08:12:00.000-07:00

I work in an electronics store. Every few days, someone asks me if we have the PS3(no.) and when it'll be coming out(Nov. 19th). When I point out that it starts at a hundred bucks more than the 360 in the States, they tend to just smirk and go "Oh well, I know Sony makes good products." I asked one of these gentlemen why he thought it would be so much better than the 360. He said that it "Had more power." I pointed out that the games looked about the same. He reiterated his earlier point about power.

Basically: they're buying it because, dude, it's Sony. End of story. No supporting arguments or facts needed. Sony. Stop arguing. It's Sony.

The funny thing is, Sony seems to be doing their best to shoot themselves in the foot. From executives who seem to be living in Bizarro world, to games that have been seen as nothing more than a trailer at 2005's E3, fanboys are ducking and weaving to avoid the truth like they're playing tag: the PS3 doesn't look much better than the 360. In fact, some appear to have no sense of humour or logic at all.

Not that I'm saying that there aren't other fanboys, oh no. Nintendo's fanboys are equal in number, but much more rabid. Both take any bad news from any blogs or news site as evidence of a bias. Remember that scene in the Jurassic Park book where Ian Malcolm points out that the Gaussian distribution of dinosaurs shouldn't be there? Most of the time, there's more bad or good news for one console than another. That's not "bias", it's reality. Can't have that.

One of the editiors of Official Playstation Magazine made a post on why he's getting a PS3 at launch. There was an immediate fanboy crapstorm. Achtung: pointing out flaws in something =/= bashing!

Chadwick

Cry babies...

Posted at Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:25:19 EDT
Thats what alot of people are being right now. All they do is look at the bad sections of a launch.

$600 is alot. But is it so much that people have to cry about it? Yet they don't mind spending over $1000 for a computer they will have to upgrade in like 2 days just to play the newest games?

Wow. They have to resort to comparing it to PCs. A grand is average for a high-end gaming rig. A half-grand is a lot for a gaming machine.

And I would just like to point out something: the $500 PS3 is still comparable to the Premium XBox 360. Except it costs a hundred bucks more, and doesn't come with a memory card reader, or integrated wireless. And those aren't upgradable features.

Your getting a deal with a PS3. Who knows what it will be able to do in 5 years?

1. Oh, I dunno, PLAY GAMES?
2. Wasn't this the same guy who was complaining about having to upgrade PCs five seconds ago?

With unlimited ideas going through peoples head, so much can be added.

What?

Just look at the PSP, its changed alot since its release a year ago and that just the begining. If you don't want to spend that much on something that will evolve into so much more, then either wait or just don't get one. Don't sit here and cry about the price because your mommy can't fork over the cash.

Whe have seen wonderful machines from Sony. And the PS3 is the greatest so far. So many beautiful things inside the shiny black box. It'll out do any of these other consoles, of course they all have there strong points. But in the long run, in 5 years the PS3 will be twice the machine it is today. Think about it.

The last paragraph was so creepy that it made me imagine some fanboy somewhere gently thrusting himself upon the PS3, over and over.

Sony fanboys always try to sound smart. And they tend to fail completely. On of their favorite points is to claim that anyone with a "real job: can afford the PS3, while those who complain about the price lives in their Mom's basement. Aside from the autolose, they tend to ignore the people who point out that they have jobs and still won't buy it. One dude on Joystiq said he had a six-figure salary, and they diverted it into a discussion of the price of living, leaving the original topic entirely. Bra-vo.

The fanboys I encounter in reality are grown men, but they sound exactly the same. They don't know enough about the system to know when it's launching, but apparently knowing it's Sony is more than enough to make a decision.

These are the same fanboys, mind you, who dismiss the Wii as a "last-gen system with a gimmick controller", then turn around and laud the tilt sensor in the PS3 controller as being able to ~~steal games from Wii~~ make the Wii less unique. These are the same fanboys who claim that the controller isn't a ripoff because it uses "technology that's been around for years". Funny, that's exactly why you said the Wii wasn't innovative, that it was "gimmicky".

shock_combo

point of the article

Posted at Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:52:17 EDT
was to tell people to stop the ps3 bashing. all of you 360 owners are now afraid that they should have bought hardware that came out at the right time and had better technology inside of it. you are all scared that you will be left in the dust and be forced to buy another console. Come november 17th, next-gen finally happens.

Funny, isn't that Sony's company line? Almost word for word, in fact.

Barry619

I'd just like to remind everybody....

People have been saying there going PS3 because it's "future-proof", but no-one on the planet at this time knows how HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray will turn out, not a single person can tell you for sure what will become the next standard for watching Movies on. And would microsoft really not be using a bigger format if they thought it was needed? I think MS have had enough experience through there years to know when a increase in size is really needed.

I'm not sure why Sony thought they needed a gaming console with more power than most high-end PCs have, myself. Consoles don't need as much power as PCs, because they can devote more power to games.

You can recognize a Sony fanboy, because he uses "XBots" and "Wiitards", and sincerely believes the Wii will not sell out this holiday season, because it's Nintendo, and therefore "kiddy", and the PS3 will, because it's Sony, therefore awesome. Also, the XBox 360 shouldn't be bought because it's not worth $600.

I want to know where all the XBox 360 fanboys are. The system has turned out to be a solid one, but there is almost no one rabidly defending it on forums, describing all of it's detractors as "PlaySuckers".

Citizen_Ska

A lot of good points.

Posted at Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:35:52 EDT

The price debate really makes no sense to me either. I can only see a $200 price difference being a big deal for a 15 year old with no job. I can't exactly whip $200 bucks out whenever I want but I could easily budget or save for it. If you really don't want a PS3 then I can see how $200 more could easily persuade someone.

Saving $200 bucks more for the future vs. a comparable experience on another system right now. Got it.

If $100 more for the lower end PS3 is really an issue then that really depends on the person and not the general public. From my experience the general public wastes a lot of money on useless shit they don't need.

Who needs a game console with a hi-def DVD player, exactly?

Honestly there are millions of playstation 2 fans out there and you really can't judge who is willing to spend the money for by forum posts on 1up. We represent a really small population of the gamers out there.

Because "representative samples" don't exist. And millions of people who bought the weakest console last-gen can't be wrong. By that logic, the Wii will trounce both Sony and Microsoft.

People keep trashing Sony about the Blu-player issue but Sony will always be a business looking for profit and market share. From a business stand point it's a fantastic way to give Blu-Ray a push. It's like sending the trojan horse out. You can stick up for whatever company you want but even Nintendo and Microsoft are in this business for money. Trust me, Nintendo isn't families first, profit second.

So Sony bundling a needless DVD player with their system is thinking about the children. Also, profits aren't the same as money.

Sony is a business. They're in it to make money. The only problem is, the PSX through PS3 have been straight losses. That's a decade of losing billions on their best-selling consoles. Microsoft just got here five years back, and they actually expect to start turning a profit next year.

What is really odd and sick about this is that these debates have become so political. Videogames! Stinkin Videogames!! I thought these things were suppose to be fun...

This is the guy who, five paragraphs back, was pointing out that you need an HDTV for both the 360 and PS3. What was that about "fun"?

The other day, some guy came in asking for Madden 07. We didn't have it, and I asked him why he wanted it. He said something about Superstar mode, and how it would let you "create a player", trailing off. Create-A-Player has been standard in sports games for half a decade.

Basically; dude, it's Madden. Got it.

Some things never change.
Edit: This is interesting.

Will y'all ignorant fanboys PLEASE shut the heck up?

2006-09-16T16:45:00.000-07:00

Nintendo recently announced the pricing of their hotly anticipated upcoming console, the Wii. It's going to be $250, launched November 19th, and comes with one "Wiimote" and Wii Sports. The Wiimote would cost $40, the 'nunchaku' $20, and the games for the NES, SNES, and N64 the equivalent of 5, 8, and 10 dollars, respectively.

The fanboys were pissed.

This should've been seen coming. After all, Joystiq's prediction post was filled with comments to the effect that the commenters largely expected the Wii to come with two controllers, one classic controller, a bundled game, a free Virtual Console download, and a blowjob. And they could do without the blowjob. When it was revealed that the console was launching with a loadout determined by, y'know, earth logic, their fury knew no bounds.

40. I'm a bit disappointed by this news. Price at the upper end of everybody's speculation and a later release date than what Nintendo previously indicated.

At $5-10 per VC game, sorry, I will just stick with an emulator. These are games that I've already purchased (some of them, more than once) and these games would be almost pure profit for Nintendo anyway. I'm not paying 10%-20% of the price of a brand new game for a game that, while fun, is utterly obsolete.

I hope it does come with an extra controller, since they are pushing this "casual gamer, fun for the family" angle. I also hope it comes with the analog stick attachment also, as it seems it will be virtually mandatory if you want to play any but some of the most basic games.

If it comes with those extras, it's a good value. If not, meh.

Posted at 1:48AM on Sep 14th 2006 by Tukka 0 stars

The sad thing? That's one of the calmer comments. "Hey, I can't get the goods I want for the prices I want. I'll just download them, which is totally not the same as stealing!"

The thing about pirates is that they're entitlement whores. As long as something isn't exactly the way they want it, they'll steal it, no matter how negligible the difference is. If Nintendo was pricing games at a buck each, tops, they'd complain that Nintendo didn't offer any way to bundle purchase several games. If Nintendo implemented that feature, they'd complain that the ridiculously obscure games they wanted weren't available. If Nintendo managed to add every single game for each system on the Virtual Console, they'd complain that there wasn't any way to play their old carts on the Wii. If Nintendo released some sort or attachment, they'd claim that Nintendo makes to many peripherals, that they weren't re-releasing their old games, that the dongle cost more than the VC games, and so on. Any rationalization, just so they don't have to pay. The only way they would play VC games would be if Nintendo paid them, at which point they'd want to be unionized. You can't win against a pirate.

I'm not sure where the idea that the Wii is all about multiplayer came from. I could've sworn it was largely about making games A)more accesible, and B)more innovative, with multiplayer a distant third. In fact, al lot of the Wii-based(that is, developed largely or entirely for) launch games use only the Wiimote. Even the bundled game, Wii Sports, the bundled game, only uses the Nunchaku for Wii Boxing. Super Monkey Ball? Nope. Tony Hawk? Uh-uh. Exite Truck? No.

And OMG it's launching two days after the PS3! Nintendo is doomed! Never mind the fact that it launches a week before Black Monday, the start of the post-Thanksgiving shopping period! Never mind that there's a clear month before Christmas! Doomed, I say, doomed!

Here's what I don't get: one of the most common complaints is that it's now "close" to the Tard Pack 360. The one that doesn't let you download demos, games, or Live Arcade games because it doesn't have a hard drive. Since most of the games are $60, that means that they're willing to spend $160 bucks more than expected because the Wii is $50 more than expected Earth Logic what. It's also the same fifty bucks up from the actual price to the Tard pack as it was from the projected price to the actual.

It's also nice to know that the difference between "next-gen" and "repackaged Gamecube" is about fifty bucks. Achtung: we don't have the specs on the processor! The last one we had was close to twice the power of the Gamecube, and developers have stated that it's 2-3 times more powerful. Also, didn't the PS2 and XBox launch at $300?

And we have a good old-fashioned blog pissing contest. And Tycho drinks a lot of water.

Pundit out.

A pirate's snark for me.

2006-09-06T09:38:00.000-07:00

Piracy.

It's just borrowing.

Not if the original 'owner' still has their copy, and you have one too, no.

I'm not gonna pay that much money for X!

Then you don't get it. End of story. If you don't meet the owners' terms, you don't get the product. It's called "capitalism". Which part of this is confusing you?

You can't spend a photocopy of a $20 bill.

Imagine it's a photocopy so accurate that it's effectively identical to the original bill, to the point that treasury officials poring over it with a loupe would not be able to tell the difference.

That's what piracy is. Original analogy fail.

It's not hurting anybody!

It's hurting the people who get paid off of the work you keep stealing. And before you say that "corporations" don't pay them much anyway, I would like to point out that "not much" is still better than nothing. I would also like to ask why you seem to keep referring to "corporations". Do you know what corporations are made of? People.

DVD sales have risen since piracy became widespread.
DVD sales have risen since they were introduced, back in the early 90s, before piracy was widespead. In fact, they just levelled off in 2005. OH SNAP.

Imagine a mountain so steep as to be nearly vertical. A mining company creates an explosion that cuts the angle in half. Question; is the slope still going up?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Also; if he knows you went to lunch already, he's going to assume you've already eaten. But, nope, assumptions are a tool of the patriarchy. As well as 'logic'.

On Coxi and pretention.

2006-07-26T18:30:00.000-07:00

Coxi was a photographer on deviantART who thought he was heaven's gift to deviantART. He repeatedly posted inflamatory comments and tried to get people to hound certain artists off of dA. Ironically, he was recently banned.

Using Google, I found a cache of some of his journal entries. The illogic in them is rather astounding.

Read more...

misogyny rocks !!

Journal Entry: Tue May 9, 2006, 4:43 PM

I see where this is going.

so i've been introduced to art and a new photographer on DA lately and everyone seems to find it cool, amazing, funny, well in newskool terms people would say: "it rocks"

it's actually a shame that people aren't able to see misogyny and sexism in so many works that are praised as masterpieces, artworks and art photographs.

If most people don't see something that's obvious to you, clearly the flaw is in their perception.

no matter how well it was taken, how complicated and creative the setup was, no matter how good it looks and how intresting the thought behind it is, if the the whole work is built up on misogynic ideas, there is no way to find appreciation from me.

Note: Where he says "misogyny", read "OMG NAKED LADIES".

there are always artists that work with these ideas to provoke and to send the opposite message but that's a very risky strategy and needs to be clarified but these are rare and often just cover their real motivation which is misogynic with a protest against it as a sort of excuse.

I know English isn't his first language, but that sentence still made no sense whatsoever.

i can't understand how blind people can be not to see how models are used to get degraded all the time. it's even more shocking how models agree to that and how they support these ideals and concepts. it's a shame how few people care about women as human beeings and not sexual objects, dolls and lolitas.

Because taking a picture of a fully-grown, consenting woman in a sexual manner=degredation.

men are afraid of strong women, men are afraid of gay men. these men are weak and they search for weak women to feel strong and powerful and some of them are photographers.

Read that again; I'll wait.

So he's claiming both that the photographers taking these pictures are insecure, that said photographers are all male, and that the women appearing in these photographs are weak. Wasn't feminism about ending the forced sexualization of women? And why would a straight photographer want to take pictures of gay men? Why should anyone take pictures of anyone if they don't want to?

Coxi first came to my attention when an artist ranted about a since-deleted post in his journal. It had a thumbnail of a picture, and an extensive analysis. The picture itself was of a girl in pink, apparently recently fallen on her back, giving the viewer a view of her panties. Two perky breasts protruded from her chest, and the dress was frilly.

According to Coxi, the work perpetuated beauty ideals, was sexist, and pedophiliac. Apparently he missed the part where most anime art on dA was drawn by females, and the character displayed had boobs. And we shouldn't draw people confirming to the current standard of beauty, ever.

another ban / criticism & DA's double standard

Journal Entry: Sat Jul 8, 2006, 2:16 PM
!natashalyonne got banned for: [link]

she was not even mentioning names and did not outline a single person and the discussions were constructive.

deviantart allows any kind of feature in jounrals, with thumbnails and mentioning other deviants, but criticism is an immediate ban, just like it was in my case but this time nobody was mentioned personally.

Note; the entry, dumped from the Google cache, was two dozen fetish photography pics of largely bondage'd women and women acting like lesbians. Underneath it were illogical rantings abou the "subjugation of women on dA". (Completely missing the point that these women chose to be submissive, not subjugated.) Coxi's original entry was deleted because, under dA's terms, it was essentially harassment. Several times more pics and an near-identical rant? Banninated.

intresting that many people say that that is why they are here. some people note me and ask for it. other's don't ask for it but receive critisism from me. why ? because they post work.

when you post work, you make it public. you know people will see it and think about it. you have to face reactions of all kinds and as an artist and the creator of it you should be capable of giving arguments for defending your position or agreeing to criticism.

so when i criticise from my point of view, i want an answer, be it agreement or disagreement. i also give answers when i see there is sense behind criticism.

it is definately a big shame that public criticism gets cencored, because a person was mentioned.

That wasn't crit. That was basically telling people to go over and flame.

this person makes their work public so is responsible for it. only allowing agreement is dictatorship.

It wasn't that you disagreed with it, it's that yo-gah, nevermind.

deviantart has their rules. people say to me i should accept them to stay a member here, but i prefer to be kicked out insted of agreeing to some points that are against my view and i also can't agree to double standards.

See, um, you already agreed to abide by their rules or GTFO when you joined. Sorry.

DA wants to have an image that accepts everyone and their art as long as it is not against people's rights.

so they accept national sozialism, something you get in jail in europe. the usage of the swastika is highly forbidden in middle european countrys and needs an official permission if used in art, films, theatre...

Tolerance=/=acceptance.

what's my point ? my point is that there is no problem to draw underaged girls in sexual poses almost naked

Well, it's not like some underage girls can be sexually mature, or you didn't explain how the original work was pedo other than the fact that she was wearing pink.

but cencores photojournalism that shows half naked children. DA cencores photos of dead animals, which are also element of photojournalism, but allows artworks that convey necrophilia.

Hey, look, a false analogy! Let's look at the reasons dA gives for allowing some works but not others.

...

Nothing? Okay, then you're taking out of your-

so. i aks you now, what is the point to cencore such things on one side and allow well packaged sexism, misogyny, pedophilia and also necrophilia on a daily basis ?

i wonder if these people even know what they feature on their frontpage with DTFs and DDs, which are the much bigger evil than photojournalims that documents reality.

in my honest opinion, this journal was definately "free speech" as was the one i got banned for.

I love how "free speech" applies to him, but not the people doing the work he objects to. What were you saying about a double standard?

ps: a ban does not change a thing at all. i have my opinion and i have the will to state it. deleting a journal that criticises something doesn't make things disappear. the ban shows more how helpless this system seems to be, to just vanish things but not argue them.

so much for now.

If they wanted you off so much, they would've just banned you outright, instead of waiting over a month.

So, in conclusion; coxi is a dick, a pretentious wad who thinks that "analysis" can replace little things like asking the artist what their piece meant. His logic? Not earth logic.

Yes, I know it's over two years old. Shut up.

2006-06-23T15:46:00.000-07:00

Read this. I'll wait.

Fandom_wank is a community, based on Livejournal alternative "JournalFen", dedicated to posting and mocking wank(read:drama) in fandom. Any fandom. I, full disclaimer, am a member. It has become infamous in all fandoms for, well, existing, and those wankers wanked there often proclaim it to be the Great Satan of the Interweb, full of people who think they're the Internet police.

What kills me about the woman (statistically) who wrote this essay is that she seems to be preening herself over getting the comm to do, um, exactly what it's intended to do. She wrote an essay to tick F_W off. She claims that they used long words and references to address some fictional audience about her apparent pretention, a conclusion apparently reached by following her writing style. It's not like they would be addressing other readers of the comm, or something. Her defense is that she is member of a liberal arts school, where "obscure references are as mandatory as bad puns³". I'm not clear on how this makes her any less pretentious.

And so I dashed off, in under an hour4 a diatribe against the FW, filled with hyperbole and inflammatory language; I dissed them high and wide and six ways from Sunday, letting out all the stops — and it was rather fun, I do admit — and let it sit a while, and then went back and ratcheted up the heat a few more levels, and then posted it. And waited.

So you posted something designed to inflame and incite. Honey, no matter how many pretty hats you put on it, that's trolling.

What inspired her? Someone reminded her of the comm;

This curious remark not only served to remind me of the FW's existence yet again, it also made me realize that although I myself considered them ninnies and timewasters possessing all the sentience of tent caterpillars, others in panfandom considered them a formidable force, one to be wielded against enemies perhaps, or to be feared.

Thereby missing the entire point of the comm.

She thought F_W needed to be cut down a notch, that they were "too powerful". Too powerful by whose standard is never explained, but she's not going to let some pesky logi get in her way.

Please note, that I did not inform the FW that they had been, er, "counter-wanked" — I did nothing to alert them to this, as one of their jackals had taken pains to inform me at the outset. I simply posted it on my own private site, and left it there. The accusation by the FW ranter that I was only doing this to "get attention" is a singularly illogical one, as for me to do so would require that I already know what it was that I was trying to confirm: that they did care what I thought, of them, enough to be spying on my site either for more grist for their attacks on me, or to see if I would respond to their initial forays.

I'd like to consider myself fairly experienced at translating BS, but my brain couldn't even parse that in one pass. It picked out a sentence fragment here and there, but with no cohesion between them.

Obviously, given that within some twelve hours, there were 500+ downloads, both of those suspicious were quite valid.

You posted a trolling essay. More grist for their attacks, and what is technically a response. Congratulations on playing to the common, vulgar, weak, licentious crowd.

I was moderately surprised that I received only two email responses, one of them from one of those singled out in the first part, (and who should really have been grateful that I didn't — since that wasn't the purpose of the expose — turn the spotlight on her fanfiction as well)

Guess what? You just did.

I had thought that more of those targeted, either directly or indirectly, would be willing to confront me directly, instead of their trademark passive-aggressive style, but no; Azusa complained that I was only willing to quote the parts of her stuff I disliked, ignoring the stated reasons in my article for not wanting to post the rest5 — but not to my face — and neither of those who emailed me responded subsequently to my replies. (I will suppose, in all charity, answers could have gone astray in the email ether from either side.) But still, the outstanding cowardice of their response to my accusations of (among other things) their cowardice, is particularly croggling as well as amusing. The only way they will allow response is through joining their community's Collective, and I will not become part of their machine — "part of the problem" — and be co-opted by the Party, as it were.

So you want them to contact you directly, but you think you're fully justified in posting the response as a file on your webpage. Got it.

What kills me is how many equate discussing wanks with "cowardice". I'm sorry, but if we were to mock you directly, that would amount to trolling. The First Amendment is the right to free speech. There is no moral or legal law to state that one must tell someone you're talking about them.

I also enjoyed the rebukes declaring that For shame! I ought not single out strangers for public mockery, since I didn't know them personally. —Can we spell "irony," now? After all, they've dedicated an entire community to exactly that. As I informed the complainers, anyone who joins a community dedicated to personal jibes and jeering has no rights whatsoever to complain when their own medicine is administered to them.

The (expected, predictable) "well, you're doing it too so nyeah, now you're no better than us!" responses were also very funny. There's kind of an "Evil Overlord logic" to it — we can be as bad as we want to be, but you can't defend yourself because you're the good guys and you have to obey the rules! (Actually, this is typical first-grader behavior, too.)

I think the people claimed that turnabout wasn't fair play were, in fact, being silly. But criticizing us for wanking others, then trolling and wanking us? Guess what? That makes you as bad as us! It's like saying one would be justied in raping a rapist.

But since I don't care a jot for the respect of anyone involved with the FW, and since I was trying to draw them into my enfilade, I was willing to incur such derision, and so I laid on the rhetoric with a trowel. I had to give them enough rope to hang themselves, after all. If on the other hand they had simply dismissed me as a crank, my flyting of them as meaningless envy, and ignored me — I would have had no power over them. They delivered themselves into my hands, whether they realize it or not. (It is funny as well that they're incapable of recognizing self-satire and playfulness in the midst of the vitriol, lashing themselves on with heartening comments about how bloody serious and self-important I must be. "Mock Mockity Mock," indeed.)

This little essay of yours isn't helping. You think you're striking a blow against some mighty castle with this thing? Good luck.

Now, the first movement of this experiment was not in any way a troll — I do think the FanWankers are a pernicious force; I do think that those of them who are not simply cackling hangers-on mocking at random, are filled with a disproportionate sense of their own fandom's importance and resentment towards its flaws

What?

The community exists to mock. That's it. You are ascribing motives and opions which do not exist.

I do think that they are both hypocritical and oblivious to the total irony of their community's existence. And I wouldn't have done anything about it, if they'd not drawn first. And again. And yet again. Someone needed to give them a good swift kick in the head, and nobody else seemed ready, willing, or able to do so.

It was self-defense, officer.

And believe me, plenty of people would like to think they've taken the mickey out of F_W. You're one of them.

As my aim was to demonstrate, or rather to allow the Fandom Wank itself to demonstrate, their own inability to endure the treatment they so freely serve upon others, their wrath and vilification of me is a necessary consequence.

So, basically, this is the most elaborate "he hit me first" I've ever seen.

Anyone who enters an engagement/initiates hostilities — of whatever nature, physical or verbal, on a personal or a national scale — in the expectation of taking no hits in return, is a fool.

Are you making this up as you go along, now?

When I challenge anyone over a matter of writing, whether individually in review or email, or in an open rant, I do so knowing that there will be unpleasantness afterwards, likely, and expect it. Apparently the FW believes themselves in a dystopic world where only they have weapons and armour, like a mecha stomping through a defenseless village, and thus has no fear of retribution — I cannot otherwise account for the shock and outrage that I would dare assault them, in their own style, after having been their target.

You trolled them not as retribution for them trolling you, but to show them that they should be able to take what they dish out. Not retribution. Got it.

I love how she keeps abstracting F_W, to portray it as this large, faceless organism that hovers upon the face of fandom. In fact, she has yet to refer to any facet of F_W as being composed of actual people.

The footnotes are a barrel of lulz, too. Among other things, she goes for an extended analysis of so much as some girl's talking about her reproductive issues in the middle of a rant of yaoi. She (let's call her OddLots, the person who wrote the essay analysing the other essay) says it's not relevant, which is odd, because she went of on a tangent about why she reads badfic earlier. OddLots proclaims swearing to be indicative of the level of cognitive fortitude—sorry, I tend to imitate writing and speech styles unconciously—intelligence if a ditch-digger, or, among other options

or c) she is a pretentious college-girl being rebellious and using bad language for shock value that has no instructive purpose.

This coming from the woman who spent seven lines and a Discword quote to say that someone implied "IMHO" falsely.

Really. She spents more time on mocking someone else in the footnote than on the actual essay. This woman is selfish, pretentious, and convinced of her own importance; everything she accuses F_W of.

The new Blaxploitation.

2006-03-20T09:39:00.000-08:00

Q: How many movies can you put a black comedian into?
A: All of them.

At least, that seems to be Hollywood's position. How many movies have you seen in the past year that had a black character (or voice actor) needlessly? How many in the past five years? The past decade? How many of those starred Cedric the Entertainer?

Blaxploitation is a film genre that emerged in the 70s when white filmakers realized that "wait, these darkies have money now!" Most of the time, they were films starring black actors, by white producers. They are, among other things, credited with both expoiting black people and increasing demand for Black-centered movies. Films of the time, even those with white stars, would often include Black characters for the appeal. Even today, you can hardly throw a birck at a Saturday morning cartoon without hitting a Black guy, though many are actually resiting the urge to shoehorn an ethnic minority in. (Notably, Ben 10.) The genre was supposedly over by the nineties. Supposedly.

Hollywood's rush to remake movies has quickly jaded consumers, and they've decided to do something to make the films seem more original; put Black people in them! There's 2005's Guess Who, a remake of the award winning 1967 fim Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, wherein a black man meets his White fiance's parents for the first time. The remake is pretty much the same, except a White guy meeting his Black future in-laws, and with all of the depth stripped out of it, making it a pure comedy. It also stars one of the Original Kings of Comedy, Bernie Mac. (More on them later) It's effectively a quick remake of a clasic film that most it's target audience probably never heard of. And that's not the only one. There was also a Black movie remake of The Honeymooners, staring Mike Epps, and another OKoC, Cedric the Entertainer. Epps also appeared in Resident Evil:Apocalypse, as a pimp who somehow managed to make it through the entire movie. His only plot relevance is somewhat contrived.

Pimps were also common in the original blaxploitation genre, and their "street" vibe has carried on to this day. "Urban" is the new "extreme". And it's not just limited to movies; video games like Need For Speed:Underground and pretty much every GTA imitator out there revolve around being "street". Being black, usually, automatically implies "street"ness. In fact, GTA:San Andreas actually had a black lead. He was even recently released from prison. Despite that fact that it's an excellent game, one can't help but wonder if Rockstar knew the connotations associated with having a Black ex-gang member as their antihero. Barbershop(2002) was an excellent movie about a barbershop, which, in Black culture, is something of a community center. The film was a success, and there was immediately a sequel, a spinoff, and a TV series, all with diminishing levels of quality. Why? Because Hollywood knew that Black people were going to see the movie anyway.

Ever since RunDMC collaborated with Aerosmith for "Walk this Way", there have been Black artists "feat." on songs, even those already sung by ethnic minorities. Sergio Mendes' Timeless was produced by will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas. The Peas also guest-star on the album. Kanye West samples every song for the past few decades. It's like when Faith Evans and P.Diddy covered the Who's Every Step You Take and turned it into a Eulogy for Biggie Smalls, simply by Faith singing the chorus, and Diddy rapping over it. Except that's West's entire career. That and his savious complex. Scarily, the public loves him; Kanye is one of the best-selling artists of the past decade. Either he's really good, or just has really good marketing.

The Original Kings of Comedy is a stand up comedy film from 2000 starring Steve Harvey, D.L. Hughley, Cedric the Entertainer, and Bernie Mac. The film was a great succcess, and the stars-referred to for the rest of their lives as "The Kings of Comedy"-have been tacked onto anything Hollywood can find. For example, Man of the House(2005) was a film wherin Tommy Lee Jones, as a hard-nosed federal agent forced to guard a group of cheerleaders who witness a murder. Cedric was added to the movie as a pastor for two reasons; one: as an obligatory Black character, and two: as an obligatory funny character. That's why the OKoC are so appealing; they're Black, they're funny(theoretically), and as a bonus, they're big-name. A third of the budget needed to book seperate characters! Woot! The OKoC have been in Mr. 3000, Bad Santa, the Charlie's Angels remakes, Bad Santa, and a few dozen other movies. Most of them sucked.

The bottom line is that Hollywood is expoiting Blacks. Again. Indeed, Blacksploitation may have never really stiopped, just gone low key. Would someone please make a movie without a token black guy?

From the desk of OCP...

2006-02-20T19:11:00.000-08:00

yet another Law and Order series dept.

Conviction starts on March 3rd, and is a "midseason replacement". It fits the main requirement for an L&O show; all of the female leads are pretty. The show 's main character is SVU's Alex Cabot, and that means that it exists in a huge plot hole, namely Alex's status as a DA. At the end of her run on SVU, she went into witness protection. Call me crazy, but a DA would have to stay in WP for years to be safe. The premiere will allegedly explain this. This series is notable for being the first in L&O continuity without "Law and Order" in the title.

here's an old one

iKatana

2006-02-04T13:42:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, a spoof-sort of-of Sugar, We're Going Down by Fall Out Boy was posted on Google Video. Today, I find a similar video from someone else entirely. I believe this is what Ghost in the Shell described as a "Stand-Alone Complex"; loosely interpreted as the parallelization of human thought due to the ubiquity of media. Or, to use the story's description, "copies with no original". The same concept was mentioned in one of Michael Crichton's Jurrasic novels by Ian Malcolm, who states that he's worried the Internet will destroy mankind.

24 Day 5:9AM-11AM

2006-01-17T16:25:00.000-08:00

I've decided to make this a series.

The following contains spoilers for 24 Day 5:9AM to 11AM.

Beep. Boop.
Airport: *is being held by terrorists*
Terrorists: *reiterate threat to kill all the hostages if the Russian-American peace treaty is signed*
Me:Why does all this stuff happen in LA, anywhoo?
Clock: *is ticking*
Jack: *climbs into roof*
Me: Now that's vertical thinking.
Terrorists: Let's kill some guy in a suit!
Random guy: *is killed*
Jack: *takes pictures with his 4-megapixel Sprint™ cameraphone-PDA*
CTU: Good work, Jack. Despite you having faked your own death, we'll trust your intel and move in an a half-hour.
Terrorists: We're going to kill Bish next!
Bish: Derek. My name is Derek.
Jack: Oh snap. *takes more pictures*
Chloe: Despite my having helped a wanted man to escape, you need me to work your computers.
Jack: Chloe, they're going to kill Derek, that effete young man you bonded with two hours ago!
Chloe: OMG.
Jack: I need you to find the frequency of the secondary detonator that the terrorist is wearing in the picture I just sent you from my 4-megapixel Sprint™ cameraphone-PDA.
Chloe: Sure thing, Jack. I'll recruit the dude I slept with who looks like a twelfth-grader!
Dude: I have excellent fashion sense.
Me: Meanwhile, back at the ranch;
First lady: Mad? I am not Mad! Hearken! and observe how healthily --how calmly I can tell you the whole story.
Girl Friday: I'm hot!
First lady: I need you to stall the large, loutish Serviceman so I can go through the transcripts of the altered phone call.
Girl Friday: Roger that.
Random tech guy: *is peeing*
First lady: *is in wrong bathroom*
Tech dude: Ma'am? You shouldn't be in here.
First lady: If you do not give me the key to the transcript room, I will act like you tried to rape me.
*opens skirt and blouse, therby making it look like an attempted rape and providing a bit of fanservice for anyone watching with fetishes for hot older women and/or Oedipus complexes*
Me: *mutes*
First lady: *gets into transcript room*
Jack: *makes terrorist go boom*
Logan: Agent did not.
Wade Cunningham, Presidential Security Guy: Um, yeah, shadowy badguy leader? I'm going to need you to go ahead and use the Bish to get the bad guy to surrender. He, yeah, he means something to Jack.
Shadowy badguy leader: Wouldn't that joke have been more appropriate for a scene at CTU?
Me: Pay no attention to the Puppetmaster.
Bill Buchanan: I would like to welcome Lynn McGill to the CTU Team.
CTU: Aren't you Sam Ga-
McGill: No.
CTU: Lynn?
McGill: I hate you so much.
Buchanan: I'm going to work around you.
McGill: And I'll undermine your authourity, comandeer your office, and demand that you address me as "Mr. McGill", Mr. Buchanan.
Me: That's right; encourage the slashers. You'll be pregnant by the time Wade gets killed in a karmically satistfying fashion, just you wait.
Dude who Chloe slept with: I worked with McGill; he's a dick. And my name is Spencer.
Bald Badguy: We know you're there, Bauer! Come out with your hands up!
Jack: *comes out with hands up*
Episode: *ends*
Next episode: *begins*
Bald badguy: I want you to lure the CTU team into an ambush.
Jack: Curtis! Breach the south wall! I am in a Flank 2 position! A Flank 2 position!
Me: Well, that's subtle.
Curtis: Hookay.
McGill: I want to review Jack's transmissions.
Buchanan: Oookay, prick.
McGill: What?
Buchanan: I said, okay, McGill.
Wade: Girl friday, I need to know what the FLOTUS did with the transcripts. If you don't tell me, you can go to jail.
Girl friday: *rolls* They're in her blouse.
Wade: Oh snap.
President: Oookay, I'm going to sign this treaty. The terrorists said they would kill the hostages if I signed this treaty. Good thing that's exactly when CTU is going in.
Shadowy badguy head: He's going to sign the Anti-Terrorist Treaty with Russia. As soon as he does, kill the hostages.
Shadowy badguy base: I am the inverse of CTU!
Bald badguy: Roger that.
FLOTUS: *tries to get Logan's attention*
Logan: *ignores*
Jack: I am in a Flank 2 position! Make sure your fire doesn't hit me!
Cutris: Boy, Jack, you're sure saying "Flank 2 position" a lot. One would think that you were trying to tell me something.
Jack: I hate you so much.
Terrorist: *give keycard to hostage*
Hostage: *lies back down with other hostages*
Jack: *observes*
CTU: Operation commences in five...
McGill: Stop! Cast not that ring into Gondor!
Buchanan: Wha?
McGill: Jack used a duress code!
Buchanan: Don't be ridiculous. We ran it through filters.
McGill: Did you check the codes used when Jack was still an agent?
Buchanan: ...no.
Curtis: Redploy according to the original plan! Thank goodness Logna is running late.
Logan: *running late*
Terrorists: *lying in abmush*
Charges: *go boom*
Terrorists: *ambush*
Bullets: *hit air*
Terrrorists: *are confused*
CTU: *ambush*
Terrorists: *die*
Jack: *breaks loose and kills people*
Bald badguy: *blows up self*
Counter-terrorists: *win*
Jack: Have any of you hostages seen a dude? Buisnessman, black suit, white shirt, yellow tie?
Hostages: No, but he has terrible fashion sense.
FLOTUS: *musing*
Wade: *sneaks up behind**knocks the frick out* *steals transcript* *cops feel*
Me: *mutes again*
Badguy in disguise: Hello, terrorist associate! I have the keycard!
Associate: Good. Let us use it on this large mysterious container. Unnamed redshirt terrorist footsoldiers, assist us.
Container: *has crapload of containers with biohazard symbols*
Clock: Beep. Boop.

24 Season 5 Premiere synopsis (spoilers)

2006-01-16T11:51:00.000-08:00

Warning: spoilers for the Season 5 opening of 24.
Opening credites: "Special Guest Appearance: Dennis Haysbert"
Me: Uh-oh.
Palmer: *dies*
Me: Headshot!
Michelle and Tony: *fight*
Me: Meh.
Michelle: *dies*
Me: Yay!
Tony: *dies*
Me: The Tony/Jack slashers will hate this.
Tony: *is actually critical*
Me: ...of course. They weren't kidding when they said everything would change in the first five minutes.
MILF: Have breakfast with us.
Bish: *tries to take on the master*
Jack: *calls his bluff*
Me: PWNED!
Chloe: (to new character she just slept with) This was a msitake.
Me: Nice butt.
Badguys: *try and kill Chloe*
Chloe: *outwits*
*calls Jack*
Jack: *steals chopper, kidnaps Bish*
*saves Chloe*
Badguy: *is wounded*You were framed for Palmer's murder. *is shot*
Bish: OMG!
Me: That's a guy. A GUY, Jonn.
Golden trio: We go to the Hotel where Palmer was shot, so we can find the Philosopher's Stone.
Chloe: This will be a sneaking mission. I can use the computer the terrorists conveiniently left in their van. And the communications equipment.
CTU: There's a threat against the visiting Soviet dignitary. And Jack was seen on the security camera. And Chloe is logged in remotely. Jack must be forcing her.
President Logan: Speech.
First Lady: Let me see my husband, or I will have you and your family eating dog food out of a can!
Secret Agent Man: No.
First Lady: Crap.
Logan: Now that the speech is over, Honey, what's wrong?
First Lady: Palmer was going to tell me something important before he died.
Logan: Have you been off your meds?
FL: No.
Logan: I'll look into it.
*leaves*
Security Chief: I'll look into it.
*leaves*
CTU: Logan, Jack is alive.
Logan: OMG.
CTU: And you should probably cancel the Russian dude's trip.
Logan: Frick no.
Bish: Why do you keep calling him "Jack"?
Chloe: Because he faked his death when the gov't tried to kill him.
Bish: Oh snap.
Logan: Mrs. Logan? This not-altered-at-all tape shows you dreamed it all. JT is alive.
Jack: *disguises self* *wins trust of Palmer's effete brother*
Me: Jack/Tony/Palmer bro OTP!
Chloe: I am sending a decryption program for that mysterious file Palmer encrypted, even though I have no idea what format it is written in, and you're using a Mac.
Program: *decrypts*
Me: *goes to bathroom*
Plot: *advances*
Jack: Now to sneak out of the airport and return his Bishiness.
CTU: *locks Chloe out*
Chloe: Oh snap.
Jack: *escapes Hotel crawling with cops*
Chloe: *is diversion*
Jack: *jacks car*
Me: Heh.
Jack: *drives to station* I am giving you back to your mother. Oh, and I'm a secret agent. Now I am going into this airport.
Shadowy Terrorist Boss: Attack.
Badguys: *park at airport*
Russian dignitary: *Lands safely.*
CTU: Huh.
Bish: Those look like badguys. I've got to tell Jack! *goes into station*
MILF: Oh snap.
Random fat guy: *is interrogated*
Badguys: *take over airport*
Bish: Onoz.
Jack: *is distracted*
Fat guy: *kills self with pill*
Me: Should've laid off the V.
Badguys: You'll be fine as long as the Russian President and Logan meet our demands.
Security chief: *plots with badguy*
Clock: Beep. Boop. Beep. Boop.
Me: Oh snap.

Poor parody writer goes nuts. Film at eleven.

2005-10-28T17:04:00.001-07:00

In marysues, poor parody RE Suefic is sporked.(post is flocked). It was co written by two girls, and is self-indulgent and egotistical. According to the sporker, Savageworlds;

The most recent chapter (four) speaks out against Mary Sues even though both of the authors responsible write nothing but. Their own Mary Sue alter egos also make an appearance. In the chapter's conclusion, they consider themselves the exception to their own rule of Do Not Write Sues.

In short. These two are so full of themselves, it's a miracle they haven't choked to death by now.

And here's the quoted portion of the story.
[right in here]

The redhead turns and faces the camera with a serious look on her face. “Today we will be examining the scourge of fanfiction…nay society….”

“…the Mary Sue.” Violet concludes, before pulling out a blackboard from apparently nowhere and pointing at a needlessly complicated chart. “Now class, a Mary Sue, for those of you who may not know…”

“…or may have repressed…” Shak interjects.

“…is a self-insertion fanfic. Where the main character is invariably fantastic, beautiful, gorgeous, clever, kind, generous…”

“…renegade…”

“…brave, talented, blonde and in a relationship with one of the more desirable Resident Evil characters.”

“Right, you two,” Jennifer-Louise points at the two fictional characters, “Sit down and shut up. And give me one of your fags.”

“This is a piss-take of Mary Sues,” Jasmine begins, “We write Mary Sues. We are aware of this.” She is sitting with her hands behind her head and a smug smile of general satisfaction. “And the first person who feels the need to point this out gets the castration special.”

“The thing is,” Jennifer-Louise takes a draw from her cigarette, and glares at the camera, “We are entitled to write Mary Sues. And do you know why?” Pause. “Because we are fantastic.”

“We are so interesting, that it is inconceivable that people wouldn’t want to read about us,” Jasmine adds in a fit of modesty.

“We are your coffee in the morning. You need us. The Resident Evil section needs us to brighten up their dull and otherwise empty lives. We are the two most fascinating, dynamic, humourous, witty and all round stalkable people you have ever met.”

“And the world deserves to have us in fiction form, because there isn’t enough of the real thing to go around.” Jasmine finishes, before her face darkens, “I swear to God, the next anorexic fucking Barbie they put up there and label as “tough” I’m gonna go strap myself as explosives and go blow something up.”

Yes, I know, egotistical, "you're just jealous!" bull. As is to be expected.

The suethour gets wind and joins the comm in order to view the post, and comments on it.comments on it.

[link]
misscaptain

Marry me?

This is the best thing we've ever done at five in the morning and I stand by the statements utterly. I am fantastic, Jasmine is fantastic, and everyone wants to read about us, because we are more beautiful than all the saints and angels.

You fail at sarcasm. And that had better be sarcasm.

Besides which, it's inconcievable that Birkin would want to fuck anyone except me (did I mention I'm fantastic), so really it's less a Mary Sue, and more a realistic portrayal of life as it would have been had I been in the resident evil universe.

I am your coffee in the morning, your buttercup, your sunshine. I am wisdom, light, and all that's in between. And you clearly think so too, because you are spreading the Gospel that is us. And our wonderfulness.

Next time, don't post it as a private message. I had to join the community to verify the rumours.

Face it, love. Your body, like the rest of the RE community, needs my sugar.

Jennifer-Louise

Ps. *whisper whisper* Two single most highest review counts in the RE section *whisper whisper*

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to be smug.

Funny, I thought she was smug already.

I respond.

[link]
mcity

35 is not a big number. Your "parody" fic started back in July. Mine started a week and a half a ago. I have a fourth of your reviews, in a ninth of the time, on a hastily written fic that's a chapter shorter.

She responds.

I think 35 must seem a very big number for those of us (that would be you) who ride the big yellow bubble bus to "school". But then I’m sure you learned your numbers all the way up to three, by counting up your chromosome 21’s.

(You're not very bright, are you love.)

Let's look at the RE section reviews.

Exhibit A: Resident Evil Damnation by Shakahnna - 949 reviews. Most reviewed Resident Evil story on FF.net (by a long way). Is a Mary Sue.

Exhibit B: Girls Will Be Violet by Hello Captain - 389. Second most reviewed RE story on ff.net. Is a shameless (note, shameless) Mary Sue comedy.

And just for shits and giggles, let's look at exhibit C.

Gosh, would you believe it, it's Living Like A Disaster (by Hello Captain and Shakahnna with...354 reviews. And guess what else. It's a Mary Sue. And a comedy.

So you see, my dear ingrate, it would appear that people just can't get enough of us. And who, really, could blame them?

Your Teen Titans tripe: 3 reviews per chapter. Utter pish in every respect of the word. Resorting to desperately shoving the link there when there was no context for doing so was also pretty hilarious. Unlike your fic, which was insipid. No offence, love, but you've just done exactly what we did, ie PUT YOURSELF into a story flaming Mary Sues, and done it badly. (In fact, you have two stories, and both of them are self-insertion. *sniggers*). Oh love, you really might want to put down that stone and at least get your glass house kitted out with some double glazing first.

Now, just so we clarify, review count is not everything. Any moron can click the review button. But since you brought it up, and you are obviously lacking in the perspicacity to realise that I was talking about our ACTUAL mary sues, as opposed to our self-parody one in terms of reviews, these things are best explained. Especially to Little Miss "I Hate Sues But I Think That It's Ok To Role Play Because THAT'S Not Self-Indulgent Escapism Oh No" (that would be strike two on the "You're A Hypocrite" league table).

Ah, yes. The old "everything you said is invalid becuse you're doing the same thing" fallacy.

There's more, which I will not dignify with a quote. She also C&P's it to her own LJ(I posted there too), and spams Savageworld's.

Then she makes F_W for a large, egotistical post which is essentially "UR JUST JEALOUS HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED". I'm about to spork it. Care to join me?

Do you really have so little confidence that you have to hate everyone who is brave enough to actually go out there and INTERACT with the fictional world that resonated so deeply with them. If you’re going to indulge in escapism (and that’s all reading, television and gaming is), then you might as well have the courage do it properly. And you might as well do it as yourself.

Ironically, she still seems to have missed the point; she wasn't sporked because she was a Mary Sue, it was because she was a self-indulgent, egotistical parody Mary Sue writer, and a poor one at that. Fanfiction was originally created to explore underdeveloped aspects of canon, not to put yourself in the story.

For example. Shak’s self based character is a loud, overweight, delusional, classless, corrupt, mentally unstable policewoman with all the hygiene habits of a pig and a fixation with cutting off male genitalia, and my self insertion is an ugly, uptight, geeky, snobby, clumsy, cowardly hypocrite who instantly irritates everyone she meets and lets her pets die. Both are crass, arrogant, offensive and less attractive on a Friday night than a Pringles tube stuffed with liver.

It’s the age of the anti-hero, and we are the pioneers.

THAT’S the real reason why we are allowed to write Mary Sues, and the rest of you aren’t. Because we are not only honest about our repulsive personality traits and physical appearance, but we REVEL in it. Our Mary Sues NEVER get the boy in the end. They have NO special abilities or talents, aside from any that we have in real life. They are not who we wish we were, they are who we ARE. And we are so fucking proud of ourselves, we are SO completely happy with being US, flaws and all, that we can stick an honest version of ourselves into the Resident Evil universe, and utterly get away with it, because if nothing else, we have the confidence to carry it off, and to say to the world “This is us. We’re not perfect, but if you don’t like it, you can suck my rocket”.

If you're so happy with yourself-MY JOY IZ PASTEDE ON YEY-why are your self-inserts so miserable?

It takes a security, a complete self reliance and self satisfaction that none of you have. You all DESPERATELY wish that, even just for a day, you could run about in the universe of your own particular fandoms. But you don’t have the guts to do it, because you don’t have the guts to write a truly honest portrayal of yourself, and how you would react in that situation.

That's odd. I directed her to my anti-sue fic, and she called it crap. She knows that some of us put self-inserts in the story. And she takes pleasure in making no distinction between Sues and Self-Inserts. Hermione's a self-insert. Wesley Crusher is a Stu.

There is no such thing as canon. It is a myth that people with no confidence in their own abilities created to stop themselves from facing up to the fact that they don’t think they’re good enough to reach out and touch the one thing that brightens up their day a little.

If I met this woman in reality, I'd edge away as soon as possible.

You like your fandom because you identify with it. Because you can relate to it. Because when you played that game, or watched that anime, or read that book, it struck a chord with you.

Justifying Sues how?

How did the dear and gentle readers here manage to utterly miss the fact that not only do we write numerous shameless, unrepentant, self indulgent Sues, and that in fact we find it nigh on impossible to write a story and NOT put ourselves in it, but that none of these fics has ever managed to grace the hallowed halls of fame here (which in itself is a travesty). Yet when we write a piece taking the piss out of OURSELVES (It's Not Big and It's Not Clever) for writing Sues, sporking ensues.

MY HUMILITY IZ PASTEDE ON YEY.

The post is also mirrored at Deleterius, a comm dedicated to sporking bad Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings suefic before it is deleted. The other authour, snapes_angel, comments on the post;

[link]
snapes_angel

Mme. Mervin, thank you for missing the point entirely. Anyway, the only "self-insertion" I do with any of my fics is to take a personality trait that I see in canon (i.e., how the characters really are in the books) and explore it in the context of that particular character. Not that I mid Mary Sues, but I alos like to spork them (and fanfic in general) and I also would enjoy hhaving anything of mine sporked: but then, I have a rather thick skin when it comes to an honest, helpful critique of my writing. I've also learned a bit in my short time in this community too.

Of course, I don't write as much fanfic as some... lol: though I'm currently involved in a group project, HP/Gremlins crossover that's a lot of fun. Original charactesr can be included, so long as you don't mind other people also writing your characters (in other word, open season on Sues if you trib them to the story). The closest thing to a Sue I have in that story is a character that interjects a random plot point here nad there, or that I use ot try to explani some elements of the story (like for some reason someone decided tht Sirius Black's alive for the purpose of the story): so my character had managed a magical invention called a Deus ex Machina that could only be used once, and Harry used it to bring Sirius back. XP

Well at least she's not as bad as her coauthour. The spelling could use some work, but she's very nice.

I have no doubt that this will continue. Believe it!

EDIT (Nov 7th '05)

As I expected, she comments on the Fandom_Wank post. Check out her reply to my comment: the rules I made don't apply to me. Also, she's glad you're spreading the message of her greatness.

Ship at the bottom.

2005-10-26T16:44:00.000-07:00

Caina wrote an essay on fandom hypocrisy. Fandom_wank picked up on it. The esay in question is currently down because of all the mean meanies making fun of her.

I’m sure many people are
wondering “how is Jo responsible for the anti-Harmony sentiment on the
Internet?” There are several ways, and I’ll list them here.

1. Rowling granted an interview with two fans, both of whom are known to be anti-H/Hr.

2. Rowling made an inflammatory remark on her own website.

3. Rowling used her own book to ridicule H/Hr.

4. Rowling has ignored the situation in her fandom, thereby exacerbating the already sore situation.

Um,the interview was getting involved, in a way. And how many authours check out their own fandom? Who would believe it was them? Once William Shatner went into a Star Trek chatroom and identified himself. He was flamed for an hour. No one believed it was him.

I want to preface this essay with a simple statement of fact: JK Rowling, as an author with fans of different ships (which she was well aware of during the writing of HBP, if not as far back as GoF), has an obligation to be professional when dealing with fans. Professional means a certain amount of neutrality and fairness.

And by fairness, C* means "BRING BAK H/HR."

The H/Hr ship is not a tiny minority, as Anelli claims in her interview with Rowling. She did say that we’re very vocal. That, I agree with, we are vocal, but no more so than R/Hr or H/G sites.

How, then, am I mad?

Next, they said that we shouldn’t question Rowling’s work, that instead of being angry that our ship was sunk, we should stick to fanon. This means that we should praise Rowling, never question her abilities, and enjoy the H/Hr ship through fan fiction, on our own websites, and forums, and we should do it in peace, and leave them alone to enjoy HP the way they want.

Why, yes! Perhaps you've got i-

Yet, when we try to enjoy our ship on our own websites and forums, and when we write our fan fiction, what do they do? They prove themselves to be hypocritical by coming onto our websites and forums and then creating places like the STFU (shut the fuck up) to ridicule our fandom. They like to claim “we’ll take canon, you take fanon”. Instead of leaving us alone to enjoy our ship, and to enjoy HP the way we want, they continue attacking us.

[Vader]NOOOOOO!!!![/Vader]

We’re supposed to quietly disappear. We’re supposed to sit back and remain silent and not be offended while they take the only thing we Harmonians have left and ridicule it.

So, you were living for a ship that is now technically slash in a children's book?!? Wow. What kind of childhood did you have?

The comment on her site about wanting Emerson to know that she wasn’t some angry H/Hr shipper in a dark alley was an irresponsible and unnecessary comment. She has sunk other ships without such disdain, why all the hate for H/Hr? Why did she feel the need to use H/Hr shippers in that “joke”? Words have an effect on people, and she needs to be aware that what she says can help or hurt some people.

Um, you've all but openly threatened us, and her.

. I certainly wasn’t an angry shipper before HBP was released.

No, you were.

She was so desperate that we didn’t have anything but a few tossed bones (with the little bit of flirting in the Great Hall) to point to H/Hr as loving one another that she decimated the H/Hr friendship. She was so desperate to prove Ginny is perfect that she reduced Hermione to a whiny and pathetic brat. To hell with telling a good story. Let me do everything I can to ‘prove’ Harry and Hermione are only platonic friends. What I don’t get is why she couldn’t continue to write their friendship the same as she had from the first five books, while still writing H/G, R/Hr.

No, she decided "screw it; if they haven't been hit by the ten-pounders I've dropped, I'm throwing the book at them."

She then ignores the situation that’s happening, even though I’m convinced she’s aware of it (and no amount of protestations that she has no idea what’s happening will convince me), choosing instead to focus on some non-issue like eBay fraud.

You dropped your tinhat.

So, of course these ‘people’ at STFU feel they’re justified in not only telling us to stick to fanon, but they feel completely justified in ridiculing our fanon efforts because the one they look up to has repeatedly and maliciously slammed us.

She bobbed and weaved for half the interview to avoid calling you nuts, and finally did so under protest. How is that malicious?

They claim they won, but did they really? I mean, think about it? What did they win? A book long hissy fit between R/Hr,

Dwarfed, of course, by the three month fit you guys have thrown.

Hermione flirting with Harry,

What?

Hermione dating McLaggen,

to make Ron jealous.

Ron with his lips glued to Lavender most of the book,

To make Hermione jealous

Ginny kissing Dean,

Becuase Harry didn't seem interested

Ginny kissing Harry once passionately, one peck, Harry reflecting a little on a day spent by the lake with Ginny, in which NO detail is given, Harry bitter at Snape for eating into his time with Ginny, which was never even shown.

[strangledvoice]Children's...book...[/strangledvoice]

I mean, they got paired up in chapter 24 for God’s sake, and then he dumps her at a funeral. Talk about cliché.

Dumping your girlfriend to save her life isn't exactly cliche.

My fellow Harmony shippers, I suggest that the best way for us to deal with the STFU, is to ignore them.

This is the first time I have ever spittook onto my screen, ever. Congrats.

I like C*'s "the fandom is the center of JKR's attention" theory, ignoring such things as the movies, the red tape, the marketing, and, oh yeah, writing the books.

Extended sporking here.

Caina's egotism makes my head spin.

You sunk my ship!

2005-08-29T17:04:00.000-07:00

Over the past month and a half, the Harry Potter shippers have been having a war. It all started when, in an interview(spoiler warning), JKR officially stated that there would be no relationship between Harry and Hermione, ever.

The self-proclaimed "Harmonians" immediately go nuts. Some even took it upon themselves to rewrite Half-Blood Prince. Yes, all of it. Some are frickin scary. It's this last one I'll be taking a look at. Contains spoilers.

First of all, I would like to give a thanks to all the people who have taken the times to post comments on my blog. Much appreciation goes out to the people trying to have a real conversation with my side of the aisle. Most unfortunate, however, a few people have been making very rediculous alagories about my good ally snowy and people who share our point of view. According to MissTrish, the popularity of our broadbase movement makes us alike to Nazis!

My guess? She misinterpreted a perfectly valid analogy. Let's look at the comment.

There were a lot of Nazis during WW2, Snowy, does that make them right and the rest of the world wrong?

I'm guessing she'll invoke Godwin's law and throw a hissy fit at being compared to Nazis while ignoring the point the commenter was making.

Well, no, MissTrish, it doesn't. But what does Hitler have to do with anything - besides the fact that he bears striking characteristics to Voldemort?

See? SEE?

I guess some people just can't retain from making proof of Godwin's Law, and must bring up Nazi's at every point when they're logical deficiencies become way too obvious for all. Your only success, MissTrish, was to make me prove Godwin's Law, too, by comparing Hitler and You-Know-Who! Sorry, but I don't feel like engaging in that kind of rubbish bin talking anymore.

In other news, the "What We Believe In" petition is going strong, even though it is too soft on JRK and does not call for a proper ban of book 7 or readership striking action. I believe all True Fans must take the time to sacrifice a minute of their day and just sit down and sign this petition. Here is what I wrote when I signed this monumental document:

She sounds like rebellion leader. I now have a terrifying image of a rabid Harmonian standing on top of a pile of gasoline-soaked HBPs, holding her torch in her right hand, using her left to incite her fellow shippers to rise up, rise up and overthrow the oppression of JK Rowling!

Moving on:

This is one of the travesties of all time. One of the most unstoppable love stories ever put into print has now been put into the trash compactor and squished, and all the True Fans will not stand for this desecration of author/reader trusting. How could someone set up this kind of ageless, timely love epic and then within a few pages tear it up so fully?

Several thousand pages, spanning six books, isn't exactly a "few", dearie. Also,

If you are a True Fan of Harry Potter

Where did the Caps come from?

and what the series stands for - ie a community of fans living and breathing and enjoying the story that has been developing all along - then you will sign this petition and have things fixed again for all to notice. A narrow grouping of insideous R/H shippers

Narrow? Thousands of people is "narrow"?

has taken over the online society of fans and now we need to take it back, it is the ONLY way to save this stoy from the hurricane of tradgedy that has overtaken it and taken it to a place where proper story arcs are disregarded in favorite of rediculous love twists and fancible flights of fiction.

Open denial, folks. You may not like it, lady, but what the authour writes is canon.

JKR's new name for all to know is now JRK because that is more in tune with her cavalry disregard for her fans - add an 'E' into those initials and you will understand what points I am communicating for all. Just because some R/H shippers were able to hijack an interview with JRK does not mean their point of views are truth, and just because they have been able to hand it up with the author does not make their believes correct. The mannors displayed in this interview are truly disgusting and all True Fans deserve an apology from these ideologically obsessed and elitist web site owners. Visit my website for a site for True Fans. Long live this and all H/H petitions.

This sounds an awful lot like a speech by Hitler, even though I speak no German. They even want to supress others right to free speech as long as it contests their views.

We need more H/H fans, the true believers who are not afraid to be yelled at on the internet by the sheep who follow JRK at any cost, to get engaged. Harry and Hermione's love was cut short after only a few sweet, short books.

Excuse me: have you seen Goblet?

Now, let's check out the comments. First up: the obligatory one by the person who agrees with the blogger's badly-made points;

link
Hermione Granger-Potter
hey guys.....maybe we should take pumpkinhead more seriously. Someone told me that he/she went to princeton! :-o
OMG!

Pumpkinhead, you must be really smart!!!!!!!1 What did you get on your SATs? Haha I bet I beat you though...I got a 1790. (OK, so it might be out of 2400 now, but i still got a higher score than you lol!!!)

Guys, if the person from Princeton is saying that Harry and Hermione really do love each other, don't you think we should probably believe it? :-)
If a Harvard graduate said we needed to go to war because of alleged WMDs which we don't even know exist, should we go to war?

I mean, I have to say, I totally fell for the trap of R/Hr and H/G, but pumpkinhead raises a pretty good point. It really was obvious it was going to be Harry/Hermione all along.
Yes, because that whole "Krum" thing was just o underline Hermione's relationship with Harry. Of course.

Pumpkinhead, did you actually go to Princeton? If you did, can you write me a recommendation leeter? I am going to be applying there this year, and I think a letter from an alumni of your stature could really help. ;-)

Thanks!

Love,
Hermione Granger-Potter

See, if they had really gone to Princeton, they probably wouldn't be waving it around.

I totally agree with the whole "Godwin's thing;" people on the internet just can't resist bringing up Nazis when there is any sort of a debate. Traditionally, that causes the side that brought up Nazis to automatically lose the war, because they have to sink to such depths!
"War"?
"One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the economy", one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is not universally true." Wikipedia on Godwin's Law

I can't believe that anyone would support Ginny; she began by being snivelling and whining, going after someone merely because he was a hero when she didn't even know him, and allowing herself to be possessed by Voldemort. Then she turns into some "perfect" person to become the "perfect" girl for Harry. How lame! She is a Mary Sue and just really annoying...

Mary Sue? How? She's pretty, good at hexes, has fast refles, and is a good Quidditch player. How does that make her a Sue, especially when Hermione is JKR's publicly-admitted Sue?

What's even scarier than this are the other entries. Like this one. Or this one.This girl is almost as bad as Laurion: Acting like the definitions she uses are true, even when they're exactly what's under debate. It's sickening.

Links to check periodically:
Deleterius
Fandom_Wank

JARKtrovery '05

2005-07-31T15:06:00.000-07:00

For those of you dead, there has been a large amount of controversy over at deviantART. Scott Jarkoff, AKA Jark, was fired from the dA staff. Jarkoff is one of the two founders of dA, and since the other one left a while ago, the community at large went "OMGWTFBBQ".

Metaphorically speaking.

At least one artist on my devWATCH has already quit dA. There are threats of riots in the forums. Seriously, several are threatening to boycott dA until the administration changes stuff or reinstates Jark. Most prominent are claims that dA has become a corporation. Which is strange, because it's always been a corporation. Since day one. Pardon me for kicking your legs out from under you.

As is always popular, the public seems to have jumped to a conclusion without any sort of backup. There has been no official word from the admins, and Jark himself has only posted this journal entry, which seems calculated to enflame the masses. In fact, it doesn't really say anything at all. I especially like how he mirrors the entry at his blog, impliedly because the Ebil Nazi Staff would probably delete it.

However, we do have a nice new deviantSkin, which makes me go yay

I'll have a sardonic animated GIF on the whole thing as soon as I can boot up my crappy desktop and start ImageReady.

Tue 03/08/05

Oh, hello! What's this!

Jark has made a second post [mirror], and a third [mirror], and a fourth [mirror] on his journal. According to the last one, he can't explain exactly what happened for legal resons, which is, oddly enough, the same reason Spyed gave for the firing.

In essence, two guys founded a company. One resigned. The other stayed on as part of the board. He was just fired. NOw he's turned into the Green Goblin* and has sworn revenge.[ Oh come on; did none of you see Spider-Man?] Instead of putting on a costume and using purloined technology, he put on a sad face and is being passive-agressive. For some reason, the fanpoodles are surprised. This happens all the time in the real world, but not on their precious Internet.

It's also mildly amusing to see him complaining about not being an afmin, when he's still perma-subscribed. All of the privileges, none of the responsibility. We're not even sure what the firing was about, and it can't be revealed, for legal purposes. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

10:30 PM

Read this response to my animated GIF. Yes, she actually used the ol' "only say something nice cause of freedom of speech" passive aggressive trick. Which is the most transparent P/A attack ever.

*Technically, yellow.

There's something wrong with the man.

2005-07-23T10:24:00.000-07:00

Jack Thompson is-this is not a joke-attacking The Sims 2. His claim is that pedos can use cheats to remove the blur used for censoring.

Knowing that the game is popular among all ages, EA has even taken steps to ensure that Sims fans aren't exposed to indecent depictions. In the recent expansion pack, The Sims 2 University, gamers can send their teenage sims off to college. However, instead of packing the expansion with "keggers" and "reefer," EA chose to use juice and bubble blowers.

Thompson doesn't seem to care. He cites a cheat code that can remove the blur that covers the nether regions. "The nudity placed there by the publisher/maker, Electronic Arts, is accessed by the use of a simple code that removes what is called 'the blur' which obscures the genital areas. In other words, the game was released to the public by the manufacturer knowing that the full frontal nudity was resident on the game and would be accessed by use of a simple code widely provided on the Internet."

Let's look at this logically. For someone to find this they have to

Want to remove the blurs.
Know that the blurs can be removed.
Actively search for the code allowing them to remove the blurs.

I fail to see how EA is responsible for any of that. One thing's for sure; EA's flagging sales are going up again.

Jeff Brown, vice president of corporate communications at EA, in response to the accusations, told GameSpot, "This is nonsense. We've reviewed 100 percent of the content. There is no content inappropriate for a teen audience. Players never see a nude sim. If someone with an extreme amount of expertise and time were to remove the pixels, they would see that the sims have no genitals. They appear like Ken and Barbie."

Thompson doesn't buy it. "The sex and the nudity are in the game. That's the point. The blur is an admission that even the 'Ken and Barbie' features should not be displayed. The blur can be disarmed. This is no different than what is in San Andreas, although worse."

Wait, seing genitals is different from a sex minigame? Which is, in itself, in a game which allows you pimp out hookers?

The minigame in San Andreas requires someone to, again, actively search for the tools which would allow them to see it. The purported genatalia in the Sims 2 requires someone to actively hunt down this purported cheat code.

[UPDATE] Thompson this afternoon updated his earlier statement, saying he is aware certain mods only remove "the blur," but adds that "Electronic Arts has done nothing about this." Thompson's new conclusion: EA is "cooperating, gleefully, with the mod community to turn Sims 2 into a porn offering."

Yes, because it's easy for a corporation to hunt down each and every mod for a wildly popular game, and release a blanket patch. What Bizarro logic is Thompson using here? And why doesn't he have screenshots? And who wants to take bets on whether he goes after "God of War"'s sex minigame next? Anyone?

I can't wait for Monday, to see what Penny Arcade does with this.

Paranoia Agent

2005-06-20T13:44:00.000-07:00

I have watched the first few episodes of Paranioa Agent on [Adult Swim]. The reason I didn't say anything is because I needed a little for viewing to confiirm my suspicions: Paranoia Agent Commitee employed such powerful drugs in the making of this series as to make the team that developed Katamari Damacy look like Hare Krishnas.

And I say this not without some consideration. I suspected it from the opening sequence; several people staring directly at the camera and laughing for some strange reason while backgrounds flash behind them. In one case, the laughing man—no, not the one from SAC—was flying slowly through the sky, his tie whipping about him. In another, a man stands on a tower while a mushroom cloud blossoms behind him. In another, a bag lady stands on a table in what appears to be a hotel's dining room. In another, and old man in a tuxedo stands laughing on the moon.

Yes, I said the moon.

Designer Tsukiko Sagi is attacked by a young man on golden skates, wearing a baseball cap, with a bent golden baseball hat. PA is the story of how he affects the lives of various people. The second episode deals with a young man suspected of being this Little Slugger: Yuuichi "Ichi" Taira. The third deals with Ichi's tutor, Harumi Chono, who is a schizophrenic. Her other personality, "Maria" is a prostitute. The fourth episode deals with a crooked cop, Masami Hirukama, one of Maria's clients. The fifth airs at Midnight, Saturday night.

The series is frighteningly surreal. From the opening sequnce all the way to its close, Paranioa Agent strives to keep the viewer off balance. And it does so, very well. I reccomend this series to anyone who like drama.

Spoilers.

In episode 3, Harumi's cellphone is white, while Maria's is black. After Maria is apparently destroyed, we only see the white phone. Harumi is doing something stereotypicallly romantic, boating with her fiance, when a call for Maria comes through on the white phone, uncomfortably blending the two lives. Up until that point, Maria's life didn't actively intrude in Harumi's, but from this point on, Harumi's life begins to fall apart.

Jack's Back.

2005-06-12T17:42:00.000-07:00

Oh, Jack. What shall we do with you?

Jack Thompson's back, and once again spouting his bull. No doubt he'll be walking the same tired, illogical paths, once again. Let's see.

EGM: Videogames with mature content are clearly labeled on the box. Isn't a voluntary ratings system a responsible move by the videogame industry?

It was a responsible move by the television and movie industries. Let's see what Jack says.

Jack Thompson: The ESRB [Entertainment Software Rating Board] doesn't work because, as the [Federal Trade Commission] and various private individuals and organizations have found, retailers are not abiding by [the ratings]. They're selling these games to kids under 17 despite the rating label. In fact, it's a counterproductive sales tool because millions of kids want the Mature-rated games. Rating labels that have no practical impact are ineffectual and counterproductive. That's why another attorney and I sued Best Buy in November of 2004, so they agreed now to ID anyone who presents a game to a cashier and appears to be 21 years of age and under. We moved the bar four years forward, so it is less likely kids under 17 can buy these things.

What the...? He didn't even answer the question! He's claiming that the system doesn't work because the industry is specificaly making M-rated games to bost sales. While there are several companies that do practice such a buisness model [Midway's NARC comes to mind.], most quality M-rated games don't have violence for violence's sake. Video games stores have no legal authhourity to enforce the rating system, yet they're still blamed when kids buy M-rated games. The fault lies with the parents who buy the games for their kids, or just give them the money.

EGM: But how often do M-rated games end up in the hands of kids in stores?

JT: Many stings have found that up to 50 percent of kids under 17 were sold M-rated games. And with 14-year-olds, between 70 to 80 percent of them were able to buy titles like [Grand Theft Auto:] San Andreas. Some videogame companies don't want retailers to abide by these ratings. It's a charade—they say to parents and Congress, "Don't sell M-rated games to anyone under 17," but they do. The videogame industry says one thing and does another.

No, they say they don't market to children. They don't. They market on Comedy Central, VH1, MTV, and [adult swim]. Not exactly kiddy programming. And again, some developers make violent games for the free pub, but they're the minority.

EGM: Who are you referring to, exactly?

JT: Game publishers, console manufacturers, and retailers. They're all in cahoots with one another to have a rating system that doesn't work. The ESRB system is not a warning label—it's a rating label. It should say "Do not sell this game to anyone under 17."

Except that the rating system is built to inform consumers about the level of violence. If you're so concerned, why aren't you working to give retailers the legal authourity to refuse games to minors? Not to mention online shops, which only ask for token proof of age. Hmmm.

EGM: What are you proposing to fix this?

JT: We need a three-legged stool:

Funny you should use the word "stool".

Sorry, carry on.

education, legislation, and my approach, which is to do the right thing. This includes representing bereaved third parties so they can sue those responsible for actions that have resulted in death.

As long as you're at it, enact legislation which will allow serial killers to blame their crimes on music, movies, and television, why doncha. Something like under fifty crimes in the US-ever-have been found to be related to videogames. In fact, if you'd only study the studies , Jack, you'd find that the percentage of crimes caused by videogames is lower than that of TV, movies, music...

Family members who miss their loved ones—this is where the breakthrough will occur. The industry fears this, so they've all run out and bought "copycat liability" insurance to protect them. If they don't think this is going to happen, then why are they buying it? This third solution is to scare the dickens out of the videogame industry to stop marketing and selling inappropriate games to children. My goal is to save lives.

"The dickens"? Cute. Appropriate for what you want to do to the industry, Jack. And to answer your question, why do doctors buy malpractice insurance?

EGM: Your attempts to compensate victims of alleged game-related deaths have been unsuccessful so far. Why do you think this is?

JT: Lawyers tend to be to the left of normal people, and judges tend to be the left of the lawyers. Federal judges tend to be the left of them. So you have a bunch of First Amendment absolutists who block these kinds of lawsuits. State courts, however, are far more responsive to parents. I suppose federal judges by and large don't have a problem with mental molestation of children with murder simulators.

Bill O'Reilly would be proud. Of course, it's the liberal System's fault. State courts tend to be more narrow-viewed. Federals can see the big picture.

EGM: You once compared Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, to Saddam Hussein.

JT: If I did, I want to apologize to Saddam Hussein. Doug is a propagandist to whom the facts don't matter. He's paid to lie and he does it very well. Doug is paid a handsome salary, probably seven figures, to say there are no studies that indicate [violent games have] an effect on anyone. If this is true, why is the military using them to create killing simulators?

Because soldiers KILL. That's what they DO, Jack. And it doesn't matter what he says; if he's lying, prove him wrong. But you can't, can you?

EGM: Let's talk about this. Isn't there a difference between training and acting out?

Seems obvious. How will Jack spin it?

JT: A cyberterrorism expert has found that games such as [THQ's] Full Spectrum Warrior, or Full Spectrum Command as it's known in the military, is being used by al Qaeda to train their troops. These games don't just teach skills—they break down the inhibition to kill. We've been trained by society and our parents not to kill another person, so the way you break that down is to put a soldier in a VR setting, which will be far more effective in the long run.

Nice one, Jack. Argueing that terorists use a tactical training game used by US forces to learn countertactical tactics. Which is, y'know, what enemies are supposed to do. Nice how you used Al Qaeda to make the games seem like T3H EBIL ONOZ.

EGM: MIT's Henry Jenkins says many researchers don't buy the "monkey see, monkey do" hypothesis.

JT: If Henry doesn't think education has an effect on anyone he should stop being a professor.

Except that it's not what he said.

You can modify behavior. The very same people like Doug [Lowenstein] who say games can't encourage anyone to do anything are the same people who tend to get upset about tobacco ads because they encourage kids to smoke. So why are [mature] game advertisements shown on TV when X percentage of kids are in the audience? This is because ads for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas may persuade them to buy games. And how is it that 10 hours of being immersed in violent behavior doesn't have an effect? It's nonsense to think otherwise....

I'm right. If you think I'm wrong, you're wrong. There are always Kids watching. The purpose of advertising is to persuade people into buying things. Kids should not be playing GTA in the first place, and the primary responsibility for a child's media intake lies legally and morally with their parents.

EGM: But tens of millions of these GTA games are sold and there are very, very few reports of actual violence associated with them. Aren't the criminals just blaming a game as a scapegoat? Aren't other factors at play here?

JT: First of all, we don't know how many people have acted out violently because of these games,

HE JUST TOLD YOU! THE INTERVIEWER JUST TOLD YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE!

but after I appeared on Good Morning America, a Gallop poll found 71 percent of all U.S teenage boys who played Vice City were twice as likely to have been engaged in an act of violence.

Which is not the same as saying that the games caused this. These young men may be drawn to the game because it miorrors the violence they already practice.

Also, aggressive behavior may be expressed verbally—not everyone goes "postal" or "Columbine." There have been dozens of studies that show even short-term exposure of these games to teens has an effect on violence, aggressiveness, and bad behavior that goes from bad speech to killing people. It's a wide spectrum. Videogames can be the final causal link in a chain of factors that can result in a Columbine.

But not the only link. You're impling that the chain is entirely composed of videogames. Dylan and Eric were outcasts, among other things. They actively looked for the kind of material they enjoyed.

Logical Fallacy: Unnamed multitudes. IE: "Everybody agrees with me!" "Lots of studies have shown..." "Everyone knows that!"

EGM: Shouldn't parents—not government or game publishers—bear the responsibility to prevent that?

JT: Both government and home have shared responsibilities here.

Don't you have your career staked on blaming the publishers? Parents are primarily responsible for their kids' media intake.

Parents are negligent in letting kids play these games for hours at a time, but even if we do everything right to keep a kid away from these games, his classmates are playing them. He could just play somewhere else.

Funny, this is the same arguement used by drug deals and porn distributers. Huh.

We have an aggressive industry taking advantage of derelict parents. The whole youth culture is immersed in this stuff.

"Youth culture"? What is this, Fox News?

EGM: Does your 12-year-old son play videogames?

JT: Not anything above an E [suitable for everyone] rating. Many Teen [-rated] games should be Mature because our society is more desensitized to violence. GTA3, which was released five years ago, now helps other games push the envelope in violence. The bar has been raised.

Out of curiousity, Jack, do you beat him too? DO you crawl into his bed at night?

I'm sorry, that was out of line.

EGM: But most games aren't violent.

JT: Yes, I know Doug [Lowenstein] says most games aren't violent, but an incredible percentage of games that are sold are M-rated.

HE JUST TOLD YOU THAT MOST GAMES AREN'T VIOLENT! It doesn't matter who said it, you prick, as long as it's true!

There may be 41 Euchre games and one GTA, but what do you think the sales are like for each? This is how Doug uses statistics.

GTA sells better than an obscure card game? What a shock! Look, Jack, looking at it fron a structuralist perspective, GTA is a quality game. And since there are so many violent games, why do you invariably talk about Full Spectrum Warrior and GTA?

EGM: Do you play games?

JT: I play them to the extent that I need to make DVD copies of the killing scenes for presentations or court. Have I played San Andreas? Yes.

This question isn't relevant, and shouldn't have been asked, but I just admire Jack's spin skills.

EGM: Jenkins claims youth violence has fallen as games rise in popularity. How do you see a correlation between virtual violence and real violence?

JT: Well, let's look at deaths in and around schools. In 2004, there were 48 in number. In 2003, there were 16. In 2002, there were 17. Yes, the death rate in which murderous actions have taken place has gone down, but there are other factors such as the shortening of ambulance response time, better medical techniques, and so forth.

Violence, Jack. We're talking about violence, not deaths. Assault, attempted murder, actual murder, rape, and so forth.

EGM: So, what's next on the agenda for you?

JT: [A lawsuit regarding] a multiple loss of life by a teenager who played Vice City. We are going to sue videogame manufacturers, platform manufacturers, and retailers like Wal-Mart, Circuit City, and Amazon who continue to sell adult-rated materials to children. We're going to sue the industry for its recklessness, for being so shortsighted.

Yet, because creating an industrywide ratings system long before games were able to even display 3D models is shortsighted. I'm sure.

Eventually there is going to be a Columbine to the factor of 10, a slaughter in a school by a crazed gamer. And when that happens, when America figures out these kids were filled up with virtual violence, Congress may ban the games altogether. You wise guys who think you're so clever about saying what kids ought to play and then putting [Mature] games in the hands of those kids, you will wish you listened to me.

Logical fallacy: Worst case scenario. Assuming that the worst will happen without any evidence to indicate it.

In the end, Jack serves as a sterling example of what selective statistics, creative misunderstanding, and a dogged avoidance of the truth—commonly known as "spin"—can do. I'd like to believe that he actually believes what he's saying, but the sheer slipperiness of this guy—it's nearly impossible to get a straight answer of him—leads me to believe he's lying through his teeth. He knows his arguements are flawed, he just wants the money for the case. If you look at the conversation with Jenkins, he actually gives straight open answers. The man wrote a book about the role of gender in games, as opposed to someone who writes a book about a contorversal subject solely for the sales. On one side you have a tenured professor, on the other you have a lawyer. Hmm.

G4, E3, et al.

2005-06-03T11:19:00.000-07:00

If you've been watching G4 lately, you know that Kevin Rose was let out of his contract, and left to start a new webshow¹. He has been replaced by XPlay's own Adam Sessler.
Thank God.
I'm serious. We easily could've been landed with another G4 meatpuppet (Jade Raymond who?) instead of getting someone who we already knows has pretty good chemistry with Adam². We don't know how much Adam knows about tech in general, though.
Speaking of knowledge, I think the broadsided skewering of Kevin by the fans of TTV is unjustified. He knows almost about as much about tech as Kevin R. did: the man set up a telenet BBS for fun. For FUN.

E3:

The X360: It's like they reached into the XBox, took hold of it's design, it's controller, and XBox Live, and pulled all the suck out.

Revolution: Wait: Reverse compatable? Entire NES through N64 library? Thenk goodness Nintendo is using it's old properties for something more than GBA games and Mario Party minigames. Hopefully Nintendo's learned from PS2 Online and XBL's mistakes.

PS3: The Killzone video may be faked, but that's exactly what was said about MGS2. And MGS1, come to think. I really hope Sony pulls an XBox before the launch. Design-wise, I mean.

If you were paying attention during his last show on Friday, he got pie'd at the end of the credits.

It's pretty evident in the E3 coverage.

Samurai Champloo

2005-05-17T21:01:00.000-07:00

"Some people die in the name of the sacrifice."

Samurai Champloo premiered on [adult swim] last Saturday. The boys from Williams Street promised that you wouldn't even have to like samurai stuff or anime; the show rocked that much. I wouldn't know, but I liked it anyway.

The show is stylized out the wing-wang[no pun intended]. Every line, though traditionally drawn, has the loose feel of Shinichiro Watanabe's 'Sketchyvision' which first appeared in Animatrix:Kid's Story. Then later in the Linkin Park video for "Breakin' the Habit". The animation itself is akin to the 'Tower of Fear' shorts with LeBron James made for Nike. The music is straight-up, old-school, hiphop. The opening theme song being sung by Fat Joe with Forces of Nature¹, which is something of a first. Yes, an anime series being licensed with US music. Be shocked. Be even more shocked that it's actually appropriate. The hip-hop theme permeates the show to such an extent that some of the scene transitions are even presented as video remixes. During fight scenes, the camera goes all shaky cam, and a low key background beat comes up, like the rhythm of a rap song. Speaking of the fights: for a show that starts off with a disclaimer stating that it's a work of fiction and not an accurate historical portrayal, the swordfighting is some of the most realistic I've ever seen. Samurai weren't trained for speech-attack-block-attack-dodge-get-hit-use-special-technique-win² swordfights. They were supposed to kill lightly- to non-armoured enemies as quickly as possible.

1. I think. I don't read Japaneese, and am writing this offline.
2. Ruroni Kenshin who?

Eragon, etc.

2005-05-11T19:54:00.000-07:00

I've been rereading Christopher Paolini's Eragon over the past few days. Paolini's could contrat his sentences a little more, and his segues could use some work, but it's a good book. I've noticed some ten-pound hints that Paolini dropped. They're spoilered below. Feel free to reuse them if you give me credit and a link.

Gabatorix is Eragon's father.

Now, before you start composing angry emails, think about this: we don't know who Eragon's mother conceived him by. We do know that the Forsworn would keep the existance of any child of theirs secret. We know that Galbatorix killed the kking of the Rider's with a flaming sword. We know that the first spell Eragon used was fire. We also know that the last spell he used in the book was also fire. Specifically, a flaming sword. More than just coincidence, dontcha think? Not to mention that the woman was named Selena, and Eragon doesn't know his mom's name. Her fate was described as 'bleak'. Even Eragon wonders if she's his mom.

Solembaum has met Eragon's mother.

Agatha said only three people, ever, have been able to talk to the werecat besides her: A woman, a blind beggar, and Eragon. I don't have any evidence, but Galbatorix probably instructed her in some small magics, as Morzan did Murtagh's mother. Brom distinctly says anyone can communicate mentally with the proper training. I also suspect that the blind man is the Mourning Sage, but again, I've got nothing.

Eragon will marry Arya
I shouldn't have to explain this one: Agatha's prophecy stated that Eragon would marry a lady of noble birth. We know virtually nothing about Arya: except that she was considered good enough to carry the egg. The woman Eragon will fall in love with is also "powerful, wise, and beautiful beyond compare." Technically, if Galbatorix is his father, Eragon is a prince.

May 7th

Let's see...USA broadcasts The Cell the same week that Psychonauts is released. Coincidence, my foot.

'The Cell' is an intresting, movie, in concept. Truth be told, I stopped watching it for the plot, and ended up watching it for seeing Jennifer Lopez in costumes, like a Barbie doll. See Casual Jen! See Goddess Jen! See BondageGothyangstywarriorVirginmary Jen! And all of them look hot! Especially Gothyangstywarriorchick Jen.

The plot itself was somewhat contrived, especially the final twist of the movie. But visually, the movie is well done. No one explains why a guy who's King of his own mind even needs servants. And I find it hard do believe that there was no way to save them both, or that a bullet can't break a glass pane, merely put a hole in it. I thought common sense would tell him to shoot the glass in the corner, where it's under the most pressure. Sheesh.

From what I've seen, Psychonauts is a fantastic game. X-Play pointed out that the game ignores the industry's obsession with realism, and focuses on stylization. Scott McCloud once said, in effects, that it's easier to empathize with stylized characters, as it is easy to project oneself onto them. On the Penny-Arcade forums, in a thread on art, someone refernced that principle, and remarked that there is a difference between the critiques of stylized work and realist work. I can't remember the exact difference, but I believe stylized work was said to be critiqued on colors and linework, while realist work got criticized on proportion and lighting.

May 10th

There is a trend among critics of videogames to say "If you take away X, Y is just another Z", where Z is the genre, Y is the game, and X is the defining characteristic of the game. For example, "if you take away the pretty graphics, epic story, great multiplayer, quality sound, and orchestral music, Halo is just another FPS." Most recently, this criticism has been levelled at Tim Schafer's Psychonauts. Wile the game has been getting near-universally great reviews, it's detractors claim that without the hilarious story, stylized art direction, incredible voice acting, and unique premise, the game is "just another platformer". By the time the listeners untangle to statement to find the logical fallacy it is built on, the critic is off somewhere, badmouthing the game to someone else. It's essentially saying that one has to remove elements just to find something bad, which is a clear indication of bias. I believe the fallacy specifically involves judging the whole by one of its parts. Those who use this fallacy will usually ignore parts which are of quality to focus on the flawed one[s]

The saddest part is that this one is almost impossible to spot without later analysis, so it usually slips through.

1804 I butter my toast differently.

2005-04-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

Oh for Pete's sake.

0805 New York, New York...

2005-04-08T06:39:00.000-07:00

50 most hated New Yorkers. I'm surprised they were able to stop at 50.

Number 46 is Lorne Michaels, creator of SNL. The cap reads that "SNL was never funny". And you know what?

They're right.

I have been watching SNL for a year and a half now. I cannot recall when I laughed at any of the sketches. I can see how they were ironic, but not funny. The funniest part of the show is Weekend Update, and that's just a warmed-over version of Conan O'Brien's monologue.

Come to think of it, I can recall one occasion when I laughed; During the Best of Chris Walken, afterm Jimmmy Fallon left, and before they restarted. Specifically, it was during his spoof of 'the Continental'. He was effectively the only actor in the piece, and he carries it along. yes, a repacke show was funny when there was only the actor. I think SNL's problem is that it throws funny people together and expects them to be funny, somehow, regardless of their strengths. Darell Hammond's standup was based on, insofar as I can tell, talking about his divorce, among other things. He was basically a combination of Lewis Black and Ron White, except younger, and with far more fashion sense than the former. *cough* His impressions on SNL are spot-on, but they're not what he does. Kenan works best as a foil for a a more hysterical character-think of the chemistry between Shaun and Marlon Wayans on Wayans Bros. Right now he's Blackie McBlackGuy.

I will admit, the show has launched the careers of Funny People, but is not, in itself, funny. It's held as funny because of those People. Sort of like Garfield over the last fifteen years.

There's a debate on Gaia Online about Affirmative Action. Not much of a debate, really. People yelling the same arguements over and over again, and oppents to AA easily defeating them. Let me reiterate.

Racism is still going on in America!
Yes, it is.
Affirmative action is a good way to solve it!
No, it isn't. It is discrimination against whites.
But the whites have so much!
And what does that have to do with it?
[ignores]But whites are more often in honours programs! Teachers must be discriminating against them!
There could be any number of reasons, not necessarily racism.
[ignores]But they need to atone for the wrong they've done for our race!
By letting wrongs be comitted against themselves? Yes, good idea. Lets commit the same sin we accuse them of.
[ignores]But minorites aren't in management positions!
If they're not competent, why should they be?
[ignores]But [insert ancedote of apparent racism in educational system here].
Why do you insist that teachers give varying treatment to students solely because of their race?

+repeat+

For example, one of the AA supporters related a story about a girl who missed several classes because of treatment for her rape, and asked her teacher for the missed work. The next day, the teacher gave a lecture about students leaving their problems at home, while "looking straight at her". Apparently, the white girls who cut just to smoke were ignored.

The problem with the ancedote, is that it assumes that the lecture was not addresses to the white girls as well. It's possible that the teacher didn't know of the rape, and thought that she was simply cutting like everyone else. Perhaps she's prejudiced against rape victims, being of the old school who thinks that they've always "earned it" somehow, or "asked" for it. There are several reasons, all of which are mor elikely than rape.

Not to mention that one teacher is not a statistically valid example. But like all people with poor arguements, it's the only one she's got.

Two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, algebraically, W+W=2W. However, W+R=0. Let's exammine the Wrong in question.

f'(x) is equivalent to f'(y), as f'() is a fucntion, such as 2+x. The two equations are not equal [the results do not have the same values, and different variables are used.], but are essentially the same. The arguement of the AA supporters relies on the two equations not actually being equal. The arguement of everyone else point out that f'() is the same in both equations. f'(X)=discrimination(blacks) . f'(y)=discrimination(whites) . Discrimination is unfair, and therefore wrong by definition. This defeats their arguement, so the AAS ignores it. Constantly. No matter how many tmes it's been bought up.

Basically, they've got nothing. Sheesh.

0604 blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa

2005-04-06T10:57:00.000-07:00

Some guy talks about Gorillaz, compares to 'Archies', has hilarious incident involving principal, dating two girls at the same time, and his allowance.

Oh, and in case you've been living under a digital rock for two days, new video.

We don't know who the real voices of the Gorillaz are, but research indicates that they may be robots. Again, this is only speculation. We'll have more on the story as it developes.

{t3h Gorillaz}

0204 The Whip Set

2005-04-02T17:20:00.000-08:00

G4's The Whip Set is a cheap, pale imitation of MTV's 'Pimp My Ride'. Advantages of PmR: An actual rapper? Check. Host who is not a tool? Check. Celebrity endorsements which are actually sincere? Check. An adience which doesn't think the producing company is a group of soulless corprate hellspawn? Check. So, what advantage does Whip have? That's right: Hos.

2103 Breathe stretch, shake, let it go.

2005-03-31T13:17:00.000-08:00

Several days ago, I saw an advertisement on G4 for a program called 'Attack of the Show'. It would apparently be a show[gasp] about 'Cool crap, before it's just crap.' This piqued my intrest, until I realized that that was the premise of The Screen savers.[or rather, the pitiful, tattered remains of said show, rustling in the wind.] My suspicions were further reinforced when I recalled that a member of a mailing list I am a part of mentioned that he has seen pictures on Sarah's moblog indicating a name change for TSS. As the denial began to set in My worst fears were all but confirmed by what was presumably the new show's title graphic at the end of the spot; a five-minute After Effects affair, featuring gryscal pics our two favorite TSS hosts-and some dude with a gotee-orbiting ugly silver text on a red field. Earlier today, in a moment of idleness, I ran a Google on the show's title and had my worst fears confirmed, the mons't'rous hearts of the G4 nobility laid bare before mine opened eyes.¹

If you listen to the fans, G4 did not disrespect TechTv's shows after the buyout. G4 killed TechTV in the most brutal fashion. G4 leapt out from behind a dumpster, slapped it's filthy hand over TechTV's crimson lips, wrapped their arm around its slender, struggling form, dragged it kicking down an alley, and defiled it's virgin, previously unsullied corpse. G4 was the gunman on the grassy knoll, the true mastermind behind the 911 attacks, framed O.J. Simpson, and killed the one tree that grows in Brooklyn. G4 took the Lindbergh baby.²

One of the repeated claims of the G4 supporter-of which there are precious few in number, as well as common sense-is that the TTV fans are only "whining" because of changes to their "beloved" TSS. This theory is ludicrous, since G4 was a target of critics long before the acquisition, while X-Play had ratings among the 18-35 male demographic rivaling Adult Swim and the Daily Show. [Aside: XP seems to be the only show which hasn't changed since the merger. If anything, it's gotten slightly better, in spite of the discordantly designed set. Just ask Shad Grimgravy.] Another frequent claim is that the TTV viewers should stop whining and jsut not watch the show, since they apparently have no right to complain about something they dislike. On the G4 message boards.

Those who support G4 all invariably have something in common.

They like Portal
They like Cheat!
They think TechTV merged with G4 because of low ratings.
They think TechTV was failing before the buyout.

When I say all, I mean, literally, every single one. They will argue tooth and nail for G4 being 'better' than TechTV while simultaneously revealing that they don't even know the basic facts. And they didplay terrible taste: Portal is the worst Machinima, ever. I could use Super Mario Bros and make a better show. For the NES. Cheat! expects you to pay your cable provider for something hundreds of websites will give you for free. They also did not watch TTV before the acquisition. The only good point I've heard-in the past year, mind you-is that the buyout let people with digital cable watch TechTV shows. Which is strange, because TTV is on basic. The only show left is X-Play, anyway.

The fans at the G4 message boards believe that the TSS name should've been changed months ago, to avoid sullying it further. I disagree. Up until this point, there was enough, just enough, of the old TSS left to bear the name. Attack of the Show is a shallow, meaningless travesty, meant to appeal to humanitiy's basest members.

At least they bought Dark Tips back.

1. I was going for more Tycho than Shakespeare, but it works.
2. That's better.

2303 Sahara

2005-03-23T15:23:00.000-08:00

I have, of course, seen the trailers for Sahara, the film based on the best selling book by Clive Cussler. The only problem is that I didn't realize that was what it was until I saw a copy of the book recently, but from what I've seen, all the wisecracking, sex, and action have come through intact.

In case you've been, oh, dead since 1976, it's been hard to miss Clive Cussler. His works have sold millions, and are nearly as ubiquitous in airport newsstands as Grisham, Steele, and King. Despite the books being fairly formulaic, they are still quite good. Put Dirk Pitt and James Bond in a ring, and my money's on Pitt, given that he is not a prissy Brit in a tux or impeccable buisiness suit who'll sleep with any woman who'll hold still. Pitt is a Senator's son, a self made man who is not afraid to get his hands dirty, which explains his weathered look.At least, it supposed to be weathered. On Matthew McConaghey it looks like he fell in an orange dye vat. Steve Zahn does nt look like a powerful looking Italian dude. Frick, he's from Minnesota. At least he and Matt have the banter down, apparently.

Incidentally, Cussler has been working on getting a movie out for probably more than my entire lifetime. Cussler info.

210305 [sarcasm]

2005-03-21T21:18:00.000-08:00

Wow. I mean, wow. I just found this list of men women and robots who are just bad, and I have to say I like the originaity of the prem-waaaaiiiiittt...

And the bottom drops out.

I have rediscovered pro-ana.Needless to say, it has parodies. I particularly like the following quote.

This community is in support of those with eating disorders.
HOWEVER--

We do NOT support the idea of prolonging an eating disorder.
We do NOT support the idea of creating an eating disorder.
We do NOT support the idea of "giving" oneself an eating disorder.
We do NOT support the idea of an eating disorder as a lifestyle choice.
We do NOT support the idea of glorifying an eating disorder.

This community is for those who are currently suffering from an eating disorder, but are not yet ready to recover. We exist on the basis of support. We will not teach you how to aquire an ED, nor will we tell you how to hide one. We are not in support of you prolonging your illness.

I could've sworn that supporting those who aren't ready to recover was supporting the eating disorder. Especially when there's stuff like this floating around the blog. And this is rather disturbing. Yes, she is apoligizing for gaining four pounds.

What I find interesting is that she is holding herself beholden to her invisible readers. The journal may be a crutch for her.
[/amateur psychoanalysis]

I would ask that both of my reades exercise a little maturity when visiting the above sites.

A pitiful tale of woe from a twice widowed woman? A right-wing nut marching into his enemy's house and brandishing a metaphorical pair of six shooters? Incredibly callous n00b laughing at the worst incident of school-related violence since Columbine? Never fear, it's the Troll Corps! Trolling forums here there and everywhere? Coming soon to a bbS near you!

100305 Women who steal art too much.

2005-03-10T12:07:00.000-08:00

Andrea Hensley Brooks. In any well-blogging furry, that name inspires a reaction. Sometimes a twitch, or a gasp of surprise. Sometimes a peal of laughter. The commonn factor is that they always almost think of her negatively.

Andrea is, simply put, an art thief. She's been doing so for over half a decade now, concentrating on the works of Yuko "Aido" Ota, widely esteemed artist of Fallen, going so far as to lie to her own best friend, among others. While this promotes feelings of anger in some, and sarcasm in others, she is widely reviled as one of the most persistant art thieves since the first picture was posted online. She regularly accuses Aido of theft, and has even gone so far as to send her husband as a fake lawyer to serve a fake lawsuit, and publishing her home address.

As I said, persistant.

Or perhaps insane.

If you read the friend's journal entry, you may notice something.

In retrospect, I can see how remarkably adept Andrea was at explaining Yuko's descriptions of pictures that Andrea claimed as her own. There was nothing Yuko wrote that Andrea couldn't convince me was hers...not that I needed much convincing. I believed that this was the art of my closest friend, and nothing gave me cause to believe otherwise. I don't think Andrea had publicly posted her art at that point, or if she had, no accusations had yet been made. Either way, I heard nothing about it.

I will never forget the time, a few days later, halfway through the fall semester of our junior year (fall 2001) when Andrea and I and our mothers sat in my living room and talked it out. For a long time nothing art-related came out and then, in a silent pause, I looked right at Andrea and told her that I just had to know, I didn't care what it meant, I only wanted the truth. And she looked at me and I said one word: "Aido." With tears in her eyes, she looked away and shook her head. And this was the epiphany of my youth: that things aren't always what they seem, that you can't trust everyone and that trust can be broken, that no matter how hard you fight for something, just fighting for it doesn't make it the right thing. And so on. Things that everyone has to come to grips with at one time or another, but for me it was all at once.

And that's when my friendship with Andrea ended.

Yes, that's right, we're dealing with a manipulative, lying, possibly mentally disturbed girl with no respect for the effort invested in the artwork of others.

I cannot remember which of the links it was, but I believe it was Kaledora's, which mentioned that our dear Andy was depressive. I have a theory, which required me to play armchair psychoanalyst. Except that I enjoy amateur psychoanalysis, and I haven't sat in an armchair for more than five minutes for over a year.

Andrea may be depressive due to a psychological desire for attention. Stealing art not only wins her easy acclaim, but she is also allowed to vent her anger upon the original artist by flaming them. However, when her art is shut down, as it inevitably is, or she takes the piece down, she moves to a new furry art site, and keeps moving, garnering new accolades. Her very persistance works to her advantage, as the original artist decides to stop giving her attention. The problem being that online, silence is a tatamount to a confession. Unless you expressly state thet you're tired and will be shutting up, she comes off as vindicated, and you come off guilty. Any logical person would realze that the kneejerk defensiveness and evasions are not the hallmarks of a innocent woman. Andrea, like many unstable personalities, may actually believe that she is the wronged party, or that she earned the recognition in some way.

Personally, I was thrilled when I got my first flamer, on my old diary. That may sound odd[and it is], but I knew that the statistical likelihood of one particular homophobic nut finding the thing were remote, and that the chances of that occuring increased in proportion to my amount of readers. Oddly enough, I'm not gay. All I did was ask if it was okay for a guy to play a girl in an MMORPG. That was over a year ago, possibly two. The nut's last post was late last summer.

Returning to the subject...now.

Andrea is an anomaly among art theives; she does not communicate in a near incomprehensible form of Netspeak, uses hardly any emoticons-though still far above average for an accomplished artist-and appears to be fairly skilled herself. Real world art theft takes skill, but most digital art theives simply save the orignal image and post it as their own. Andrea seems to be good enough to reproduce the original artists' work in an almost identical style, and to erase any trace of any watermarks which may have been present. Given the apparent volume of the woman's larceny, I'm going to say the latter.

Perhaps because I'm an artist myself, I cannot, and never have been able to, empathize with art thiefs. The idea of taking the credit for another's work is as alien to me as breathing helium to survive, or flying. Possibly it is because I know I'll get caught. I also know the first rule of compting

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Sorry.

Everything has a timestamp.

Everything.

You can rewrite the time on your webpage, but you can't check the caches of everyone who say the image, or wipe the memoriues of the people who remember when they saw it. Deviantart, in particular, has logged submission timestamps above every piece, and they're unchangable, short of the admins deleting the page. Even the comments are for keeps, and the forum posts.

The end result is that if you post a poor piece, and you've just joined, and the piece you allegedly ripped off is high quality, shows skill,and the artist is vastly popular in their field, you're done for.

Andrea has avoided this problem by switching hosts often, under a flurry of different handle, but always the same real name. Much like the /fic fan on a Smallville board who had upwards of twenty different aliases, all of them supporting each other, all of which were eventually traced to a public library and some house. Oooh...sloppy!

In conclusion, I would like to tell you to look out for Andrea Hensley, or Andrea Brooks, or Banrai, or Ashleigh, or whatever she calls herself. And remember that art theft is everyone's problem.

EDIT: Huh.

040305 Oh no.

2005-03-04T09:35:00.000-08:00

I found this article via Penny Arcade. It's obvious to anyone with even a modicum of debating skills-and common sense-that this guy has no idea what he's talking about.

What constitutes violence in video games?

There's no real debate over that. Any M-rated game has violence levels unacceptable and definitionally harmful to anyone under 17. The industry will rue the day it accepted this labeled scheme.

Someone better tell that to Hollywood. And Television. Why would it be better to have no way of discerning age-appropriate content?

What percentage of all games made would you say are violent, based upon your previous definition of violence in video games?

This gets to a fundamental lie being propagated by the video game industry.
GTA [Grand Theft Auto series] has sold 30 million units, with San Andreas expected to hit 20 million on its own. It's the #1 seller in the world right now. That fact alone does not square with ISA and ESRB's dodge that "the majority of games are not violent or M-rated." What matters is how many units delivered are violent, and to whom they are being delivered.

No, what matters is how many games are voilent, who's buying them, and if they shouldn't be getting them, who's fault is it?

Not to mention the fact that the GTA series, concerns about violence aside, are generally very good games. So if mostly adults are buying a good, though violent product, what does that do to your claim?

If a guy falls asleep smoking, wakes up, realizes the cutains are in fire, and throws gasoline on them, is it the firemen's fault if his house burns down? No? Then how is it the manufacturer's fault if a psychologically unstable child is allowed to play videogames.

How many hate or violent crimes would you say are linked to or directly related to violence in video games?

I have no earthly idea, and no one can guess at that. I can tell you that some crimes would not occur but for the violent entertainment. For the families of the deceased, that is the only statistic that matters.

I'm sorry, I missed the point where you indicate how the vast minority of families speaks for the rest of humanity. Oh, wait. You don't, and they can't. You, sir, begin your response by admitting you have no idea what the answer is.

And of course violent entertainment causes crimes. Among individuals who were unstable anyway. But it takes a lot if pressure to change anyone's mind, even a little.

Does age or sex play a factor in violent, aggressive behavior?

Sure, the sex and violence centers of the brain overlay one another, which is why the increasing mix of sex and violence is troubling. Armies have been known to go on rape rampages after battles because the violence stimulates sexual aggression. How lovely that GTA weds sex and violence in the same game. We are training a generation of teens to combine sex with violence, just what America needs.

I always love it when they try sarcasm.

The games are M rated. Which means they shouldn't be played by anyone under 17 years at least. Not to mention the fact that rape is psychologically about power, not violence. aNd with 20 million units moved, I think we'd've noticed a trend. Even with just one percent of the players, it stll represents 200 thousand rapes, at least.

Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?

Of course. Every parent who is paying attention knows that it is garbage in, garbage out with kids.

The heads of six major health care organizations testified before Congress that there are "hundreds" of studies that prove the link. All the video game industry has are studies paid for by them, which are geared to find the opposite result. Lawyers call such experts "whores."

Oooh, you tell im, girl!

Mr. Thompson, why is it that you are not actually naming any of these studies? Or quoting any? Is it possible that they were made up?

Is gaming escapism?

Yes, just as Ted Bundy escaped into pornography. It is not a release of aggression. It is training for aggression.

Answer the question, Mr. Thompson. Directly, Mr. Thompson. Without ignoring the fact that Ted Bundy was nuts, Mr Thompson. Without acknowledging the fact that less than fifty crimes proven,or even evidenced to be related to videogames have ever been commited, Mr. Thompson. Out of billions of games sold, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson? Mr. Thompson? Are you in there? Mr. Thompson?

Do you think the interactivity of game violence makes it different than violence on television, which is passive?

Of course, as you actually grow neural pathways called dendrites that enable you to perform more easily the physical acts of violence. Plus, from a psychological perspective, to act out of virtual violence in a virtual setting is far more damaging than just viewing it. You enter into the violence, you become the protagonist.

I'm just gonna quote Cathodetan:

The way Jack puts it, it sounds like Rockstar is actually capable of altering your brain chemistry to make you into a serial killer. In truth, your brain is doing this kind of stuff all the time. Sure, it's easier to commit acts of violence as you get older. It's also easier to hold a beer, click the remote and dance the tango. While video games might improve your hand-eye coordination, there's no proof that Counter-Strike would improve your aim with a sniper rifle.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Different mediums, as they've come along, have had their share of controversy. From pulp horror and graphic novels, to movies, music and television; is this part of a cycle?

Yes, it is the last cycle. These are murder simulators. Manhunt has been called the video game equivalent of a snuff film. I am working with an Oakland, CA prosecutor in a murder trial in which the older gang members used GTA 3 to train teens to do carjackings and murders. The Army uses these games to break down the inhibition to kill of new recruits.

Killing and murder are two differnt things. A soldier is supposed to kill. If they don't have there inhibitions down, they turn into, what are they called? Pussies. If you can't shoot, if you're not willing to kill to defend your country, you shouldn't live in it. God bless America.¹

Look at the Institute for Creative Technologies created by DOD to create these killing games. Tax dollars paid to the industry to create the games to suppress the inhibition to kill, and then the industry turns around and sells these games to kids. One instance is Pandemic Studio's Full Spectrum Warrior. If it works for soldiers, of course it works for teens. The video game industry has absolutely no rebuttal to that argument. NONE.

You didn't ask, did you? You're like the kid who doen't ask his parents because they'll say no.

The game is designed to tech tactics. TACTICS. Not to show them how to kill.

Is the self-imposed rating system for video games enough? Is the ESRB working? What is the relevance of a rating system for video games if the powers that be will black-list certain games because of their graphic content?

No, of course it's not working. Senator Lieberman and Dr. Walsh just had their latest "Video Game Report Card" news conference. Underage kids can buy the most violent games half the time. I just successfully sued Best Buy and compelled them to institute a new nationwide policy. They will now ID anyone appearing to be 21 or younger to make sure no one under 17 buys M-rated games. This is a huge development. You really need to report that. It is an industry first.

It's also bordering on unconstitutional. Children can watch R-rated movies in some theatres, if their parents are doing a bad job. They can also watch MA rated programs on TV, if their parents don't use the parental lock, which has been built into almost every TV since around 1998, I think.

Are parents paying attention to what their kids play?

Nope.

Which means that he'd like to destroy "Gone with the Wind" so kids can't read it. If parents aren't paying attention to what their kids play, that means they're bad parents. By definition. I'm surprised the interviewer didn't pursue this.

Do you think that video games are similar to sports? There are much-touted statistics that link aggression levels to video game playing, but isn't that precisely what happens in any kind of competition?

I'm sorry, but a basketball games goal is to score more points, not maim the other player. That is where sportsmanship comes in. There is no sportsmanship in any GTA game. None.

There's not much sportmanship in modern sports, either. And they didn't ask you about GTA. GTA is about telling a story, not sports.

In this particula case, Thompson seems to be doing something that a lot of internet Trolls do. Taking an isolated incident which may be connected to something, and argueing forcefully that it is proof of an epidemic sweeping the nation, nay, the world.

In 2000, 1,242 kids were murdered with guns and 174 children died from accidental deaths. Aside from stories that get covered in the news [like Columbine], there are few, if any, actual statistics that show how many children's deaths are directly linked to video games. Do the facts speak for themselves? Or is it just that nobody is really keeping tabs?

The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age.

That it? No facs, proof, evidence? Nothing? Just an unsubstantiated opinion? Wow.

I mean, he's not even answering the question. Just quoting an unrelaed statistic, which could be cause by Nabisco changing the about of filling in Oreos, for all we know.

Where does the accountability lie? Are parents responsible for their children's behavior? Society?

There is plenty of blame to go around. The parents must do a better job, but you know what? When we were on 60 Minutes the Sunday after Columbine (we predicted Columbine on NBC's Today eight days before it happened) with the parents in Paducah, Ed Bradley asked Joe James "Isn't this a parent's responsibility?" Joe said "Ed, I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong. I had my daughter in school and in a pre-school prayer meeting where she was shot and killed. If I hadn't raised her right, she'd be alive today."

You see, the industry is selling these games to kids whose parents are reckless. How is that Joe Jame's fault? We need to punish the industry and the parents who are putting innocent people in harm's way.

You just watch. There is going to be a Columbine-times-10 incident, and everyone will finally get it. Either that, or some video gamer is going to go Columbine at some video game exec's expense or at E3, and then the industry will begin to realize that there is no place to hide, that it has trained a nation of Manchurian Children.

I can just imagine Jon Stewart now. "Doom! A doom on you all! Super Mario is poisioning the minds of our nation's doe-eyed children! Rise up! Rise up and fight!"

Mr. Thompson, you never answered the question of parental responsibility. Since, apparently, the idea of parents being responsible for their kids is ludicrous.

Kids took guns to school for 200 years in this country without turning them on one another. President Clinton understood that if we want to do something about gun violence, we need also to look at the stimuli to use those guns. 3000 gun laws on the books. Not a single law on the books to stop the sale of murder simulators to kids. Idiotic.

That's what parents are for.

GTA was not released until 1998. GTA, which was the first game in the series with graphic violence, was not released until 2001. I also note that he's not blaming the spate of late 80s, early 90s ridiculously violent movies.

Carl Sandberg, Lincoln's great biographer, defined freedom as "moving easy in harness." The selfish, childish video game industry accepts no harness. Their freedom is pure license.

So...many...jokes...must...mock...pundit...

Yes, that's right kiddies. He literally wants to take freedom away from videogame publishers. Someone call George W. Bush. And how can game be childish? Someone's missing the point. Parents have no excuse not to look up information on their children's media intake. You can find hundreds of parental organization reviews within seconds online. If not thousands.

They are about to pay a wicked price, and I aim to make sure they pay it.

Here's your firey sword, Mr. Thompson, you're on in six.

Violent videogames are not created for children. They are not marketed to children, or in the prescence of children. I have never seen an ad for the game-or any violent videogame-on Cartoon Network, Nickolodeon, or Kids WB, some of the top three children's networks. By law, videogames are rated by the ESRB. TV shows and movies don't have a compulsive ratings system. And why have you only mentioned one other videogame besides GTA? Do you even know of any others?

Chew on this Mr. Thompson: Of the 20 million copies sold of the game, why has only one alleged incident been recorded? And why has this incident been repeated throughout history, before videogames were invented?
-Why have you never actualy gone to trial? [Thanks, Cathodetan.]
-And what makes the videogame industry more culpable than the movies? Or the television? or popular music?
-Why are the parents, who are the primary filters of their children's media, not under scrutiny? Why can young kids by R-rated moves and DVDs?

1.I'm Bahamian, actually. But I meant it.

Feb 23rd 05

2005-02-23T18:57:00.000-08:00

Game whose concept has 'bad idea' written all over it may actually be good. Wait-wha?

This just in: Nickolodeon has a new show. And it isn't a star-based live action show. Not only that, but it doesn't suck.

26 01 05

2005-01-25T21:31:00.000-08:00

The popularity of the infamous Quizno Spongemonkeys and JibJab vidoes of last year have inspired advertising firms not to invest their money in big-budget commercials, but just throwning a few Ks at the nearest Flash animator they can find. Nike, as Ian pointed out, may have made some guys a lot richer. Advertisers are defieng the status quo, specifically the part referring to expense. You don't have to spend millions on a flashy spot, and Flash work has more hold on the target demographic anyway.

Frankly, I'm sick of it.

Guy wins lottery ten times. Odds of 2.6 million to one cited. Someone points out that there are millions of lottery tickets bought each week, is told to shut up.

Oh, this is just precious.

20 01 05

2005-01-20T14:44:00.000-08:00

Schoolyard games.

"I've been thinking about that schoolyard creativity recently. For a while now I've been interested in online multi-player environments as a place to collaboratively and spontaneously design games. It started when I noticed that a couple of people on a Multi Theft Auto server (a hack that allows people to play Vice City online) were lining up cars to jump over with a motorcycle instead of running around fragging each other. Not that I'm being a frag-basher, some of my best friends are fraggers and I like to get my frag on quite often. I'm just interested in exploring other kinds of fun in these environments."

Nice.

20 12 04

2004-12-20T14:35:00.000-08:00

Security hole found in google desktop. Ironically, found through Google.

Bill O'Reilly obsessed with sex. Public shocked, just shocked.

Bush man of the year. Democrats stagger slightly to the left and go 'wha?'

14 Dec 2004

2004-12-14T10:04:00.000-08:00

I'll form an opinion on this later.

I'm not sure, but I think the fact this article's authour is from Boston has something to do with it.

500-pound industry Gorilla say what?

Microsoft releses blog service. It sucks. Geek public not surprised.
(Registration req'd. Use BugMeNot.)

Another Microsoft product modded. Microsoft confused as to their official stance.
l
Another comedian does family movie. Maddox inscenced.

Mobile phone used to cheat at gambling. Croupier noticed red dot.

Ghost cane sold on eBay. Yes, eBay.

iPod mini fan ad wildly popular. Apple rubs hands together, cackles.

Appparently, they won't even let you pray next to a celebrity you've been stalking now. The Philistines!

PayPal, iTunes team up. Joker, Lex Luthor say "Curses!" [Popup warning]

Schools reject Internet Explorer. Explorer considers suicide, murder.

Compassion isn't completely dead, but some compassionate are.

Talk about working uphill.

I Feeeeel Myself.

Those Frenchies skate clockwise.

M grows up, public shocked at idea of rap having social conscience.s Pundits desperately try to enforce the sterotypes they've been endorsing.

Peterson screwed.

Microsoft launches desktop Google rival. Google laughs. Hard.

Ahem.

Google plans to but University Collections online. Students decry increasing lack of excuses.

December 3rd, 2004.

2004-12-03T10:56:00.000-08:00

Ironiclly enough, Microsoft is Suing Spammers.

The irony lies in the fact that most spam is generated due to inadequate security in MicrosoftWare which should've been fixed long ago. For example, Firefox is fast gaining on IE* in popularity. This should not be a problem, period.

Shaun's back.

Microsoft upgrades MSN. Public goes "Who?"

I find it interesting that Microsoft, the company that owns Bungie, explects it's users to have blogs. Most Web users haven't the foggiest clue of what a blog is. And of those who do, most don't actually have them.

Most searched word of the year is blog. You've no doubt heard this on so many sites that a link would be redundant. An intresting effect of this is that 2004 has been declared the year of the blog y more websites than I care to count, including the BBC news. Yes, BBC. You heard me.

Wait, 50K a year? Mobile!?!? I need to be syndicated. Possibly picked up by slate or something. For all you know, I could be a 17 year old kid updating on a crappy line from the College of the Bahamas wireless network. Or I could be a thirthysomething businessman living in New York with my best frinds sister whom I am married to with an unspecific white-collar job and a lot of free time to spend with my friends in a coffee shop. Or I'm a writer from Queens. Or not actually a sitcom character. *cough*

Brokaw leaves, all hail Brokaw. Of course the finale causes a ratings bang. It's a finale. Especially when it involves one of the world's most respected newsmen.

And, finally, Holy Crap.

G'night, all.

*I wrote that sentence, then found the link later, ironically.

Microsoft, video games and cable TV. Yes, there's a connection, though tenuous.

2004-11-16T13:18:00.000-08:00

Those wholike to export music from CDs have found that the latest versions most music players do not rip from the latest generation of CDs. However, one prominent music player does allow it; Microsoft's Windows Media Player 10. It is illegal for Microsoft to even manufacture such software, much less distribute it. I have found a similar example when an older version of MusicMatch had no qualms about copying an Avril Lavigne CD wholesale. Of course, the RIAA isn't going to touch Microsoft.

Speaking of market share, a rant by Kevin P. was made on the G4 show Pulse a while ago whose point was, basically, that there are too many games around the holidays. Smaller games are hidden from gamers intrest. Ratchet and Clank: Up your Arsenal and Jak 3 were released so far under the radar as to be underground, shodaowed by the sequeals to Halo, Half-Life, and Metroid Prime. The Nintendo DS itself is released on the 22nd, and might be overshadowed by Viewtiful Joe 2(Ironically, a Gamecube exclusive) and PoP:Warrior Within. It'd be a shame, though. The average gamer needs something to have in hand during the holidays while his relatives ask endless questions about his job and love life. And yes, I am talking about the DS.

Recently, G4TechTV laid off most of the staff of the Screen Savers, and if you don't know what that is, leave now. According to Alex Albrecht's blog, there are only Sarah and Kevin left. It was easy wnough to tolerate when Leo left, though I liked him. I miss Pat, though Alex wasn't bad. However, if G4 is in as bad shape as it appears to be-it seems like a Dilbert cartoon, fer cryin' out loud-then I belive that what remains of TechTV will soon be a distant memory on my cable system. Time to start tracking their blog for the inevitable folding. And Comcast will rue the day they fired Yoshi.

So Bush won.

2004-11-10T07:28:00.000-08:00

Apparently, 51% of america has made a terrible, terrible mistake.

I am a proponent of proportionate electoral votes. That means that the percentage of each state's votes each canadate won is equal to the number of electoral votes they win. I believe that, were this system applied to the electoins, that Kerry would've won.

Most states use the electoral votes system, which is ultimately less fair. There are considerations, but ultimately, Bush won by about 3% of the popular vote. I'm going to stop whining now.

There was an article in the Washington Post about online music. Specifically, about how MSN Radio is imitating some local stations. Frankly, I believe the article writer missed the fact that most of the people who use online radio don't listen to local. Also, MSN Music and Launch already have their systems keyed to play music their audience likes, and expose them to new stuff which they'll also-probably-like. That's certainly been my experience with both services.

However, the issue of lost advertiser revenue is a valid one.

Post postponed.

2004-11-07T22:04:00.000-08:00

Until Wednesday.

Let's talk about Mosh.

2004-10-31T19:49:00.000-08:00

Eminem's latest video has, predictably, been the center of much controversy. Some of the web press has degraded it as 'sophmoric', while others deemed it "political art". Perhaps the most startling reaction belongs to longtime MM feuder Moby, who calls it "amazing". Personally, I thought this quote [see the political art link above] was rather interesting:

On a simple and emotive level...Mosh spends much of its time using massed and hooded "mosh mobs" moving through rainy urban streets to convey a kind of "Fight Club meets Election 2004" vibe. The animations look similar to the video games Grand Theft Auto and State of Emergency....anarchic, anti-authoritarian, juvenile fantasies written as over-the-top games where violence actually becomes a funny and meaningless digital language, the equivalent of bumper cars.

Ouch. Clearly the writer has never played any of those games. My first reaction, upon seeing clips on CNN, was one of joy that Macromedia Flash was finally being used in a music video. A few hours later, the sociopolitical aspirations of the rapper really hit me.

Actually, I just thought "Oh, look...more Bush-bashing."

On an aesthetic level, the video is nicely done. Most of the TV Flash work is either done like Mucha Lucha or (gulp) Shorties watching Shorties. And "This Land" is ineligible. No. But the grayscale works oddly well, and the contrast between M's realistic figure and the animated versions of himself is quite appealing. And the sheer scale of the thing is quite innovative.

I did, however, question Mathers' motives. Not in the video, at releasing it so conveniently near the election. Immediately following "Just Lose It". Hmm.

In other news, Bush might've been wearing a wire, according to a NASA photo analyst. THis would explain all of last week's Doonesbury. Have a happy Halloween, and vote smart.

Testing.

2004-10-29T11:23:00.001-07:00

Testing.