If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

free thoughtpolice wrote:pig: Describing someone as frustrated doesn't excuse bad actions they may have done. Are you implying that because I didn't think they should be arrested for a hate crime I was approving of their actions?
(repeat)

Well, if I were to make such an inference that would be a stretch, I'll grant you.

However, this Nigger-Shouter was certainly pushing the line of a public order offence (and in many countries would have been overstepping) and that is the main fact of the story. And it is a shitty thing to do. The questions of the frustrations about cycling and of blog posts calling for this or that unrealistic outcome to happen are either peripheral or irrelevant. I guess I'm claiming that your post lacked perspective in that it gave too much weight to the trivial chatter.

Civil forfeiture is one of the most evil and unconstitutional things out there. But I'm an upper-middle-class white, so why should I care?

Billie from Ockham wrote:Civil forfeiture is one of the most evil and unconstitutional things out there. But I'm an upper-middle-class white, so why should I care?

According to the linked State-by-State report, most of the states are rather bad with this stuff.
So if you are ok with losing your stuff randomly , or having to wait months/years to get it back, or having to pay excessive fees and possibly a lawyer to do so, I guess you don't have to care.

free thoughtpolice wrote:Oh and pig, were you implying that I'm an idiot when you said this?

If you think that reasonable application of the law obliges us to accept 'frustration' as being a valid excuse for this, you're an idiot.

btw, I don't think being frustrated is an excuse to break the law, nor did I say that.
Do you think it should be against the law to call someone an idiot? I mean it's not being racist but it does sound kind of ableist.

Well, perhaps the 'if' bit means that I have some weaselly wriggle room to say that you're only an idiot if this conditional is satisfied. On the other hand I probably should admit that I did indeed picture you as an idiot as I typed those words. I'm open to the view that I might have been unjustified in this judgement.

In response to your last question I would point out that, under some circumstances shouting the word "idiot" at someone would indeed be an offence, or at least contributory to an offence, of a public order variety. When we're considering issues of what constitutes threatening behaviour or in my country what's called 'behaviour likely to cause breach of the peace" then it's not actually a question of having some words allowed and some words not allowed. There are quite a lot of other factors in this.

feathers wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:Remember this? It's been a year.

http://imgur.com/xhdTn88.jpg

People lined up with their bona fides, then... nothing.

At least, nothing that I can see. Maybe Ashley moved the universe 3 feet to the left and who would know?

I bet they couldn't get on with it because someone called them names online.

Also, how on earth can you call something like this 'awesome' and 'exciting' if you haven't the faintest clue what it is?
"I have a cunning plan!"
"Sounds awesome milord"

Maybe she already ate the giant turnip.

Clarence wrote:

Billie from Ockham wrote:Civil forfeiture is one of the most evil and unconstitutional things out there. But I'm an upper-middle-class white, so why should I care?

According to the linked State-by-State report, most of the states are rather bad with this stuff.
So if you are ok with losing your stuff randomly , or having to wait months/years to get it back, or having to pay excessive fees and possibly a lawyer to do so, I guess you don't have to care.

I think you'd have more luck pressuring phone providers to terminate contracts of seized phones without a fee than untangling criminal bureaucracy.

feathers wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:Remember this? It's been a year.

http://imgur.com/xhdTn88.jpg

People lined up with their bona fides, then... nothing.

At least, nothing that I can see. Maybe Ashley moved the universe 3 feet to the left and who would know?

I bet they couldn't get on with it because someone called them names online.

Also, how on earth can you call something like this 'awesome' and 'exciting' if you haven't the faintest clue what it is?
"I have a cunning plan!"
"Sounds awesome milord"

Great!
Super!

[youtube][/youtube]

piginthecity wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:Oh and pig, were you implying that I'm an idiot when you said this?

If you think that reasonable application of the law obliges us to accept 'frustration' as being a valid excuse for this, you're an idiot.

btw, I don't think being frustrated is an excuse to break the law, nor did I say that.
Do you think it should be against the law to call someone an idiot? I mean it's not being racist but it does sound kind of ableist.

Well, perhaps the 'if' bit means that I have some weaselly wriggle room to say that you're only an idiot if this conditional is satisfied. On the other hand I probably should admit that I did indeed picture you as an idiot as I typed those words. I'm open to the view that I might have been unjustified in this judgement.

In response to your last question I would point out that, under some circumstances shouting the word "idiot" at someone would indeed be an offence, or at least contributory to an offence, of a public order variety. When we're considering issues of what constitutes threatening behaviour or in my country what's called 'behaviour likely to cause breach of the peace" then it's not actually a question of having some words allowed and some words not allowed. There are quite a lot of other factors in this.

Where do you live? I think I'm going to turn you in because you pissed me off and made me mad enough to punch you out, i.e. you could have caused a breech of the peace. :angry-boxing:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

piginthecity wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:Oh and pig, were you implying that I'm an idiot when you said this? btw, I don't think being frustrated is an excuse to break the law, nor did I say that.
Do you think it should be against the law to call someone an idiot? I mean it's not being racist but it does sound kind of ableist.

Well, perhaps the 'if' bit means that I have some weaselly wriggle room to say that you're only an idiot if this conditional is satisfied. On the other hand I probably should admit that I did indeed picture you as an idiot as I typed those words. I'm open to the view that I might have been unjustified in this judgement.

In response to your last question I would point out that, under some circumstances shouting the word "idiot" at someone would indeed be an offence, or at least contributory to an offence, of a public order variety. When we're considering issues of what constitutes threatening behaviour or in my country what's called 'behaviour likely to cause breach of the peace" then it's not actually a question of having some words allowed and some words not allowed. There are quite a lot of other factors in this.

Where do you live? I think I'm going to turn you in because you pissed me off and made me mad enough to punch you out, i.e. you could have caused a breech of the peace. :angry-boxing:

Fair enough. Re-reading my last post i did seem to get possessed by steersman.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

'poligies to piginthecity, I been having a bad week and have been cranky.

fuzzy wrote:'poligies to piginthecity, I been having a bad week and have been cranky.

I want an apology too! :twisted:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I must be getting old.

I'm 1 hour 42 into Batman Vs Superman, and I dig the movie. Might be the other DC movie I like beside Watchmen.

Come back to us when you are 4 hours into it and Wonder Woman still hasn't got her kit off.

More Trump/Russian spy news, this time it's his campaign manager:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/pa ... trump.html

Clarence wrote:

Billie from Ockham wrote:Civil forfeiture is one of the most evil and unconstitutional things out there. But I'm an upper-middle-class white, so why should I care?

According to the linked State-by-State report, most of the states are rather bad with this stuff.
So if you are ok with losing your stuff randomly , or having to wait months/years to get it back, or having to pay excessive fees and possibly a lawyer to do so, I guess you don't have to care.

What I meant was that my demographics make me the least likely to be hit. I was being a selfish asshole. I deserved to be (purposefully?) misunderstood.

I thought the Clintons were the ones taking bribes from the Russians:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca ... mpany.html

Two (possibly related) observations. Firstly on the CNN website today, these two links appeared together without any shame whatsoever:
Apparently the child's parents are in custody and charged, the kid is in care (perhaps he will be charged himself for selling on the street without a vendor's license?) Meanwhile the eight couples who ate the meal of a lifetime are still at large.

Secondly, I recently discovered a store I did not know existed. It will rent you cheap furniture. Not on the never-never/hire-purchase/payment plan, but simply rental for as long as the furniture lasts or you do a fly-by-night when the rent is due. There are people who do this! When I was a poor student I discovered exactly how much furniture could be made with a plank and some bricks and milk crates. Then the neighbours knocked after dark and asked if I wanted a fridge/sofa/bed that had 'fallen off the back of a lorry' (yes, this was the east end of London!) There was nowhere to rent shitty furniture. So it seems my son lives in a crappy area of Toronto that roughly matches the wealth and class of West Ham, but new ways have been invented to exploit the poor.

I was annoyed enough that I applied to be a volunteer with correctional services today. If I can teach one person to read it will be worthwhile.

Keating wrote:I thought the Clintons were the ones taking bribes from the Russians:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca ... mpany.html

That deal went through in 2013, before sanctions against Russia went through. I wonder how that company is dealing with the US govt. now?

For what it's worth, the US government can require they don't export any uranium and could no doubt regulate the crap out of them if they misbehaved.

No doubt though, there is a lot of money sloshing around and everyone is taking it, yet it isn't seen as bribery or influence peddling. The way the medical insurance companies have been able to buy off both parties have saddled Merkins with a bloated, overpriced system. I pity the poor fuckers down there that either get ripped off to pay twice or more for their medical care or end up worse by not getting it.
I don't think any country is immune from corruption and bribery though so I guess it all boils down to a matter of degree. :ugeek:

Just trying to rustle your jimmies. :bjarte:

A friend of mine died probably because of a tainted blood transfusion around the same time Canada bought tainted blood from Arkansas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8: ... od_Scandal
When I hear the Clinton name I associate it with sleazy and corrupt. So although I'm not a Trump fan it doesn't make me a Clinton fan.

Keating wrote:Just trying to rustle your jimmies. :bjarte:

Don't get me started! :angry-screaming:

School has started again here in Hong Kong. My daughter attends a private English-medium school, which adheres to the prevailing 'all cultures/religions are great, unless it's white' ethos. I'm expecting Self-Flagellation for Whites Only as a PE class option any day now.

The Religious Studies & Philosophy Department has just sent an email to say they have arranged school-wide subscription access to the NY Times. This is apparently a "good resource related to different culture and international-mindedness". My limited experience suggests it is The Guardian with funny spelling, but I'm not sure on the regression scale for US media. Can anyone confirm for me?

HunnyBunny wrote:The Religious Studies & Philosophy Department has just sent an email to say they have arranged school-wide subscription access to the NY Times. This is apparently a "good resource related to different culture and international-mindedness". My limited experience suggests it is The Guardian with funny spelling, but I'm not sure on the regression scale for US media. Can anyone confirm for me?

I wouldn't go so far as to say the NYT is the American Grauniad, but Obama could shoot the editor and there would be an apologetic editorial the next day.

HunnyBunny wrote:The Religious Studies & Philosophy Department has just sent an email to say they have arranged school-wide subscription access to the NY Times. This is apparently a "good resource related to different culture and international-mindedness". My limited experience suggests it is The Guardian with funny spelling, but I'm not sure on the regression scale for US media. Can anyone confirm for me?

The New York Times does better than most US news outlets in terms of thoroughness of their research and investigation. But it does seem to have been slipping off the rails here or there in the past few years.

If you are searching for the best non-biased news source, the best suggestion I have come across to date is Rueters. Beyond that, you have to scour the news from multiple sources & even off the beaten path sources in some cases in order to get a solid look at the bigger picture.

Proposition Blues Band in 3D

(Congratulations on y'all's successful gig, Paddy!)

If I'm killing the Pit, may as well kill it good.

Buzzkill.

Ape+lust wrote:If I'm killing the Pit, may as well kill it good.

:o :shock: :o :shock:

HunnyBunny wrote:School has started again here in Hong Kong. My daughter attends a private English-medium school, which adheres to the prevailing 'all cultures/religions are great, unless it's white' ethos. I'm expecting Self-Flagellation for Whites Only as a PE class option any day now.

The Religious Studies & Philosophy Department has just sent an email to say they have arranged school-wide subscription access to the NY Times. This is apparently a "good resource related to different culture and international-mindedness". My limited experience suggests it is The Guardian with funny spelling, but I'm not sure on the regression scale for US media. Can anyone confirm for me?

My understanding is that you have to read all the way to the end of each article. Reason being that some authors apparently can not help sneaking the truth, or hints of it in at the end. But they do it for long articles only. Presumably because most people get bored and depart before coming to the end of the bufflegab.

In any event, the paper seems to be in a parent to child relationship with it's readers. Or something. I can not be bothered to read what they have to say most of the time.

tl;dnr

Both papers appear to think that they posses the revealed truth that they then share with their readers.

So this is making the rounds:

[youtube][/youtube]

When I saw the downvotes I thought I'd clicked on the Ghostbusters trailer again.

OK Facist Tit. You are officially evil now. After more than enough purchases recently I broke down for Amazon Prime. Now it has presented me with huge playlists of music, and a large library of SciFi movies. The point of Amazon Prime was to help make myself more productive.

Move over Michelle Jenneke, a new Pit sweetheart?
[youtube][/youtube]

free thoughtpolice wrote:Move over Michelle Jenneke, a new Pit sweetheart?
[youtube][/youtube]

When a girl with green hair, too many tats, and various pieces of scrap metal in her face says that she has "grown up," I feel too old to ....

When a girl with green hair, too many tats, and various pieces of scrap metal in her face says that she has "grown up," I feel too old to ....

It made me wonder how that look would work out as she aged... 2046 :shock:

Sunder wrote:So this is making the rounds:

[youtube][/youtube]

When I saw the downvotes I thought I'd clicked on the Ghostbusters trailer again.

Poor Nye. A voice in the wilderness.

I'm not the world's biggest Nye fan but I think even Ken Ham would feel bad for him after watching that.

Nearly a year old, but it seems to be the agreed-upon lowest point in the show's history, and will remain such now that the show's been canceled.

Ape+lust wrote:Buzzkill.

You know, I think you've captured exactly how she views men, or at least wishes she could if any showed the slightest interest in her.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:When I saw the downvotes I thought I'd clicked on the Ghostbusters trailer again.

Poor Nye. A voice in the wilderness.[/quote]
They ask him about the importance of water on Mars, and then he tears off on a tangent about how life could have originated on Mars and seeded earth, on a comedy show. I can imagine why people were not impressed. And after that, the two other guests were completely unimpressed.

Now if he had been asked to wildly speculate about the origins of life, that could have fit well enough into the answer.

Sunder wrote:I'm not the world's biggest Nye fan but I think even Ken Ham would feel bad for him after watching that.

Nearly a year old, but it seems to be the agreed-upon lowest point in the show's history, and will remain such now that the show's been canceled.

Yeah, I saw that earlier. It's not that he was a boring host that failed to attract an audience, it's the "unblackening" of his time slot. Fucking racists, people won't even stand to be bored shitless for an hour to support blackening a time slot.

deLurch wrote:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:When I saw the downvotes I thought I'd clicked on the Ghostbusters trailer again.

Poor Nye. A voice in the wilderness.

They ask him about the importance of water on Mars, and then he tears off on a tangent about how life could have originated on Mars and seeded earth, on a comedy show. I can imagine why people were not impressed. And after that, the two other guests were completely unimpressed.

Now if he had been asked to wildly speculate about the origins of life, that could have fit well enough into the answer.[/quote]
He was trying to stir people's imagination in the age of narcissistic Twitter. It wouldn't have mattered unless he described feminist African-Martians needing smartphones and Taco Bell.

Hey, Billie o' Ockham and anybody else on the 'pit that have contributed to writing a college class textbook; do you at least get a sizeable chunk of money out of it? I just got the list for my eldest's classes. I've paid less for running automobiles.

It is a supreme privilege to witness Ape+Lust's brilliant works of art.

Xym is a Pit Treasure™ .

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

screwtape wrote:Two (possibly related) observations. Firstly on the CNN website today, these two links appeared together without any shame whatsoever:

Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 6.26.18 AM.png

Apparently the child's parents are in custody and charged, the kid is in care (perhaps he will be charged himself for selling on the street without a vendor's license?) Meanwhile the eight couples who ate the meal of a lifetime are still at large.

Secondly, I recently discovered a store I did not know existed. It will rent you cheap furniture. Not on the never-never/hire-purchase/payment plan, but simply rental for as long as the furniture lasts or you do a fly-by-night when the rent is due. There are people who do this! When I was a poor student I discovered exactly how much furniture could be made with a plank and some bricks and milk crates. Then the neighbours knocked after dark and asked if I wanted a fridge/sofa/bed that had 'fallen off the back of a lorry' (yes, this was the east end of London!) There was nowhere to rent shitty furniture. So it seems my son lives in a crappy area of Toronto that roughly matches the wealth and class of West Ham, but new ways have been invented to exploit the poor.

I was annoyed enough that I applied to be a volunteer with correctional services today. If I can teach one person to read it will be worthwhile.

The rent-to-own is a huge, horrible scam. I was hoping it was just a good ol' USA thing, but I guess not. As long as there are the gullible, there will be those trying to fleece them.

Good on you for the volunteer thing tho.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

Sunder wrote:I'm not the world's biggest Nye fan but I think even Ken Ham would feel bad for him after watching that.

Nearly a year old, but it seems to be the agreed-upon lowest point in the show's history, and will remain such now that the show's been canceled.

Yeah, I saw that earlier. It's not that he was a boring host that failed to attract an audience, it's the "unblackening" of his time slot. Fucking racists, people won't even stand to be bored shitless for an hour to support blackening a time slot.

It's not just that. The audience of white people who want to do penance for their evils by watching Comedy Central is just not as big as they thought.

As for the Nye segment, it's telling that Nye was funnier than the "comedians." You can tell he has a funnier, nimbler mind for comedy than those two affirmative action cases. It's not even the jokes that are bad. Go ahead and joke about making a celebrity sex tape on Mars. That can be hilarious. But...and here's the main problem with so many things...they put ideology over creativity or humor. Instead of playing along like real comedians and mining humor out of the subject matter, the committed the cardinal sin of comedy: they said no.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Hey, Billie o' Ockham and anybody else on the 'pit that have contributed to writing a college class textbook; do you at least get a sizeable chunk of money out of it? I just got the list for my eldest's classes. I've paid less for running automobiles.

Nope, maybe a couple of grand. It's the publishers who make out like bandits.

dogen wrote:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Hey, Billie o' Ockham and anybody else on the 'pit that have contributed to writing a college class textbook; do you at least get a sizeable chunk of money out of it? I just got the list for my eldest's classes. I've paid less for running automobiles.

Nope, maybe a couple of grand. It's the publishers who make out like bandits.

Haven't contributed to a textbook, but I know that dogen is right. The publishers make the money. The professors don't get a lot of money. If it makes you feel better, teachers don't assign their own books as much as you'd expect. There's a stigma against it to prevent the kind of self serving situation you might imagine.

If it makes you feel better, it sounds like your eldest is taking some real classes, not women's studies classes. (Though those textbooks are shamefully expensive, too.)

Terrified family driven out of home by 'poltergeist' after pet dog 'LEVITATES'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/700059 ... anarkshire

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/3613588/snuffles-o.gif

rayshul wrote:http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_ ... 7GQeFR97IV

Hart shows how the elite (who are of course immune to the unwitting racism that the rest of us carry around) have pursued ‘zombie racism’ post-Macpherson, using zero tolerance policies to police language on the automatic assumption that the hidden problem of racism is getting worse.

Which is why monitors and drama groups end up in Essex schools lecturing children to watch out for racism that is not there, while teachers are obliged to tick boxes and record thousands of ordinary playground moments as racial incidents, pursuing a government policy based on ‘the assumption that children are conditioned, from birth, by the persistent racism of their parents’ generation’. And why we have witnessed a crusade against the ‘spectre’ of ‘hidden’ racism in football, based on the assumption that those ugly people who play and watch the beautiful game need to be re-educated.

The result of this new ‘racial correctness’, says Hart, has been to pigeonhole black and ethnic-minority people as perennial victims, and to demonise white people (especially the working-class ones) as unwitting but unreconstructed racists. Little wonder that official anti-racism has helped to exacerbate divisions rather than overcome them.

Yea. And it doesn't help matters much when such accusations are cover for deflecting valid criticisms of people in any grouping:

Seems many are getting seriously fed up with others who play the victim, and with very little if any justification. Though seems that many, even in the black community, at least in the US, have been complaining about that - like forever:

Quote's on the up-and-up too; found also on Wikiquotes.

And it seems that at least some in the black community are getting the picture that its values and policies are a significant part of the problem:

Father of Man Killed by Milwaukee Police Makes Emotional Admission, Apologizes to His Children
Aug. 15, 2016 3:55pm Jon Street

The father of Sylville Smith, the 23-year-old black man fatally shot by a black Milwaukee police officer Saturday, is speaking out following his son’s death, apologizing for not being a different role model and calling on parents to set better examples for their kids to follow. ....

“When they see the wrong role model, this is what you get,” he said. “I’ve gotta start with my kids, and we gotta change our ways, to be better role models. And we gotta change ourselves. We’ve gotta talk to them, put some sense into them.” ....

VickyCaramel wrote:

piginthecity wrote: No sympathy with the individual(s) who did the shouting. Saying he or she was 'frustrated at being held up' is a pathetic weaselly excuse for what he did and I hope they get the book thrown at him within the limits of reasonable application of the law and due process of course. He is a shit.

...and before you know it, calling somebody a "fat fuck" is a hate crime. Then it will be calling somebody a "retard" will be a hate crime".
Before you know it calling somebody a "shit" will get you landed in the gulag.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, words will never hurt me.

Indeed. But seems a remarkably large number of people have never heard that aphorism before. Or never managed to integrate it into their personas.

Reminds me though of a brief conversation I'd had with Ophelia Benson several years ago in which she insisted that it was "the worst aphorism ever invented". I geddit - most people get it - that words can sting and hurt. But frequently they're the only alternative on tap other than a two-by-four up alongside the ears - at best.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Steersman wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote: Once again I reflect that Jenneke by any objective standard is not beautiful at all....

Not sure that there really is any such "objective standard" for beauty - eye of the beholder and all that.

Maybe if someone would stop to define this Objective Standard of Beauty (OSB), this argument might have a point.

Seem to recollect that someone had argued that such OSBs were ultimately based on sexual attractiveness: I guess, in large part, fertility for women and, maybe, some indication of enough resources to care for kids and wife for men.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:But then, of course, Vickie would chime in to note how OSB was never implemented to the letter by units in the field.

:-) When the only tool you have is a hammer .... Though since I pretty much do the same thing I can't very well throw stones at her.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

But I would tend to agree with you as far as your conclusion about Jenneke herself is concerned - remarkable "spring-loaded" physique, and reasonably attractive, but not sure that she would qualify as "classically" beautiful.

'Spring-loaded'? You mean this?

michelle-jenneke-blocks.png

"Healthy" looking woman, but I was thinking of something similar to what fuzzy linked to recently:

More bounce to the ounce. But the one I had in mind, one that someone had posted here some time ago, had her doing the same routine in a line-up of other athletes; the look on the face of another woman contestant behind Jenneke was simply priceless.

"The Red Pill" opens in October, in NYC then LA.

Tickets for the NYC showings go on sale August 26th.

http://www.theredpillmovie.com/see.html

dogen wrote:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Hey, Billie o' Ockham and anybody else on the 'pit that have contributed to writing a college class textbook; do you at least get a sizeable chunk of money out of it? I just got the list for my eldest's classes. I've paid less for running automobiles.

Nope, maybe a couple of grand. It's the publishers who make out like bandits.

Goddamn, that's what I thought. I do believe that is why they don't do more e-books. Nobody would have any qualms about pirating the stuff.

fuzzy wrote:'poligies to piginthecity, I been having a bad week and have been cranky.

Och ! Away wi'ye !

Billie from Ockham wrote:

piginthecity wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:Speaking of hate crimes; in Edmonton Canada an incident occurred where some people in a car were frustrated by being held up by a cyclist so yelled at him to get off the road and called him a nigger (he was actually a muslim). Blogs have been written and there have been demands that the people in the car be charged with a hate crime.

No sympathy with the individual(s) who did the shouting. Saying he or she was 'frustrated at being held up' is a pathetic weaselly excuse for what he did and I hope they get the book thrown at him within the limits of reasonable application of the law and due process of course. He is a shit.

I agree and I hope that the person who yelled "nigger" suffers the entirety of the appropriate legal penalty for doing that ... which is absolutely nothing.

We apparently agree on at least one thing, that in particular.

Ape+lust wrote:Proposition Blues Band in 3D

(Congratulations on y'all's successful gig, Paddy!)

:clap:

I shall steal that.

Billie from Ockham wrote:

Steersman wrote:Hat-trick and then some: "Woot! All your bases belong to me!" :-)

How can you get that quote/meme wrong?

(Don't answer. It was rhetorical.)

Well, it was also wrong. Unless you're going to bust my chops for using "bases" instead of "base" - seems rather picky. And all of the sentences/phrases seem to have a consistent theme:

The original has been generalized to "All your X are belong to us", where X is filled in to connote a sinister takeover of some sort.

And woot:

Thus the term passed into the net-culture where it thrived in video game communities and lost its original meaning and is used simply as a term of excitement.

Seems not unreasonable, particularly in a clearly jesting way, to express some "excitement" about having "taken over" the Pit to post 4 or 5 in a row. Methinks you doth protest too much.

deLurch wrote:

HunnyBunny wrote:The Religious Studies & Philosophy Department has just sent an email to say they have arranged school-wide subscription access to the NY Times. This is apparently a "good resource related to different culture and international-mindedness". My limited experience suggests it is The Guardian with funny spelling, but I'm not sure on the regression scale for US media. Can anyone confirm for me?

The New York Times does better than most US news outlets in terms of thoroughness of their research and investigation. But it does seem to have been slipping off the rails here or there in the past few years.

If you are searching for the best non-biased news source, the best suggestion I have come across to date is Rueters. Beyond that, you have to scour the news from multiple sources & even off the beaten path sources in some cases in order to get a solid look at the bigger picture.

I find that Al Jazeera is quite good on its world news channel. It certainly covers more than the BBC.

I think we've found the Chinese Melody Hensley !

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/other/wo ... spartanntp

Steersman wrote: Indeed. But seems a remarkably large number of people have never heard that aphorism before. Or never managed to integrate it into their personas.

Reminds me though of a brief conversation I'd had with Ophelia Benson several years ago in which she insisted that it was "the worst aphorism ever invented". I geddit - most people get it - that words can sting and hurt. But frequently they're the only alternative on tap other than a two-by-four up alongside the ears - at best.

The worst part about this is that people like Benson, who insist that words hurt "just like" physical assault, are more than ready to tell you that you should die in a fire, or that you should insert a rusty porcupine up your ass just because you politely criticized their ideas.

According to Benson's own standards that's the equivalent of breaking someone's nose just because they lightly tapped you on the shoulder. But it's all good because they're the Good Guys and you're the Bad Guy.

So they're not even consistent about their own rules.

piginthecity wrote:I think we've found the Chinese Melody Hensley !

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/other/wo ... spartanntp

Hey, we don't know the whole story. The driver might've been drunk.

http://imgur.com/yu64K9k.jpg