Yes, it would make a lot of sense for a Fox-made movie to promote ABCNNBCBS. It would be like all those Pepsi commercials where people prefer drinking Coke. You know, cause the other news networks so freely promote Fox News, right? I mean...
Note: I don't really care for corporate self-promotion in movies (or product placement, for that matter) but acting as though Fox is horrible for that reason is just stupid.
Your claim to information regarding my sexual activity is amusing. Your pop psychology is even more amusing. I doubt that any mathemetician would consider the word 'posit' to be 'unusually formal'. I suppose I could have used the word 'assert', but then if that word is too big for you, you'd be writing the same complaint. It's funny; if I use informal language, I get lambasted for crudity. If I use my full vocabulary, I get accused of attempting to artificially inflate my penis. I hope you don't seriously think that I care what people on this site think. I decided long ago to post how and when I felt like posting. If you're threatened by my use of big words, that's your problem. As for 'ostentatious self-build-up', what exactly do you think you're doing when you bust on me for using big words? What's truly ironic is that you most likely believe that I am somehow self-aggrandizing (even though no one here knows who I am, or cares) and yet you feel the need to tear me down to build yourself up. Boobs aren't magical. Sure, they're nice, but the importance you place on touching them tells me all I need to know about you. As for insulting others, you insulted me, dipshit. If insulting others is so wrong, why do you engage in it yourself? My goodness, you're just chock full of hypocrisy, aren't you? As for 'marginalizing' myself, you're correct that a person with both a large vocabulary and a total lack of caring what others think about them *is* a rarity here. Where you're wrong is in assuming that I give a shit if I'm 'marginalized'. Feel free to think whatever you like about me, assuming you ever learn to think.
I'm sorry, did you have to go look it up? I'll try to remember to keep my responses to one syllable, so that you don't need to inconvenience yourself further. Oops, now you're going to have to hit the dictionary again. Sorry.
Yes. Clearly calling someone a racist, while asserting that they still have the right to be such, makes me intolerant. I *am* narrow-minded. I refuse to even consider the possibility that someone should be hated or loved simply because of the color of their skin. You got me. Guilty as charged. Now, shut the fuck up, you racist piece of shit.
How odd. I wasn't trying to change anyone's outlook. Why did you think that 1.) I was trying to do so, and 2.) that criticising me would make me change my world outlook any more than me criticising a racist piece of shit changes their outlook?
For the record, I wasn't trying to change anyone's outlook. I was merely expressing my opinion concerning their world outlook. If you posit that I wasn't trying to change anyone's outlook, your comment is nonsensical. If you posit that I was, then you were doing exactly the same thing, and to exactly the same effect. Either way, you are wrong.
Of course there are people who aren't white. It's the act of preferring them over people who are white, simply because of their race, that makes the OP a racist piece of shit. If you agree, you're a racist piece of shit too. If you prefer white people over non-white people, you are also a racist piece of shit. Just because you discriminate against white people instead of non-white people doesn't make it any less racist nor any less despicable. Fuck all racist pieces of shit. Please note that I believe everyone has the right to be racist. However, I reserve the right to tell racists that they are pieces of shit and to fuck off.
...but from the quality of "high school student" posts so far, I'd say a remedial English club would help quite a bit. Either that or a "How to hit the Preview button" seminar.
(For those of you wondering, I put "high school student" in quotes because I have no way to know if those posters are truly high school students. I'm guessing most if not all of them are; since I don't know for sure I qualified my statement.)
I would rather VC have won, as I'm a fan of their games. I have preferred the Sega sports games since they debuted on the Dreamcast. In fact I still own the DC versions of NFL2K, NFL2K1, the Sega tennis game, and a few others. I would prefer to see no one company get the exclusive contract, but the NFL has made some bad decisions before. This one's not out of character for them. EA couldn't really *not* bid...and they had enough money to carry it off. (probably from exploited workers or something)
I do agree that comparing things to chess is the new heroin.
That is, it is as fashionable to compare things which involve mental acuity to chess as it is to compare things which may have an 'addictive' quality to heroin. However I have a hard time with your non-game comparisons. If construction work was all competitions with standardized rules and scoring, you would certainly find people comparing it to chess. I don't have any more problem with people comparing games to chess than I do with people comparing food to chicken. I would find it odd if someone chose to compare washing clothes with chess, or driving a car, or something that isn't a game. I just don't see why it's that big a deal to compare a game in which you fight for territory to a game in which you fight for territory. Now, if someone tried to compare Candyland or hopscotch to chess, it might seem weird to me. Just my opinion.
Yes. It is an obscene amount of cash. However, as Patrick Ewing pointed out, "We make a lot of money but we spend a lot too." As Latrell Spreewell pointed out, " A man's gotta feed his family." Seriously, though, most professional sports players have some sort of loss of bodily function later in life. That's part of the reason they get paid so much. Another part is that people are willing to shell out $120 bucks for a single ticket and some concessions. I'd rather the players get the money than the owners, although the owners should be rewarded for catering to fans. If the interest wasn't there, neither would be the giant salaries. Compare salaries in the WNBA, for example. Those players give tons of effort, but they don't put asses in seats. I think a WNFL would kick ass, but then I guess there aren't a lot of other fans of bad-ass women out there.
If you're a Chicago fan, you don't even have to learn. It's absorbed through osmosis. I suppose it would be similar for Packer and Lions fans, but ewww....who'd want to be one of those? *shiver*
While the price tag for the excellent ESPN NFL2K5 surely caused consternation at EA, the NFL decided to go exclusive on its own. I seriously doubt that the NFL Player's Assocication cared about Sega's price drop. Didn't actually read the article, eh? I must say I'm shocked and surprised. By that, I mean I'm not shocked or surprised at all.
Use your brain. Do you think the NFL approached EA or vice-versa?
Actually, I used my eyes, then my brain. I read the article. Here's a quote that spells out exactly who sought out whom. "A source close to the negotiations said it was at a spring, 2004, off-site meeting attended by top NFL officials that the league determined it would take the league license exclusive. GameSpot was told the league put the license up for bid and that EA was among as many as five software publishers competing for it." (emphasis mine)
Isn't it amazing what questions one can answer when one reads the motherfucking article before commenting on it?
Your.sig is highly ironic, considering your post. I bet you couldn't even name the player positions without looking them up. Ditto for both Mozart's work and Spears'. Of course, making fun of things is far easier than actually learning about them, isn't it?
Actually, while much of your post is correct, you have missed the most important point. They are not the BankOne Chicago Bears, nor are they the Chicago Bears presented by BankOne. They are simply the Chicago Bears. However, they make reference (in non-game tv shows such as pregame shows, on the radio, and IIRC in the newspapers) to 'Chicago Bears football presented by BankOne'. There's a major difference there. Also, please note that Chicago Field has no corporate sponsorship, a rarity in today's world. I'd rather hear 'Chicago Bears football presented by BankOne' a few times per Sunday than have 'BankOne Field'. That's just my personal preference, though. Actually, I hardly even notice anymore, as every damn thing seems to be 'presented by' someone or other. There's the Ford Pre-Game Show presented by Ford, the Miller Lite Hit of the Game, the Chevy Presents A Moment in Sports History, Budweiser Big Play of the Week presented by Budweiser, blah blah blah blah. Yeah, I made a few of those up, because I ignore most of that kind of crap. I'm getting better and better to ignore advertisements of all kinds, which I suspect many others are doing as well. This makes the ad makers try to intrude more and more, to stop us from ignoring them. Pretty soon, everything's either going to be an ad itself or be 'presented by' some company. I do find it amusing that large companies, rather than rely on exceptional products and/or services, are seeking ever more intrusive methods of advertising, many of which have little or nothing to do with the products or services offered. Maybe ads will become so totally ineffective that they'll give up on them....ah, what a lovely dream.
I was including the puncuation stuff. I know it's nit-picky.:) As an English major, punctuation mistakes irritate me. I've put my corrections in bold below.
Doesn't matter,(add comma) where I work (remove comma) the H.R. manager is one of the worst spellers in the company... Her problem is that she forgets to proofread, but it still looks just as bad (as what? this could have been phrased more clearly). I finally called her up about not proofreading stuff when she congratulated the wrong person for an internal promotion (not me) (the way this is structured it is hard to tell whether the poster receieved the congratulation but not the promotoion or the promotion but not the congratulation).
A lot of people are just uninterested in proofreading-- they'd realize how atrocious their emails look if they actually read what they typed before pressing "Send".(awkward sentence, needs to be rephrased)
I didn't bother with the last sentence because I believe those mistakes were intentional. Also, I made some stylistic corrections, because as an editor that is what I'm trained to do. I don't typically include those in my "grammar nazi" posts, but you asked.:)
In fact, I just made an error. I misread your user name, and I actually *was* speaking to you. My mistake. See how easy it is to admit error and take responsibility for it? Parenthetically, even if you choose not to get help from me....please, get it somewhere. It's for your own good.
I wasn't speaking to you. Thank you for expressing your feelings, however. I'm sure you're perfect, so my help isn't needed. However, many people haven't attained the lofty heights you apparently inhabit. Don't worry, whether you need my help or not, if I see you abusing the English language, I may provide it anyway. Sure, most of the people I correct didn't solicit my help, or want it...any more than I solicited or wanted to read their mangling of my mother tongue. I'll make a deal with you: if everyone stops making simple mistakes in their posts, I'll stop correcting them. It's just that easy. In fact, here's some advice for all of you who do not like being corrected by people like me: don't make stupid errors. How much simpler could it be? I have myself been corrected on occasion, and I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. Apparently that's uncommon around here.
You know, it's hard to reconcile the obvious need for better, clearer written communication with the hatred of those of us who alert people to mistakes in that area. What you're saying is that you wish people would write more clearly and yet you don't want anyone to correct you when you do not. It's obvious that the problem is not the spelling/grammar nazis, it's the relative scarcity of them. I could correct the five mistakes I found while reading your comment; since you're scared of us, I will not. There may be more, but I saw no reason to look more closely when my help will obviously not be appreciated. Good luck in the business world, and have fun in your remedial English training.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it would make a lot of sense for a Fox-made movie to promote ABCNNBCBS. It would be like all those Pepsi commercials where people prefer drinking Coke.
You know, cause the other news networks so freely promote Fox News, right? I mean...
Note: I don't really care for corporate self-promotion in movies (or product placement, for that matter) but acting as though Fox is horrible for that reason is just stupid.
Your claim to information regarding my sexual activity is amusing. Your pop psychology is even more amusing. I doubt that any mathemetician would consider the word 'posit' to be 'unusually formal'. I suppose I could have used the word 'assert', but then if that word is too big for you, you'd be writing the same complaint. It's funny; if I use informal language, I get lambasted for crudity. If I use my full vocabulary, I get accused of attempting to artificially inflate my penis. I hope you don't seriously think that I care what people on this site think. I decided long ago to post how and when I felt like posting. If you're threatened by my use of big words, that's your problem. As for 'ostentatious self-build-up', what exactly do you think you're doing when you bust on me for using big words? What's truly ironic is that you most likely believe that I am somehow self-aggrandizing (even though no one here knows who I am, or cares) and yet you feel the need to tear me down to build yourself up.
Boobs aren't magical. Sure, they're nice, but the importance you place on touching them tells me all I need to know about you. As for insulting others, you insulted me, dipshit. If insulting others is so wrong, why do you engage in it yourself? My goodness, you're just chock full of hypocrisy, aren't you? As for 'marginalizing' myself, you're correct that a person with both a large vocabulary and a total lack of caring what others think about them *is* a rarity here. Where you're wrong is in assuming that I give a shit if I'm 'marginalized'. Feel free to think whatever you like about me, assuming you ever learn to think.
I'm sorry, did you have to go look it up? I'll try to remember to keep my responses to one syllable, so that you don't need to inconvenience yourself further. Oops, now you're going to have to hit the dictionary again. Sorry.
Yes. Clearly calling someone a racist, while asserting that they still have the right to be such, makes me intolerant. I *am* narrow-minded. I refuse to even consider the possibility that someone should be hated or loved simply because of the color of their skin. You got me. Guilty as charged. Now, shut the fuck up, you racist piece of shit.
How odd. I wasn't trying to change anyone's outlook. Why did you think that 1.) I was trying to do so, and 2.) that criticising me would make me change my world outlook any more than me criticising a racist piece of shit changes their outlook?
For the record, I wasn't trying to change anyone's outlook. I was merely expressing my opinion concerning their world outlook. If you posit that I wasn't trying to change anyone's outlook, your comment is nonsensical. If you posit that I was, then you were doing exactly the same thing, and to exactly the same effect. Either way, you are wrong.
Of course there are people who aren't white. It's the act of preferring them over people who are white, simply because of their race, that makes the OP a racist piece of shit. If you agree, you're a racist piece of shit too. If you prefer white people over non-white people, you are also a racist piece of shit. Just because you discriminate against white people instead of non-white people doesn't make it any less racist nor any less despicable. Fuck all racist pieces of shit. Please note that I believe everyone has the right to be racist. However, I reserve the right to tell racists that they are pieces of shit and to fuck off.
I already said to you what I say to all racists I encounter. Fuck you, you racist piece of shit. It bears repeating.
...but from the quality of "high school student" posts so far, I'd say a remedial English club would help quite a bit. Either that or a "How to hit the Preview button" seminar.
(For those of you wondering, I put "high school student" in quotes because I have no way to know if those posters are truly high school students. I'm guessing most if not all of them are; since I don't know for sure I qualified my statement.)
Plus if you work with an Auto Shop class you're more likely get a chance to help people who aren't white.
Fuck you, you racist piece of shit.
I would rather VC have won, as I'm a fan of their games. I have preferred the Sega sports games since they debuted on the Dreamcast. In fact I still own the DC versions of NFL2K, NFL2K1, the Sega tennis game, and a few others. I would prefer to see no one company get the exclusive contract, but the NFL has made some bad decisions before. This one's not out of character for them. EA couldn't really *not* bid...and they had enough money to carry it off. (probably from exploited workers or something)
I do agree that comparing things to chess is the new heroin.
That is, it is as fashionable to compare things which involve mental acuity to chess as it is to compare things which may have an 'addictive' quality to heroin. However I have a hard time with your non-game comparisons. If construction work was all competitions with standardized rules and scoring, you would certainly find people comparing it to chess. I don't have any more problem with people comparing games to chess than I do with people comparing food to chicken. I would find it odd if someone chose to compare washing clothes with chess, or driving a car, or something that isn't a game. I just don't see why it's that big a deal to compare a game in which you fight for territory to a game in which you fight for territory. Now, if someone tried to compare Candyland or hopscotch to chess, it might seem weird to me. Just my opinion.
Yes. It is an obscene amount of cash. However, as Patrick Ewing pointed out, "We make a lot of money but we spend a lot too." As Latrell Spreewell pointed out, " A man's gotta feed his family."
Seriously, though, most professional sports players have some sort of loss of bodily function later in life. That's part of the reason they get paid so much. Another part is that people are willing to shell out $120 bucks for a single ticket and some concessions. I'd rather the players get the money than the owners, although the owners should be rewarded for catering to fans. If the interest wasn't there, neither would be the giant salaries. Compare salaries in the WNBA, for example. Those players give tons of effort, but they don't put asses in seats. I think a WNFL would kick ass, but then I guess there aren't a lot of other fans of bad-ass women out there.
If you're a Chicago fan, you don't even have to learn. It's absorbed through osmosis. I suppose it would be similar for Packer and Lions fans, but ewww....who'd want to be one of those? *shiver*
While the price tag for the excellent ESPN NFL2K5 surely caused consternation at EA, the NFL decided to go exclusive on its own. I seriously doubt that the NFL Player's Assocication cared about Sega's price drop. Didn't actually read the article, eh? I must say I'm shocked and surprised. By that, I mean I'm not shocked or surprised at all.
Yes, well it may be spelled "Favre" but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove". Quite simple, really.
Use your brain. Do you think the NFL approached EA or vice-versa?
Actually, I used my eyes, then my brain. I read the article. Here's a quote that spells out exactly who sought out whom.
"A source close to the negotiations said it was at a spring, 2004, off-site meeting attended by top NFL officials that the league determined it would take the league license exclusive. GameSpot was told the league put the license up for bid and that EA was among as many as five software publishers competing for it."
(emphasis mine)
Isn't it amazing what questions one can answer when one reads the motherfucking article before commenting on it?
Sorry, what did you say? I wasn't paying attention to you.
Sure they can. Even the ones who are not also "Peace Officers". In fact, here's how.
Your .sig is highly ironic, considering your post.
I bet you couldn't even name the player positions without looking them up. Ditto for both Mozart's work and Spears'. Of course, making fun of things is far easier than actually learning about them, isn't it?
Actually, while much of your post is correct, you have missed the most important point. They are not the BankOne Chicago Bears, nor are they the Chicago Bears presented by BankOne. They are simply the Chicago Bears. However, they make reference (in non-game tv shows such as pregame shows, on the radio, and IIRC in the newspapers) to 'Chicago Bears football presented by BankOne'. There's a major difference there. Also, please note that Chicago Field has no corporate sponsorship, a rarity in today's world. I'd rather hear 'Chicago Bears football presented by BankOne' a few times per Sunday than have 'BankOne Field'. That's just my personal preference, though. Actually, I hardly even notice anymore, as every damn thing seems to be 'presented by' someone or other. There's the Ford Pre-Game Show presented by Ford, the Miller Lite Hit of the Game, the Chevy Presents A Moment in Sports History, Budweiser Big Play of the Week presented by Budweiser, blah blah blah blah. Yeah, I made a few of those up, because I ignore most of that kind of crap. I'm getting better and better to ignore advertisements of all kinds, which I suspect many others are doing as well. This makes the ad makers try to intrude more and more, to stop us from ignoring them. Pretty soon, everything's either going to be an ad itself or be 'presented by' some company. I do find it amusing that large companies, rather than rely on exceptional products and/or services, are seeking ever more intrusive methods of advertising, many of which have little or nothing to do with the products or services offered. Maybe ads will become so totally ineffective that they'll give up on them....ah, what a lovely dream.
There's nothing that says "quality education" like a "university" with grammatical errors on its homepage.
I was including the puncuation stuff. I know it's nit-picky. :) As an English major, punctuation mistakes irritate me. I've put my corrections in bold below.
:)
Doesn't matter,(add comma) where I work (remove comma) the H.R. manager is one of the worst spellers in the company... Her problem is that she forgets to proofread, but it still looks just as bad (as what? this could have been phrased more clearly). I finally called her up about not proofreading stuff when she congratulated the wrong person for an internal promotion (not me) (the way this is structured it is hard to tell whether the poster receieved the congratulation but not the promotoion or the promotion but not the congratulation).
A lot of people are just uninterested in proofreading-- they'd realize how atrocious their emails look if they actually read what they typed before pressing "Send".(awkward sentence, needs to be rephrased)
I didn't bother with the last sentence because I believe those mistakes were intentional.
Also, I made some stylistic corrections, because as an editor that is what I'm trained to do. I don't typically include those in my "grammar nazi" posts, but you asked.
In fact, I just made an error. I misread your user name, and I actually *was* speaking to you. My mistake. See how easy it is to admit error and take responsibility for it? Parenthetically, even if you choose not to get help from me....please, get it somewhere. It's for your own good.
I wasn't speaking to you. Thank you for expressing your feelings, however. I'm sure you're perfect, so my help isn't needed. However, many people haven't attained the lofty heights you apparently inhabit. Don't worry, whether you need my help or not, if I see you abusing the English language, I may provide it anyway. Sure, most of the people I correct didn't solicit my help, or want it...any more than I solicited or wanted to read their mangling of my mother tongue. I'll make a deal with you: if everyone stops making simple mistakes in their posts, I'll stop correcting them. It's just that easy. In fact, here's some advice for all of you who do not like being corrected by people like me: don't make stupid errors. How much simpler could it be? I have myself been corrected on occasion, and I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. Apparently that's uncommon around here.
You know, it's hard to reconcile the obvious need for better, clearer written communication with the hatred of those of us who alert people to mistakes in that area. What you're saying is that you wish people would write more clearly and yet you don't want anyone to correct you when you do not. It's obvious that the problem is not the spelling/grammar nazis, it's the relative scarcity of them. I could correct the five mistakes I found while reading your comment; since you're scared of us, I will not. There may be more, but I saw no reason to look more closely when my help will obviously not be appreciated. Good luck in the business world, and have fun in your remedial English training.