Jump to content

Darth InSidious

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Darth InSidious

  1. It's just all those literary critics trying to maintain their status quo. You know, to subjugate the little people and stuff.

    Bourgeois literary criticism, oppression of the proletariat, perpetuation, oppression, class war, capitalist exploitation of the working left sock, &c.


    the ego-porn of Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

    Portait of the Artist is the textual equivalent of masturbation. It's also extremely effective in its use of style. Doesn't mean that it isn't an awful read, though.

  2. Aww, but how else will we learn that the American Dream is a big lie and that endless fun is ultimately empty and meaningless? :(

    Read Vile Bodies instead?

    Does it have flappers?

    My dear, what a too, too laugh-making question.


    Or to put it another way, most definitely. :p

  3. 50416_136635486547_747674_n.jpg


    You might very well think that. The Prime Minister could not possibly comment.

    Whoah, Francis Urquhart. Verily you are a poster of impeccable taste.

    *45-degree bow*.


    Watching the parliamentary panel grill the Murdochs. I didn't have high hopes, but they are simply scuttling about from point to point.


    MP: "When did you meet Mr Marracec <sic>?"

    Rupert: "I don't know a Mr Marracec"

    MP: "He worked for the company for 25 years."




    Meanwhile, his son waffles about "financial quantum".

  4. Also hated the Great Gatsby. Had to read it for grade 12 english and after the chapter that just lists everyone he invited to a party I told my teacher I couldn't read that tripe and to just fail me on that section of the class.

    Too true. You might generously describe Gatsby as a mediocre book.

  5. And furthermore, his football kits are not cheap football kits! -_-


    On-topic: The End of Mr. Y is pop-science wrapped in a postmodernist cover. Or to put it differently: it's the sort of book you expect ot be fun and amusing, and then find yourself reading fifty pages of having Baudrillard regurgitated by one character all over another.

  6. The Habsburger family is still around? I never knew that :brows:

    What did you think happened to them? :p


    The Habsburgs spent 600 years trying to unite Europe through lovemaking rather than war, that has to count for something :)

    The German Habsburgs were ok, but the Spanish Habsburgs' reign of terror will never be forgotten.

    Parker and Kamen would be a good place to start reading.

  7. Murdoch is now 80, and the years of dabbling in the dark arts have evidently not been kind to him. You can be sure if it does get to prosecution, he'll milk that for all it's worth. Not sure a criminal prosecution is necessarily the best idea, anyway. particularly since the US will probably want jurisdiction by the time it comes around.

  8. I don't know how reputable the Daily Mail is. Is it a tabloid? But I'm guessing it isn't a Murdoch rag so it's already one up in my books.

    It's like a less paranoid Daily Express, except with more words, fewer naked sluts, and more stories about fat immigrant single mother celebrities on benefits. It's the meeting-point of the tabloids and the right-wing broadsheets, and, increasingly, a sister-paper to the Telegraph, thanks to the latter's slide into unreadability.

  9. It seems indications are that journalists - from somewhere - accessed the phones of relatives of the 7/7 terror bombings. Pretty much to get reactions.


    Seriously, WTF is wrong with our news media?

    You have to ask? OK, let's start with a basic flaw: British journalists chiefly write for other British journalists.


    Makes sense. Excuse my being thick, but what's your next point?

    That they're all totally amoral and borderline sociopathic in their obsession with 'getting a story', and will happily ignore any and all social norms in order to do so? If you aren't one of them, you're a target.

  10. It seems indications are that journalists - from somewhere - accessed the phones of relatives of the 7/7 terror bombings. Pretty much to get reactions.


    Seriously, WTF is wrong with our news media?

    You have to ask? OK, let's start with a basic flaw: British journalists chiefly write for other British journalists.

  11. OK, so having given away intimate details of my real life, relationships and personal preferences to a dubiously morally trustworthy and somewhat macchiavellian company run by a man-robot with doubtful understanding of it/his connexion to other people and the social responsibilities contained there in...


    ... You now want me to repeat/duplicate this mistake.


    What on Earth made you think I'd agree to this?

  12. The DS were very distinct

    Well, they were distinctly unoriginal and distinctly mediocre, I'll give you that. They were distinctly poorly-written, distinctly ugly, and distinctly repetitive. Oh, they were distinctly railroaded, too.


    If I chuck in a "verily" and perhaps some cod-Elvish, we can pretend I'm one of the six NPCs with any dialogue.


    Most gamers who played video games around that time know well of the DS series...some random game isn't a good way to describe them at all. I know you would like to believe that because of your loyalty to Obsidian, but's it's just not true.

    Erm, I played video games around that time, as I suspect did most people around here.


    The Dungeon Siege games were poorly-executed Diablo clones. When DSII came out the immediately recognisable features were the ugly graphics, terrible writing, horrendous railroading, meaningless spell/ability choices and colossal reliance on grind. Even multiplayer it's a pretty poor game. And when you consider the rest of the RPG cohort it came out with - KotOR II, Jade Empire, Fable: The Lost Chapters, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and so on - it looks (and looked at the time) incredibly lacklustre. The only thing it had going for it was its multiplayer, and that wasn't exactly brilliant.

  13. Well, some of you chaps seem to be stuck on this notion that an 'illusion' means something automatically bad, which is a circular argument. Is bad bad? etc.


    Replace 'illusion' with 'working simplification' and what do we get?


    this made me wonder if the whole point is that we don't naturally perceive time most of the er... time. I mean how often are you actually aware of your finite ration trickling away? I've done it a few times in the last few years and it drove me almost mental. It's not healthy.


    I still favour Doctor Who's "Timey-Wimey-Stuff" explanation.

    That's not Doctor Who, it's raped childhood served up in a bap.

  14. I dont believe in space-time. Space is alright, and rate-of-decay is fine but dont go all einsteinian on me and claim they're stuck together.



    Science isn't faith based. :lol:

    And for my next trick, ladies and gentlemen, I shall now disprove this claim:


    I do not believe in evolution.

  • Create New...