"Rorschach's rampant homophobia, for example, or the original Miss Jupiter's deep and abiding love for her would-be rapist, are uncomfortable but central topics in the book."
Seeing as I barely noticed these things, I have to disagree that they are "central topics". It would be exceedingly easy to tell the important parts of the story while leaving most of that out, especially Rorschach's homophobia.
"Jon's gradual shedding of his costume down to full-frontal nudity, as he gradually distances himself from humanity, is also an important progression."
That I agree with. In the case of your previous examples, their absence would change little. This example was not only obvious, but necessary. Without removing the "deus ex machina" that Jon was, the story would have been impossible to tell.
I still think that stupid "tachyon" garbage Veidt used was a major flaw in the story. I lost a bit of respect for Moore for using technobabble and hand waving to get around Jon's immense power.
Nothing more than supposition? It's the Washington post. [washingtonpost.com]
Um, so what? It was still supposition, what kind of stupid reply is that?
Don't agree with what they say? Take it up with them.
Um, I guess you have difficulty reading, I don't have a problem with what they say. I have a problem with WHAT YOU POSTED. I guess that means I'm taking it up with the right person then huh?
If I use the work file server to serve up my blog or work email account to spam for campaign funding, my employer might still have a thing or two to say about how I use those resources, even if I'm doing it from home.
So YOU and the Washington Post speculate. I think you're both full of shit.
"So if you loan me 100,000 dollars based on my future income, and I default on that loan and declare chapter 11, where does the money go? It goes bye bye. It no longer exists."
No, it goes to whatever you spend it on, or to wherever you've stored it. Are you really that fucking stupid?
"But I am talking about a very real "loss" of liquid money"
No, you're talking nonsense, you're ignorant, and you simply have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
I'd like you to name someplace better, so that I can dredge up all the stupid nonsense they engage in when foreigners try to enter the country. Go ahead, pick one so I can highlight the abuses they engage in and hyperbolically rant about abusing foreigners.
You genuinely think there is anything even remotely abnormal about the things you listed? You clearly can't travel extensively if you do think so.
There is a real issue; people losing money on the stock market, people dealing with fuel and food costs, people losing money on real estate...All those things mean that there is less money running around in the economy,
That's completely wrong. The money is still there, it's just in a different place, doing different work for different people.
The money doesn't leave the economy, that's just plain wrong. If you know where it does go, and how to invest, you can take advantage of the market downturn.
Your post shows that either you aren't trying, or you have some serious issue that would prevent you om getting a mortgage, like shitty credit or a bankruptcy. If you don't have an issue, then you're just not trying, and please don't bother claiming otherwise.
The term "poor economy" can be, and has in the past been, a self fulfilling prophecy.
If the population believes the economy is poor, and they behave as though the economy is poor, then the economy, regardless of its actual state, will, by the actions of the brainwashed masses, begin to behave as though it were poor.
That appears to be exactly what is happening here.
Waitaminute... you posted a very long, noisy, fuming, and exceptionally rude message just to say "I don't want to have this conversation"
No. Nor is there anything in my post that would lead an intelligent reader to determine otherwise.
There ARE MANY PLACES IN THE WORLD THAT ARE DE FACTO LAWLESS. Your attempt at pretending they don't exist because they moot your stupid point is transparent. Go to the Khyber pass and try to tell me tat there is ANY legal presence there. You'd be lying if you claimed there was.
Your objection, your point, and your wishful thinking fail.
Reread that until you realize why your reply was moronic.
As to my rudeness, there is some question about your fitness to bring that particular point up, as YOU are the asshole bitching about arbitrary and inapplicable moral codes, yet are also trying to hold me to an arbitrary and inapplicable moral code that YOU suddenly feel is applicable.
Consumer Reports is great for Washing Machines, TV's, Cars, etc. I.E high dollar items that you can't easily sample or return if you don't like them.
This is nothing like that, and serves no real purpose. If I want to test it, I'll borrow a friends/rent it/buy it with the intention of returning it if I don't like it.
Maybe if you did you could avoid making another idiotic post.
We were discussing what is philosophically acceptable.
YOU might have been, but I live in the real world, not the world of idealistic but totally impossible wishful thinking.
What I am disputing is the current system whereby I must choose one of 245 stupid systems of personal "morals" (law) when I find none of them acceptable.
Ok dumbass, I guess you don't get it. There ARE MANY PLACES IN THE WORLD THAT ARE DE FACTO LAWLESS. Your attempt at pretending they don't exist because they moot your stupid point is transparent. Go to the Khyber pass and try to tell me tat there is ANY legal presence there. You'd be lying if you claimed there was.
Your objection, your point, and your wishful thinking fail.
There is very little reason to think that a Muslim is more likely than a white to create an act of great violence inside the US borders...
Apart from reality you mean.
school shootings anyone? Kent state?
What do either of those things have to do with terrorism? Oh right, fuck all. Violence doesn't equate to terrorism guy, rein in your hyperbole.
How many Muslims are in the world?
Better question, what percentage of terrorist attacks are performed by Muslims? Because the amount of Muslims in the world has exactly nothing to do with anything.
So now that I've eviscerated your elementary attempts at concocting an intelligent argument, is there any chance you'll make an argument that is worth a damn?
I don't care if you are afraid of shadows, diminishing MY rights because of your irrational fears is still wrong, will always be wrong, and always has been WRONG.
I guess not. Well, if hyperbolic teenage ranting is all you have, I guess you have to buy in all the way.
Yo renounce your citizenship you clown, it happens all the time.
When countries form a cover of all the reasonably habitable land, then people who seek personal freedom have nowhere to go.
Oh please shut the fuck up. You don't want "personal freedom" as it really exists, because if you did you could just move to one of the many near lawless locations ALL OVER THE FUCKING WORLD where you could have all the freedom you like.
But that's REAL freedom, i.e., the unsafe, unclean, unruly, uncivilized kind. The kind of freedom people talk about wanting until they have it.
You want the safe, clean, happy freedom that so many people idealize, without appreciating that it's artificial and never lasts.
Long story short, move to Africa. You can get "freedom" out the ass, just don't be a crybaby when you realize the true cost.
portraying as a struggle for liberty against a dictatorial monarchy what was, in fact, a tax-revolt against a parliamentary democracy (albeit one in which the colonies did not receive fair representation).
Let's analyze this shall we?
Ok so the first part
portraying as a struggle for liberty against a dictatorial monarchy what was, in fact, a tax-revolt
So, a revolt against unfair imposition of outrageous taxes by people who do not represent you or even have your interests in mind is not, by your definition "a struggle for liberty".
against a parliamentary democracy (albeit one in which the colonies did not receive fair representation).
So, a monarchy that does not represent you or your interests, and requires you to engage in unfair and outrageous acts at their behest is not a "dictatorial monarchy". Hmm.
It seems you have no idea what the fuck your babbling about.
No, Im quick to dismiss idiots who don't have any idea what they're talking about.
Exactly my point
No twat that wasn't "exactly" your point, and has nothing at all to do with your ignorant fear mongering. It has to do with you expecting an impossible standard to be met to satisfy you.
Fuck off and take your irrational garbage with you.
Every time I think the US might not be so bad
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I see unrepentant partisan toolboxes like you and realize we're fucking doomed.
Shut up please, you're making a fool of yourself by not realizing it was a joke.
And frankly, you have to be a serious loser to spend that much time composing a defense of a guy Like Al Gore, who was never as important or relevant as you and he seem to think.
Thomas Jefferson : Geek. Made all sorts of inventions at Monticello
Westinghouse : Geek. Invents airbrakes.
Edison : Geek. Genuine Geek. Anyway one that could think of electrocuting an elephant to prove the superiority of his or her technology, well, that's a geek.
Henry Ford, the Dodge Brothers, Stanley family: all geeks.
No, and none of the qualities you listed that makes you think they were geeks has anything to do with being a geek.
The best you can hope for in a crash is that you get thrown one way, and your bike another so that it doesn't crush you. And wear a helmet.
No. The best you can hope for is that when you low side, you slide along on your back armor, while your leathers are soaking up the damage. Afterward, you get up and brush yourself off. With only a helmet, you slide along on your ass until you have no ass left, then it starts in on the bones underneath.
A helmet isn't enough. There are plenty of synthetic, breathable mesh riding outfits that will protect you far better than the jeans and t-shirts that most riders wear.
Slashdot Mirror
"Rorschach's rampant homophobia, for example, or the original Miss Jupiter's deep and abiding love for her would-be rapist, are uncomfortable but central topics in the book."
Seeing as I barely noticed these things, I have to disagree that they are "central topics". It would be exceedingly easy to tell the important parts of the story while leaving most of that out, especially Rorschach's homophobia.
"Jon's gradual shedding of his costume down to full-frontal nudity, as he gradually distances himself from humanity, is also an important progression."
That I agree with. In the case of your previous examples, their absence would change little. This example was not only obvious, but necessary. Without removing the "deus ex machina" that Jon was, the story would have been impossible to tell.
I still think that stupid "tachyon" garbage Veidt used was a major flaw in the story. I lost a bit of respect for Moore for using technobabble and hand waving to get around Jon's immense power.
Um, so what? It was still supposition, what kind of stupid reply is that?
Um, I guess you have difficulty reading, I don't have a problem with what they say. I have a problem with WHAT YOU POSTED. I guess that means I'm taking it up with the right person then huh?
So YOU and the Washington Post speculate. I think you're both full of shit.
Who's joking?
I feel it necessary to tell you you're full of shit, as misusing my tax money to advance your political agenda is sure as fuck unethical.
You linked to a blog that linked to a story that was nothing more than supposition, and then claimed, as they did, that it "could" happen.
What am I supposed to take from this? That you're easily swayed by meaningless speculation?
"Really?"
Yes really.
"So if you loan me 100,000 dollars based on my future income, and I default on that loan and declare chapter 11, where does the money go? It goes bye bye. It no longer exists."
No, it goes to whatever you spend it on, or to wherever you've stored it. Are you really that fucking stupid?
"But I am talking about a very real "loss" of liquid money"
No, you're talking nonsense, you're ignorant, and you simply have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
That maybe you're just not wanted?
I'd like you to name someplace better, so that I can dredge up all the stupid nonsense they engage in when foreigners try to enter the country. Go ahead, pick one so I can highlight the abuses they engage in and hyperbolically rant about abusing foreigners.
You genuinely think there is anything even remotely abnormal about the things you listed? You clearly can't travel extensively if you do think so.
That's completely wrong. The money is still there, it's just in a different place, doing different work for different people.
The money doesn't leave the economy, that's just plain wrong. If you know where it does go, and how to invest, you can take advantage of the market downturn.
And my credit is just ok. Not outstanding, just ok.
Where did I look?
http://www.lendingtree.com/
Your post shows that either you aren't trying, or you have some serious issue that would prevent you om getting a mortgage, like shitty credit or a bankruptcy. If you don't have an issue, then you're just not trying, and please don't bother claiming otherwise.
The term "poor economy" can be, and has in the past been, a self fulfilling prophecy.
If the population believes the economy is poor, and they behave as though the economy is poor, then the economy, regardless of its actual state, will, by the actions of the brainwashed masses, begin to behave as though it were poor.
That appears to be exactly what is happening here.
No. Nor is there anything in my post that would lead an intelligent reader to determine otherwise.
Reread that until you realize why your reply was moronic.
As to my rudeness, there is some question about your fitness to bring that particular point up, as YOU are the asshole bitching about arbitrary and inapplicable moral codes, yet are also trying to hold me to an arbitrary and inapplicable moral code that YOU suddenly feel is applicable.
You fail again.
Consumer Reports is great for Washing Machines, TV's, Cars, etc. I.E high dollar items that you can't easily sample or return if you don't like them.
This is nothing like that, and serves no real purpose. If I want to test it, I'll borrow a friends/rent it/buy it with the intention of returning it if I don't like it.
You first.
Maybe if you did you could avoid making another idiotic post.
YOU might have been, but I live in the real world, not the world of idealistic but totally impossible wishful thinking.
Ok dumbass, I guess you don't get it. There ARE MANY PLACES IN THE WORLD THAT ARE DE FACTO LAWLESS. Your attempt at pretending they don't exist because they moot your stupid point is transparent. Go to the Khyber pass and try to tell me tat there is ANY legal presence there. You'd be lying if you claimed there was.
Your objection, your point, and your wishful thinking fail.
Apart from reality you mean.
What do either of those things have to do with terrorism? Oh right, fuck all. Violence doesn't equate to terrorism guy, rein in your hyperbole.
Better question, what percentage of terrorist attacks are performed by Muslims? Because the amount of Muslims in the world has exactly nothing to do with anything.
So now that I've eviscerated your elementary attempts at concocting an intelligent argument, is there any chance you'll make an argument that is worth a damn?
I guess not. Well, if hyperbolic teenage ranting is all you have, I guess you have to buy in all the way.
Thanks for losing.
Yo renounce your citizenship you clown, it happens all the time.
Oh please shut the fuck up. You don't want "personal freedom" as it really exists, because if you did you could just move to one of the many near lawless locations ALL OVER THE FUCKING WORLD where you could have all the freedom you like.
But that's REAL freedom, i.e., the unsafe, unclean, unruly, uncivilized kind. The kind of freedom people talk about wanting until they have it.
You want the safe, clean, happy freedom that so many people idealize, without appreciating that it's artificial and never lasts.
Long story short, move to Africa. You can get "freedom" out the ass, just don't be a crybaby when you realize the true cost.
Let's analyze this shall we?
Ok so the first part
So, a revolt against unfair imposition of outrageous taxes by people who do not represent you or even have your interests in mind is not, by your definition "a struggle for liberty".
So, a monarchy that does not represent you or your interests, and requires you to engage in unfair and outrageous acts at their behest is not a "dictatorial monarchy". Hmm.
It seems you have no idea what the fuck your babbling about.
Then it appears you're not adhering to the principle.
No, Im quick to dismiss idiots who don't have any idea what they're talking about.
No twat that wasn't "exactly" your point, and has nothing at all to do with your ignorant fear mongering. It has to do with you expecting an impossible standard to be met to satisfy you.
Fuck off and take your irrational garbage with you.
I see unrepentant partisan toolboxes like you and realize we're fucking doomed.
Shut up please, you're making a fool of yourself by not realizing it was a joke.
And frankly, you have to be a serious loser to spend that much time composing a defense of a guy Like Al Gore, who was never as important or relevant as you and he seem to think.
No, and none of the qualities you listed that makes you think they were geeks has anything to do with being a geek.
One of the accepted qualities of what defines a "geek" is being a social misfit.
So what this idiot is saying is that people who are defined as social misfits are now NOT social misifits, because of their misfit status.
Ah so you have no rational objections then.
No they're not, you seem to think a list of unreproducible psychosomatic symptoms equals evidence. You'd be wrong.
Ah so you're a luddite and stupid. "Proven" isn't possible, and you'd know that if you had the slightest idea WTF you were blathering about.
Your reasons are moronic. No, I won't pretend otherwise, stupidity like yours deserves ridicule.
Reliving your college days I see...
I meant watching South Park of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_weight_ratio
No. The best you can hope for is that when you low side, you slide along on your back armor, while your leathers are soaking up the damage. Afterward, you get up and brush yourself off. With only a helmet, you slide along on your ass until you have no ass left, then it starts in on the bones underneath.
A helmet isn't enough. There are plenty of synthetic, breathable mesh riding outfits that will protect you far better than the jeans and t-shirts that most riders wear.