Amentep

The first rule of old timers is that we do not talk about old timers?

Sadly looks like Hawk won't make.

Yeah AFAIK Semester Credit hour = 2/3 Quarter Credit Hour. So 5 quarter credit hour class is equivilent to 3.33 semester credits

I think there's only so much they can do with Lash (who was heavily stylized anyway) on a TV budget. I thought it worked for what it was. Overall I thought Season 3 of AoS started strong.

Why do you need to celebrate it in order to condone it? And neither side seems willing to do anything about those who will attack the other side so they are, at least through inaction, condoning it. GG has been against harassment since the beginning, they even tracked down the guy who made bomb threats to Anita in Brazil and offered her information on how to press charges. What has happened since then, only Anita knows. Or the numerous time Brianna Wu has been doxxed on /gg/ at 8chan and users willingly reporting to the mods to delete the info? aGG has been quite proud about trying to people get fired for being part of GG, tried to shut down 8chan permanently, tried to falsify that 8chan hosted child porn, they shut down pretty much all the discussion of GG in most places (4chan, reddit, etc), falsingly claiming that GG are racists, misogynists, rapists and everything that is bad in this world. So who here is being unreasonable? who here wants to give anyone a chance to speak? who wants to silence everyone? who wants control and who wants just to be left alone and play games? I agree GG has probably taken more steps in some cases. I still see fringe elements claiming GG-hood and harrasing people being referenced and so my wonder is why does it persist? Is it just too many people to check everyone? Is it the nature of things on the Internet? I do see aGG not really doing anything about their harrassing elements. Just by publishing the story online, he's established copyright. No need to formally copyright it with the government.

I decided to mess around with Aarklash: Legacy. So far I've enjoyed it.

Yes and knowing that, neither side seems all that bothered by stopping - or even complaining - about it as long as the targets are the ones they want them to be. Curious or SOP? Why do you need to celebrate it in order to condone it? And neither side seems willing to do anything about those who will attack the other side so they are, at least through inaction, condoning it. That's kind of how I saw it too. As I mentioned I think Carrera has had better more interesting arguments. Which in one hand is understandable if regretable. What I'm curious about is the phenomenon where loosely affiliated Group A sees Self-Identifying Group Member 13854 going on a vitriol tear and just silently nods because, hey, they're attacking the "enemy". Its that mentality I don't understand. And its made worse when Group A protests that Group B has members that spread the same vitriol against them. The vitriol is either right or wrong; I reject the argument that there are no bad tactics just bad targets. I thought the author made some good points.

I'm pretty sure Meshugger was using "war" in a pretty loose and figurative way. No one here has suggested it's okay to shoot anyone, burn a person's house down, or issue death threats. We are all against real harassment here and no one wants to see anyone come to any physical harm, regardless of how much we may disagree with or dislike certain people. You might want to cut back on the sauce and dial the accusatory tone down a bit. Relax. I wasn't suggesting anyone had suggested anything I mentioned, so I'm not sure why you suggest I did? Mind you I'm not exactly sure why my request for calm and rational debate was met with a "THIS IS SPARTA...I mean WAR!" response either, and I'm even further confused that somehow anyone would think my clearly facetious response to a somewhat confusing reply was remotely serious in nature. Bottom line: I don't understand why either side wants to keep the barnacles on their boat which, metaphorically speaking, represent those who issue death threats, doxx, etc people on either or both sides. And as we get more and more days/months/years into this long raging internet disagreement it confuses me more and more.

Wait, what? Did you forget to take your meds this morning? Meshugger said it was a "war between good and evil"1 in response to my call for calm, rational discussion and a move for both sides to call out the ****-stirrers who have no interest in anything but furthering arguments for lewls. So just trying to see how war-like this war between good and evil for the soul of art is. Because it seems like so far both sides are okay with at least phoning in bomb threats to places the other side is speaking at (or to their own so they can blame the opposite side).

So its okay if I shoot a person because they're trying to censor art? Or how about if I burn their house down? Mail them death threats? Exactly how far can I go and still be okay because I'm defending art? Seriously, I'm very much a proponent for not censoring game content because of "feels", but I think there is a proper way to with this argument. And allowing provocateurs to stir the **** on both sides and not calling it out because some of it happens to be against targets you don't like just ain't right, IMO.

Sad news, Catherine E. Coulson (aka The Log Lady aka Margaret Lantermann in TWIN PEAKS) has passed away. She was 71. http://welcometotwinpeaks.com/news/catherine-e-coulson-log-lady-deceased/

So watched a few videos that were linked back that aways. Mercedes Carrera has done better videos on the problems she has with SJW/Feminists/anti-GamerGate types. In this one she makes the same kind of flawed objection that a lot of anti-gamergate types did at the beginning of this (essentially "Who cares about ethics in journalism when women are being raped in the middle east" equivocates to "Why are you speaking to the UN about people pointing out flaws in your arguments online when marines are being fired for stopping men from raping boys in the middle east). She's clearly angry and probably not the best time to post an argumentative video. Lowder With Crowder - I know the guy describes himself as an entertainer. I think its a shame that he goes for fat jokes rather than press an interesting point. He shows how the organizers were using trigger warnings (for creating a "safe space") in their literature but on the convention floor have a picture - out in the open - of menstruating, boosomed Jesus. When asked the organizers they start to talk about trying to challenge norms and had this been anyone other than an entertainment guy there might have been an interesting discussion about the seeming disconnect between challenging norms (thus intending to make people uncomfortable) and safe spaces (making it so no one is ever confronted with something that makes them uncomfortable). But that issue isn't dealt with as instead he gets himself thrown out. Missed opportunity there. The Thunderfoot videos - one was a straight out lift of Feminist Frequency applied to things designed to appeal to women. Its not that difficult to deconstruct the problems with their arguments so its less interesting than it might possibly have been. The video where he showed the hate videos that had been made by him contrasted with Sarkesian at the UN(?) was more interesting just to show the ultimate problem with a lot of this debate - that both sides seem to be willing to ignore vitriol as long as its spewed at the appropriate target rather than treating it like the barnacle on their position that it is and calling them out so that these voices are removed from the discourse.

Is it coincidence that the "thin house" just happens to look like one of those home pregnancy test devices? Also why does the man at the bus stop look like he should be in a video game, not real life? EDIT: Ah, I see the proposed Keret House instillation mockups - http://www.kerethouse.com/ Don't think that was the design that was used, from what I can find online.

If you've read Seduction Of The Innocent, then Wertham's problems are stated there, by himself. While its nice that modern research has shown up Wertham's research for what it was, in the book itself he says something along the lines of having determined that comics were causing the increase in juvenile delinquency because all of the kids coming into his practice for help read comics. This was without regard to the fact that for many years 90% of the kids were estimated to be regular comic readers. Its like saying wearing shirts caused juvenile delinquency. Its also worth pointing out that the CCA was as much a chance for publishers to destroy their two biggest rivals (EC and Lev Gleason) as it was trying to keep from being further scrutinized after Gaines' disastrous appearance at the Keffaufer hearings. But there are a number of flaws when we look at a lot of these "this media is going to warp your kid" studies. One I remember from the 70s or 80s involved proving that cartoons inspired kid violence by having kids watch cartoons and then giving them a balloon clown and showing how the kids were more likely to be more aggressive with it. They forgot to mention in reports on the study, however, that the clown toy was a toy "punching bag", its whole purpose was to hit it, so kids were determined to be aggressive for interacting with the toy in its intended manner.

It is pretty interesting, but I'm not sure - given how they present the data and what it represents (military spending, college aid, etc) on a per-person breakdown (ie total spending divided by population without understanding who is getting the money and why) actually indicates that Alaska or Hawaii would have problems existing without access to federal governmental money. I mean they may, but I don't think its really borne out in that data.

1982. I hear in December (the 28th) there's going to be a movie adaption on CBS of that book "Mazes and Monsters" that Rona Jaffe wrote last year that was a fictional version of the disappearance of James Egbert at Michigan State in '79. No doubt we should be prepared for another round of misunderstanding - if this keeps up I no doubt expect Jack Chick to put D&D in a Chick Track further cementing this idea that D&D players think magic is real and worship pagan gods... D&D players are Alan Moore? Admit it, he'd be a wicked DM.

1982. I hear in December (the 28th) there's going to be a movie adaption on CBS of that book "Mazes and Monsters" that Rona Jaffe wrote last year that was a fictional version of the disappearance of James Egbert at Michigan State in '79. No doubt we should be prepared for another round of misunderstanding - if this keeps up I no doubt expect Jack Chick to put D&D in a Chick Track further cementing this idea that D&D players think magic is real and worship pagan gods...

If he did hit the barn, I doubt they'd have picked up much yardage anyhow. Barns aren't the best sprinters, even on an open field. I'll be here all week, be sure to tip your veal.

The weird thing to me is that the UN article linked above cites as proof of video games creating "violent zombies" an article done immediately after Columbine - http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/New_violence.html - in 2000. So their "recent research" for the "Zombie" quote isn't actually research but a magazine article. The article itself is 15 years old and some of the incidents it portrays are 20. They then point to an 11 year old study that talks about violence in general which - like many of the studies I've read on violence - contains some spurious logic (and I'd argue some flawed methodology). Yeesh.

Ah, old times... /nostalgia Sup, 2004

There was a LOT of network meddling in Heroes. It was supposed to originally be an anthology series with a new cast each season. Sylar was supposed to die at the end of season 1. The writers strike crippled season 2, and by that point it was damaged irreparably. Season 4 was a step in the right direction, but it was too late. It was supposed to be an anthology series with a new cast so they could continually show origin stories of their characters. While I think there was a lot wrong with Heroes, the idea of new origin stories, slowly building to a group coming together and a season climax doesn't really appeal to me. I find most superhero origin stories to be the least interesting part of the package. And even in season one, most of the time the best stuff was done after they'd established character's origins, not the origin story itself. Sylar not dying at the end of Season One though was the thing that broke the show for me, though. I even said when they "killed" him something along the lines of "if he's not dead, I won't watch this show again". Cue up the shot of the body missing and the bloody trail leading to the sewers and I turned to my brother and said, "Not watching this again". He suffered through season two and part of three. I remained blissfully unaware, though. Because the show died for me at the end of the first season.

I was just looking at that...not 100% sure but it made me pay attention at least.

I dunno, bad voice acting can be distracting (cf many games at the dawn of voice acting in games).

The American Dream passed away in June. He was 69.

Yes, but if your phone/tablet/PC is on the lawn in the morning, you can't be sure the zombie apocalypse didn't start overnight.