"Go to your room, I'm upset enough to be irrational!"
I'm curious, why did you accept this answer when it's a variation of "I'm not going to rationalize my anger, just gtfo?" The way you describe your precocious self, this shouldn't have been a acceptable response.
For what it's worth, it's great that you were able to an understanding with your parents at a young age. I know I was too hedonistic and self-centered to ever act the way you did. Not saying your methods of child rearing are wrong, just noting, it's not a surefire thing. Sometimes no amount of rationalizing will work, and luckily (I suppose) for most parents, most kids don't think up plans like hide Daddy's porn in Mommy's pillow.
Plus he was chummy with the whores. Those folks that were most likely to have knowledge of, and do abortions. Geeze, what a bleeding heart, half ass Christian he was...
From what I've seen, the thing that might have pissed people off is that they did not portray Manning as a hero. Actually, they talked about his personal life problems before and after he started leaking data. Which to me, insinuated (intentionally, or otherwise) that the guy did what he did, not out of a sense of justice, but because his life was fucked up.
And before anyone decides to argue that most of that is user created content and not part of the game itself as originally shipped, how can you contemplate whether video games are art without considering the interactive part of "interactive entertainment?
Just because it has interactive in it's name, all things created with it must count towards it's artistic merit? Should computers be considered art then? All art tools in general (clay, paint, hands, sand, etc)? I can't judge Minecraft since I haven't played it, but I do think it should be judged as is, not by what it could be molded to be.
I say call them sports. The word has no real importance (it's just something that requires commitment, strategy, and fair play), and trying to claim a sport is some short of title to cherish is well... silly.
I mean heck any smuck can manipulate existing matter and energy, but to create the aforementioned items, plus creating all the rules behind it, AND knowing all the nifty ways the rules can play out? That's well beyond anyone here no?
True, he started out in a bunch of books, but he then appeared in every media know to man, so I think god still counts.
Not sure how being a prolific porn consumer, and thinking nudity would not adversely affect sexuality makes me sexually conservative, but maybe you visited a particularly wild part of SA, or something.
By that logic, are you against porn as well? Certainly all the nudity there can't be good for any mystique. Frankly, I've seen so much skin thanks to the internet that being in a nudist colony would could only increase my tolerance for unattractive people. Any sexual nonchalance I might have for attractive people has already been created thanks to years of porn.
The link on "Ian O'Neill" leads to the relevant reasons. In short:
1. For a bright object, it's not making on the reflective dome below it shine.
2. Even though several videos came out, considering the location (a popular tourist attraction), there should be even more videos and eyewitness accounts.
On a personal note, it's cause I can rarely say anything meaningful on articles involving actual science, and it doesn't feel right to post humorous comments on them either. On the other hand, I feel perfectly fine throwing in a meaningless comment about Kirk, Vader, Adama, Dr. Who, etc cause they're fictional characters. It doesn't matter if I don't respect them, or something.
When I mentioned family/social groups/company. I was talking about U.S being one "member" in the group known as the collective nations of the world. Not individuals within the nation thinking of themselves as a family/social groups/company. So yea, please read more carefully.
So in that context/analogy would you be willing to call someone in your social group an asshole? Even if that asshole (for some reason) had a huge reserve of a vital resource you desperately need?
Honesty? Important, but equally important is well... acting diplomatically. Countries have to interact with each other, and whenever you have to interact with a group there needs to be a certain level of civility, whether you're in an office environment, or hanging out with friends. Acting nice becomes even MORE important when the group/person controls a vital resource that can be withheld on a whim.
So yea, if you're honest all the time, then perhaps you can't understand why you can't openly call the Saudi King an ass. But if you ever had to keep your mouth shut and play nice for the good of the company/family/social group/whatever, then this shouldn't be too hard to understand. Course this necessity could disgust someone, but I do hope the necessity can be understood at the very least.
Thanks for elaborating your POV. Though I do note I already knew all that. The reason I kept things short and said "fun couple" is because it was already obvious why the fans think they are a fun couple. You've watched the episodes so the summary could be parsed, and got an extra kick of humor. Happens all the time in fandom. Though the coincidence is unique I guess. I understood the summary thanks to watching a whole lot of other sci-fi, and knowing about the Doctor's clone/daughter, but yea wasn't as interested.
Ah... again I am to blame for your behaviour. Like I said before, I'm just waiting for you to ask so we can have a discussion and not a debate. It's a bit hard to do that when the tone you're putting forward is "I'm unconvinced no matter what you say."
You do note that I asked you to explain in the previous post yes? Somehow me asking you to not dance around the topic makes you... not want to tell me, aka. dance around the topic? Anywho, to my recollection, all you've said to me to explain your position is:
"The coincidences surrounding it are amusing. Of course you have to be nerdy enough to appreciate them. (ahhh... nerdy smugness!)"
and
"It's not baffling at all, the coincidences surrounding it are fun in a nerdy sort of way."
Perhaps I missed something. Please tell me what. Also, what makes you think I want a serious clash of mind and will for a topic like this? Yes, I want a discussion. A casual one to boot.
Well, I'll do one. You believe my unwashed masses comment was an insult. To quote myself:
"If such things are ok for shows that we like, then geeks are no better than the unwashed masses we so love to denigrate. Course, I believe that's always been the case."
First off, I assumed you, me, and slashdot in general are geeks. There's a reason I used "we" in the post. Also, Dr. Who is generally seen as a geeky show. The "unwashed masses" geeks love to denigrate (at least on/.) are folks who like things popularly viewed as "dumb" like reality TV. Another possibility are folks who are not computer savvy.
Then I say we're no better than the unwashed masses. The possibilities here are I'm either insulting both geeks, and everyone else (by saying we're both unwashed masses). Or, I'm saying unwashed masses are better than some give credit for (by saying geeks are not so special compared to them). Since I'd be insulting myself if I meant the former, I assumed people would think I meant the latter. But yes, I should spell things out more clearly next time.
Then there's the continual oversimplification of what it is, then intentionally dodging any understanding of it.
So, this slashdot article is more meaningful than two actors simply making a funny couple due to the characters they played? Then please, spell it out. You've been dancing around this topic choosing instead to constantly insist I just don't understand.
Sigh... if you wanna assume that I'm doing this to prove I'm the bigger "man," go right ahead. I'm doing this because you've misinterpreted a lot of what I wrote. A bit neurotic perhaps, but that's another topic. Frankly, I'd say you're being a pessimistic ass. Telling me what how I'm being elitist and insulting while ignoring me explaining there are other ways to interpret what I wrote? That I don't want, or intend to attack you, passively or otherwise? But whatever. If you MUST feel persecuted.
Really? You're asking this? Blimey. Look, it's real simple: "I respect your point, can't say I can hop aboard it." As opposed to: "I demonstratably don't understand your point, but you're wrong, so we agree to disagree so I can get the last word in."
What the hell did I write that made you think I meant disagreeing w/o understanding the other person?
I totally don't agree with your viewpoint, but I don't feel like debating it for whatever reason.
See the word "viewpoint" there? Yea, to know that ya kind of have to know the other persons POV.
And yes, I understand your POV. Two celebrities are getting married, their characters in a sense played the same person, so there's a myriad of jokes. Hardy har har. Least that's all you said on that topic so far. I already responded to that.
Finally, yes the fact that you insisted on reading everything I write in a negative light is your fault. I've hurled no insults at you. Everything you have against me, you insinuated because apparently misunderstanding someone and continuing an inane conversation equals I disrespect you, or something.
Because the whole point of the thread is that this story shouldn't have been visible.
And again what pray tell is so terrible about believing that? Not every negative comment is whining ya know. What, does the fact that I don't find much value in this little joke that bothersome?
I think you added it because you weren't interested in being proven wrong. I mean, really, your responses do not add up to 'agree to disagree'.
What do you think agree to disagree is? It's I totally don't agree with your viewpoint, but I don't feel like debating it for whatever reason.
Ah yes, the old "I leave it up to you" debate tactic that conveniently leaves out the option of 'discussion'. Sorry, no, not my responsibility. I already offered to explain.
What? I've responded to everything you've written so far. I've no problem continuing this little chat. I wrote that because the discussion was heading into a talk about what makes up celebrity gossip. An even more pointless and inane topic that I wasn't not sure you (or I for that matter) wanted to spend time talking about. What was it you said about asking questions, and rereading things? Physician, heal thyself...
It's not baffling at all, the coincidences surrounding it are fun in a nerdy sort of way.
Ah, you mean the part about how "coincidences surrounding it are fun in a nerdy sort of way?" Why do you think people like gossip? Because there are cool coincidences is just one of the many reasons. Why do you think celebrities who work together (or worked in the same show) and date/marry are so much juicer than two random celebrities dating? Figured you agreed with me on that part. Well, least I know why you're pissed.
Right at the spot you had just pointed out. The whole bit about geeks and the unwashed masses was an attempt to encourage the point that this story shouldn't have been front page.
And how is a difference in opinion whining? Did I use a shrill tone of voice? Did I needlessly insult anyone? For the record, I also consider myself a geek, so the geeks are very much alike to unwashed masses was also directed at me. And I certainly wouldn't consider "geeks are more normal than we might admit" to be insulting. For me, it was more of an epiphany/rude awakening combo.
I 'chastised' you because in the same post you wanted to remain ignorant.
I added that line because when folks start repeating themselves it's generally time to end the discussion by agreeing to disagree.
Sure, and it still worked against your point. The 'nerds' obviously don't care about the goings on of celebrity lives.
Let me know when you actually want to understand. And I really mean 'want to understand' not 'get me to write more you can attempt to argue with'.
This goes back to the original misunderstanding/disagreement which I covered above. We can start debating it, or end this discussion, which honestly is getting a tad too heated for such a trivial topic. I leave it up to you.
Incidentally, I find life is a bit easier if one doesn't automatically assume the person they're talking to is attacking them. Better to ask for clarification first. It's just a thought.
So, the thing that makes this beyond celebrity gossip is the coincidence? I assume then if "slutty amnesiac" #124 and "hunky guy with issues (who's the slut's secret grandfather)" #167 from some random soap opera got together in real life, then this would also elevate it from celebrity gossip?
Slashdot Mirror
"Go to your room, I'm upset enough to be irrational!"
I'm curious, why did you accept this answer when it's a variation of "I'm not going to rationalize my anger, just gtfo?" The way you describe your precocious self, this shouldn't have been a acceptable response.
For what it's worth, it's great that you were able to an understanding with your parents at a young age. I know I was too hedonistic and self-centered to ever act the way you did. Not saying your methods of child rearing are wrong, just noting, it's not a surefire thing. Sometimes no amount of rationalizing will work, and luckily (I suppose) for most parents, most kids don't think up plans like hide Daddy's porn in Mommy's pillow.
Plus he was chummy with the whores. Those folks that were most likely to have knowledge of, and do abortions. Geeze, what a bleeding heart, half ass Christian he was...
From what I've seen, the thing that might have pissed people off is that they did not portray Manning as a hero. Actually, they talked about his personal life problems before and after he started leaking data. Which to me, insinuated (intentionally, or otherwise) that the guy did what he did, not out of a sense of justice, but because his life was fucked up.
And before anyone decides to argue that most of that is user created content and not part of the game itself as originally shipped, how can you contemplate whether video games are art without considering the interactive part of "interactive entertainment?
Just because it has interactive in it's name, all things created with it must count towards it's artistic merit? Should computers be considered art then? All art tools in general (clay, paint, hands, sand, etc)? I can't judge Minecraft since I haven't played it, but I do think it should be judged as is, not by what it could be molded to be.
I say call them sports. The word has no real importance (it's just something that requires commitment, strategy, and fair play), and trying to claim a sport is some short of title to cherish is well... silly.
The Greeks and Romans did that one quite some time ago.
I mean heck any smuck can manipulate existing matter and energy, but to create the aforementioned items, plus creating all the rules behind it, AND knowing all the nifty ways the rules can play out? That's well beyond anyone here no?
True, he started out in a bunch of books, but he then appeared in every media know to man, so I think god still counts.
Not sure how being a prolific porn consumer, and thinking nudity would not adversely affect sexuality makes me sexually conservative, but maybe you visited a particularly wild part of SA, or something.
By that logic, are you against porn as well? Certainly all the nudity there can't be good for any mystique. Frankly, I've seen so much skin thanks to the internet that being in a nudist colony would could only increase my tolerance for unattractive people. Any sexual nonchalance I might have for attractive people has already been created thanks to years of porn.
Since fabrics absorb liquids, I'd imagine being nude would actually help against spilled scalding beverages. Don't suppose anyone has done any tests?
The link on "Ian O'Neill" leads to the relevant reasons. In short:
1. For a bright object, it's not making on the reflective dome below it shine.
2. Even though several videos came out, considering the location (a popular tourist attraction), there should be even more videos and eyewitness accounts.
3. Two of the videos have evidence of tampering.
http://news.discovery.com/space/jerusalem-ufo-almost-certainly-a-hoax.html
You mean True Resurrection (9th Level spell). That is unless your blasphemous sect has proof our Lord and Saviour lost a level when he came back?
On a personal note, it's cause I can rarely say anything meaningful on articles involving actual science, and it doesn't feel right to post humorous comments on them either. On the other hand, I feel perfectly fine throwing in a meaningless comment about Kirk, Vader, Adama, Dr. Who, etc cause they're fictional characters. It doesn't matter if I don't respect them, or something.
Oh, honey... I know we tease and call you a coward and all, but that's no reason to have a low self-esteem.
Eh, so many "accidental" comedies nowadays. Wonder if this could be harnessed somehow for the betterment of entertainment.
What would a dremel do to remove weird screws? Sorry, I'm not a tools guy, and google just tells me dremel is a brand of power tools.
When I mentioned family/social groups/company. I was talking about U.S being one "member" in the group known as the collective nations of the world. Not individuals within the nation thinking of themselves as a family/social groups/company. So yea, please read more carefully.
So in that context/analogy would you be willing to call someone in your social group an asshole? Even if that asshole (for some reason) had a huge reserve of a vital resource you desperately need?
Honesty? Important, but equally important is well... acting diplomatically. Countries have to interact with each other, and whenever you have to interact with a group there needs to be a certain level of civility, whether you're in an office environment, or hanging out with friends. Acting nice becomes even MORE important when the group/person controls a vital resource that can be withheld on a whim.
So yea, if you're honest all the time, then perhaps you can't understand why you can't openly call the Saudi King an ass. But if you ever had to keep your mouth shut and play nice for the good of the company/family/social group/whatever, then this shouldn't be too hard to understand. Course this necessity could disgust someone, but I do hope the necessity can be understood at the very least.
Thanks for elaborating your POV. Though I do note I already knew all that. The reason I kept things short and said "fun couple" is because it was already obvious why the fans think they are a fun couple. You've watched the episodes so the summary could be parsed, and got an extra kick of humor. Happens all the time in fandom. Though the coincidence is unique I guess. I understood the summary thanks to watching a whole lot of other sci-fi, and knowing about the Doctor's clone/daughter, but yea wasn't as interested.
Ah... again I am to blame for your behaviour. Like I said before, I'm just waiting for you to ask so we can have a discussion and not a debate. It's a bit hard to do that when the tone you're putting forward is "I'm unconvinced no matter what you say."
You do note that I asked you to explain in the previous post yes? Somehow me asking you to not dance around the topic makes you... not want to tell me, aka. dance around the topic? Anywho, to my recollection, all you've said to me to explain your position is:
"The coincidences surrounding it are amusing. Of course you have to be nerdy enough to appreciate them. (ahhh... nerdy smugness!)"
and
"It's not baffling at all, the coincidences surrounding it are fun in a nerdy sort of way."
Perhaps I missed something. Please tell me what. Also, what makes you think I want a serious clash of mind and will for a topic like this? Yes, I want a discussion. A casual one to boot.
"If such things are ok for shows that we like, then geeks are no better than the unwashed masses we so love to denigrate. Course, I believe that's always been the case."
First off, I assumed you, me, and slashdot in general are geeks. There's a reason I used "we" in the post. Also, Dr. Who is generally seen as a geeky show. The "unwashed masses" geeks love to denigrate (at least on
Then I say we're no better than the unwashed masses. The possibilities here are I'm either insulting both geeks, and everyone else (by saying we're both unwashed masses). Or, I'm saying unwashed masses are better than some give credit for (by saying geeks are not so special compared to them). Since I'd be insulting myself if I meant the former, I assumed people would think I meant the latter. But yes, I should spell things out more clearly next time.
Then there's the continual oversimplification of what it is, then intentionally dodging any understanding of it.
So, this slashdot article is more meaningful than two actors simply making a funny couple due to the characters they played? Then please, spell it out. You've been dancing around this topic choosing instead to constantly insist I just don't understand.
Really? You're asking this? Blimey. Look, it's real simple: "I respect your point, can't say I can hop aboard it." As opposed to: "I demonstratably don't understand your point, but you're wrong, so we agree to disagree so I can get the last word in."
What the hell did I write that made you think I meant disagreeing w/o understanding the other person?
I totally don't agree with your viewpoint, but I don't feel like debating it for whatever reason.
See the word "viewpoint" there? Yea, to know that ya kind of have to know the other persons POV. And yes, I understand your POV. Two celebrities are getting married, their characters in a sense played the same person, so there's a myriad of jokes. Hardy har har. Least that's all you said on that topic so far. I already responded to that.
Finally, yes the fact that you insisted on reading everything I write in a negative light is your fault. I've hurled no insults at you. Everything you have against me, you insinuated because apparently misunderstanding someone and continuing an inane conversation equals I disrespect you, or something.
Because the whole point of the thread is that this story shouldn't have been visible.
And again what pray tell is so terrible about believing that? Not every negative comment is whining ya know. What, does the fact that I don't find much value in this little joke that bothersome?
I think you added it because you weren't interested in being proven wrong. I mean, really, your responses do not add up to 'agree to disagree'.
What do you think agree to disagree is? It's I totally don't agree with your viewpoint, but I don't feel like debating it for whatever reason.
Ah yes, the old "I leave it up to you" debate tactic that conveniently leaves out the option of 'discussion'. Sorry, no, not my responsibility. I already offered to explain.
What? I've responded to everything you've written so far. I've no problem continuing this little chat. I wrote that because the discussion was heading into a talk about what makes up celebrity gossip. An even more pointless and inane topic that I wasn't not sure you (or I for that matter) wanted to spend time talking about. What was it you said about asking questions, and rereading things? Physician, heal thyself...
It's not baffling at all, the coincidences surrounding it are fun in a nerdy sort of way.
Ah, you mean the part about how "coincidences surrounding it are fun in a nerdy sort of way?" Why do you think people like gossip? Because there are cool coincidences is just one of the many reasons. Why do you think celebrities who work together (or worked in the same show) and date/marry are so much juicer than two random celebrities dating? Figured you agreed with me on that part. Well, least I know why you're pissed.
Right at the spot you had just pointed out. The whole bit about geeks and the unwashed masses was an attempt to encourage the point that this story shouldn't have been front page.
And how is a difference in opinion whining? Did I use a shrill tone of voice? Did I needlessly insult anyone? For the record, I also consider myself a geek, so the geeks are very much alike to unwashed masses was also directed at me. And I certainly wouldn't consider "geeks are more normal than we might admit" to be insulting. For me, it was more of an epiphany/rude awakening combo.
I 'chastised' you because in the same post you wanted to remain ignorant.
I added that line because when folks start repeating themselves it's generally time to end the discussion by agreeing to disagree.
Sure, and it still worked against your point. The 'nerds' obviously don't care about the goings on of celebrity lives.
Let me know when you actually want to understand. And I really mean 'want to understand' not 'get me to write more you can attempt to argue with'.
This goes back to the original misunderstanding/disagreement which I covered above. We can start debating it, or end this discussion, which honestly is getting a tad too heated for such a trivial topic. I leave it up to you.
Incidentally, I find life is a bit easier if one doesn't automatically assume the person they're talking to is attacking them. Better to ask for clarification first. It's just a thought.
So, the thing that makes this beyond celebrity gossip is the coincidence? I assume then if "slutty amnesiac" #124 and "hunky guy with issues (who's the slut's secret grandfather)" #167 from some random soap opera got together in real life, then this would also elevate it from celebrity gossip?