![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Porumqe from the MegaZeux 2.70 game BLARGFRDRGMAHAG!, an archetypal example of a whimsical town -- all the more poignant when in a war with the killer whales, the exploding man called Shrar-benga-bubale-juhabi-mahaku-sabula-p
The city from Amarcord. 'Nuff said.
Twin Peaks, what with strange ungainly distorted dreamsequences and unfinished cliffhangers.
--==THE ANVIL ON HIS HEAD==--
Agent Piggum, the private eye, is listening to the radio.
"De Camptown ladies sing dis song, Doo-dah! doo-dah!
De Camptown race-track five miles long, Oh, doo-dah day!
I come down dah wid my hat caved in, Doo-dah! doo-dah!
I go back home wid a pocket full of tin, Oh, doo-dah day!
Gwine to run all night!
Gwine to run all day!
I'll bet my money on de bob-tail nag,
Somebody bet on de bay.
De long tail filly and de big black hoss, Doo-dah! doo-dah!
Dey fly de track and dey both cut across, Oh, doo-dah-day!
De blind hoss sticken in a big mud hole, Doo-dah! doo-dah!
Can't touch bottom wid a ten foot pole, Oh, doo-dah-day!
Gwine to run all night!
Gwine to run all day!
I'll bet my money on de bob-tail nag,
Somebody bet on de bay.
Old muley cow come on to de track, Doo-dah! doo-dah!
De bob-tail fling her ober his back, Oh, doo-dah-day!
Den fly along like a rail-road car, Doo-dah! doo-dah!
Runnin' a race wid a shootin' star, Oh, doo-dah-day!
Gwine to run all night!
Gwine to run all day!
I'll bet my money on de bob-tail nag,
Somebody bet on de bay.
See dem flyin' on a ten mile heat, Doo-dah doo-dah!
Round de race track, den repeat, Oh, doo-dah-day!
I win my money on de bob-tail nag, Doo-dah! doo-dah!
I keep my money in an old tow-bag, Oh, doo-dah-day!
Gwine to run all night!
Gwine to run all day!
I'll bet my money on de bob-tail nag,
Somebody bet on de bay."
Pause of five seconds. The FM radio crosstalk sounds.
"Attention listeners! Alfred Wotan is at large! The ritualistic and potentially dangerous murderer has run away on January the 26th, presumably high on Valkyr."
Heroic BSOD, heroic BSOD. After seeing Alfred Wotan incarcerated in a maximum security prison, the least anyone could want is seeing him high on Valkyr, returning to the Asgardhr building, his office.
"I just heard your news," Agent Piggum calls in on the mobile phone to the police station, speaking in a monotonous voice, "and I'm going to kill him, sure bet."
Agent Piggum loads his gun, and goes off to cause trouble in his Sugar Bowl Marysuetopia -- aptly called Diabetesland.
--==AMUSING CLUES==--
"Everyone lookin' friendly and speaking in odd southern accents? If so are they calling the newcomers 'mah friend'? If even so are they inserting random 'wum' sounds as though they got cerebral palsy? Do they have strange names such as Zefefab or something else, but still talk in southerner accents and all the other listed stuff? Or if they are British---or Cloudcuckoolanders---do they talk in Estuary or Cockney accents instead? Or if they are Australian, do they speak 'pure' Strine? Or if they are Italian, do they confuse you with Emiliano-Romagnolo? Or if Scottish or Irish, do they speak English but in distinct brogue-accents? Also, most behave like they got ADD/ADHD/Asperger's? Do they indulge in Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness? Do teens use Totally Radical or Whedonspeak? Or Nadsat? Do some practice occult or quack studies? If so, does that clash with your own worldview? Are there anvilicious---that is to say unsubtle---morals everywhere within the show? If Scottish do they wear Hollywood kilts? Or are they otherwise eccentric? Is the town named strangely, say, Porumqe? Is there frequent employment of Hollywood 'coconut effects' *glint*? Or else, lensflares as per dramatic use *shaheen*? Does the town have cheesy vibrant colours? A dark secret? Is it a stepford suburbia, like the CANS world? I mean really; perfectly subservient housewives, hi-def TVs in every home, illegal cable with impunity, intelligent kids bringing home all A-OKs in all subjects ... ? No seriously; intelligent but mischievous kids experimenting with firecrackers and---squick!---dynamite? Really now honestly; perfect, rich, hardworking husbands and on the other hand, thieves in every alley, competing with each other in 'Jou jus insult mi madre punck!' 'Omigawd Dilly! Word Word Word!'? Diners like in the Fifties Fifties, except playing Nothing But Hits? Scott-Hammack-isms all around? Sadistic Cops? Portals and Tesseracts everywhere and strewn all around? Acceptable Targets? High schools, especially those where Sadistic Cops mistake Totally Radical or Whedonspeaking custodians for students and Asperger students for young custodians -- a job neither accept? If in Britain, is there a lot of Did Not Do The Bloody Research? Many catchphrases? Many This Is Sparta moments? Moreover, much bathos in many narms? A depiction of a Viewer Friendly User Interface? Crowning Moments of Heartwarming? Is the depicted town a town where you would like to be, but you are also glad you aren't? Something wrong with it all? Congratulations, Mr Mike Piper, congratulations: you have seen a show with a Quirky City.
"The Quirky City is extreme selling-point of a Crapsaccharine World -- it Tastes Like Sugar on the surface, but dig a bit deeper and you'll find a Darker And Edgier Crapsack World that ain't so cheery."
<***And they still love it! No matter how much we make it scary, the people effing LOVE it!***>
"Magnus Scheving's affinity? Check. Cheesy colours and quick repetitive Irish music sung in either Irish brogues or Icelandic foreign accents? Check. The Arr You Goink Too Ewz Vindows trope? Check. Funetik Aksent in captions? Check. The majority of the cast being either Muppets, Puppets, Marionettes or Uncanny Valleyed Serkis Folk? Check. Two or three Truly Human characters so it does not turn into a Nightmare Fuel? Check. Dawson---that is to say, casting adults for children---Casting? Check. Mary Sues sometimes played by writers? Check. White And Grey---that is to say, Humans Are Good, Confucius Was Right---Morality? Check. An overly cheerful and thus scary idealism? Check -- MATE. Congrats, Mr Mike Piper, but you have once again stumbled---I will not gainsay you had no intention---into the world of Latibaer.
"Latibaer is a Wit, short for Weird Icelandic Thing. Oh, and have I mentioned that Latibaer is pure Nightmare Fuel for non-Icelandic and non-Scandinavian children? Nudity, upskirt panty shots and teasing explicit sexuality are G-rated in Iceland and Scandinavia; the sooner a child learns about sex -- the better!"
--==CONCLUSION==--
Television can not be learnt from, mainly because it is too good to be true. I shall take this one step further---Oh Furthur, Furthur!---in saying that all of television itself is a Marysuetopia where everything is hackneyed insomuch it cannot teach anything to anyone or anything or make anyone or anything "grok" anything but the khorosho.
DID I MAKE MY POINT?! DID ... I ... MAKE ... MY ... @#$%ING ... POINT?!?!?!?!?!
- Mood:teacher
I'll check on about the properness of their decisions according to conservative!Hays-Code ...
PG!Killjoy
As usual, they tell all.
Mild Violence + Strong Language + Violent Plot Device = TV-14-V
*
PG!Howl's_Moving_Castle
Scary Images + Mild Language = TV-14-P [P stands for paranormal but means any kind of scary images]
*
PG!One_Night_With_The_King*Call_Of_Desti
Violence + Sensuality + Adult Themes = TV-MA-VS
*
PG!Dreamer_Inspired_By_A_True_Story
Brief Mild Language = TV-PG
*
PG!The_Chronicles_Of_Narnia*The_Lion*The
Battle Sequences + Frightening Moments = TV-14-P
*
PG!Charlie_And_The_Chocolate_Factory
Quirky Situations + Action + Peril + Mild Language + Scary Moments = TV-14-VLP
<***PG means Pretty Ghastly, and there's even one NC-17 movie stuck in.***>
<***Now for PG-13s ... ***>
PG13!Just_Like_Heaven
Sexuality + Paranormal = TV-MA-SP
*
PG13!Gryphon
Violence + Sensuality = TV-14-V
*
PG13!Avatar
Nudity + Violence + Language = TV-MA-VSD
<*** I'm sick of this. Now for the Rs and NC-17s ... ***>
R!Rottweiler
Drug Use + Strong Gory Violence + Sex & Nudity + Language = TV-666 [The 666 rating means the movie should be banned.]
R!Lethal_Eviction
Violence + Language + Drug Use = TV-SNF [The SNF rating indicates a snuff movie.]
NC17!Glam
Explicit Sexuality + Sexual Dialogue = TV-666
NC17!Broken_English
Explicit Sexuaity = TV-SNF-S
NC17!Pink_Flamingos
Perverted Sexuality = TV-666
<***YECK!!!!!!!!!!***>
Yet MPAA professes to be Pause-Parent-Play, but they, according to info grabbed from the Deep Throat, are foxes guarding the henhouse.
- Mood:savvy
alt.swedish.sports.bjorn.bjorn.bjorn
alt.innocuous.ads.spam.spam.spam
alt.windows.vista.crash.crash.crash
...
<***Ahh, Monsieur Poirot, I see you have fallen for the Sturgeon.***>
"Ze Sturgeon ? ! What is zat, Monsieur ou Mademoiselle ?"
> BVY
> VIAGRA
>
> And no, they can't catch us, we have ties.
<***And what's worse, Monsieur Poirot, I will not leave you uninformed.***>
"Well, asterrrisk speaker, fine wiz mee ? Explain it zen."
<***The Sturgeon's Law dictates that the Internet is 1% knowledge and 99% sh!t, and it also applies to USENET.***>
"I'm in bad stuff ?"
<***Seriously bad, Monsieur Poirot.***>
"? ! ? ! ? !"
...
--==LESS COMMON ANALYSIS==--
To explain the process in complete complexity, we will have to resort to the less-used but equally-useful methods of !-declensions. We will also have at first to grab a few random samples and label them with an !-declension.
Predicament.
<***"Alice" is a cloudcuckoolander. That automatically marks her down in the Sturgeon's 99%. That is, [on the one hand we have idiot!Alice.] // "Calais" is a clergywoman, prudish, untouchable, grave and serious. As such, she is demarcated into the Sturgeon's 1%. That is, [on the other hand we have nonidiot!Calais.]***>
Let us check out how we labeled these two for the nonce ... idiot!Alice and nonidiot!Calais. Each sees herself as nonidiot! -- but the other as idiot!. So from Alice's viewpoint, we get a hypothetical nonidiot!Alice and idiot!Calais.
<***That would be pretty amusing, to ask the poor two gals, "who is the crazy gal here?", and watch the two of them bicker, "You're the idiot!" -- "No you're the idiot!" Both Alice and Calais---for this kind of thing to work---will have to be informed that only one of them is an idiot!______. This creates a psychological perpetuum mobile of sorts.***>
--==AMBIGUOUS LISTS==--
ZZT: NonIdiot!
MZX: NonIdiot!
MZXWiki: NonIdiot!
TVTropes: Caution!
Wikipedia: Caution!
LiveJournal: Caution!
Anime: Caution!
FaceBook: Caution!
OnlineGames: Idiot!
SCI: Idiot!
Fantasy: Avoid!
Usenet: Avoid!
AnythingElseOnTheNet: Avoid!
... less than 0.00001% on the 'Net is sane.
--==BIG DIFFERENCES==--
The Sturgeon's Law was first coined by Theodore Sturgeon, as "Nothing is always absolutely so. // 90% of everything is crud." -- but the legendary sturgeon seemed so appealing to the folksonomy that a whole legend on water pollution arose.
Let us explain the same process in !-declensions.
Theodore!sturgeon coins the famous phrase, and signed it, "Theodore Sturgeon". However, when it got eBooked, an Italian kidsafe checker, rigged to full protection, notices "odore", the which it interprets as "stench". "odore" gets deleted amid the name, leading to "The Sturgeon". Then, the!sturgeon is discovered by a kid unlucky enough to have a CAPTCHA, and the word is spread.
--==THE STURGEON AND I==--
When the Sturgeon!Mania reached me, I was eighteen or so. My dad chid me about the internet, himself having read My Useful Adage to give it to me -- he phrased it as such:
"Visualise the Internet as a sea. You have alot of knowledge in that sea, but also alot of sh!t. Now let us measure the proportions of knowledge and sh!t in the sea!Internet. What do you see? THE INTERNET IS 1% KNOWLEDGE AND 99% SH!T."
Later, when I was nineteen already, I found this site about "Sturgeons [sic] Law" that cited the sturgeon as-is, but instead of Theodore!sturgeon---due to an earlier incident with The Simpsons---I misinterpreted "Sturgeon" as fish!sturgeon.
In fact, I myself was a novel writer and posted heavily on eSnips, the which I dearly cherished as my last link and guide to fame. I was also---at least in my family---a reputed writer and ghostwriter for some time. Yet I always failed to obey ... the Sturgeon's Law.
- Mood:warning
"Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Suspension Bridge, Structural Collapse
[Three hours of fascinated clicking]
24-hour Analogue Dial, Batman, Cotton
William Howard Taft, Lesbianism in Erotica, Fatal Hilarity, Taylor Hanson, T-shirt
Wet T-shirt Contest"
At a glance, we see what the Wiki Walk is.
--==ANECDOTE 2==--
"I've been up all night doing research."
"Research? On what?"
"Well, it was supposed to be on the current geopolitics of modern nuclear weaponry."
"This is a Wikipedia page about Mick Jagger."
"I got slightly sidetracked."
--==STEREOTYPES==--
A Wiki Walk is a sidetracked Stream Of Consciousness often seen in people like Cloudcuckoolanders, speaking from both emic and etic viewpoints, love this Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness!
The emic viewpoint is that you never notice crossing the Cloudcuckoolander Line, while the etic viewpoint notices you got sidetracked by that Rasputin article the instant you delve into a study of hypnosis.
This is the true problem with Wikipedia---once called Nupedia---that made the prosumer generation cultural illiterates, driven by felt needs.
When you get into a Wiki Walk, you know your starting-point -- but you never know where you end up.
--==MISLEADING CLUES==--
"Are you skipping over topics like King Lear when mad? Is it true, mah friend, that you are at one moment struggling to learn the fine distinction of the Rule Of Cool, only to find yourself adding examples to the trope of Bungling Inventor in a few seconds? Congratulations, uncanny Herr Troper, congrats, you have discovered the horrors of <***Insert Scare Chord Here***> The Wiki Walk.
"The Wiki Walk is worse than either the Koala trope or the Pac Man Fever. Instead of saying that computers are 'base' and 'so-o Commodore 64' and that perchance the ZX Spectrum is 'cutting edge technology', NO. It says that computers are perchance what one meets---yes I said MEETS---in Diaspar or Lys.
"Cloudcuckoolander Alert, everyone!"
*
"Her wide eyes are staring into your soul with a lunatic gaze. She mutters her lunatic thoughts out loud in Incommunication. She seems to suffer from ADD or ADHD, but you just can't guess which. To you she speaks only the weirdest things, in the weirdly distorted English as is her wont. She calls you suh, or mah friend, or macushla, depending on which incarnation of her you are talking to. A mysterious pentagram, pentacle or hexagram, the which she dearly cherishes, hangs in a pendant about her neck. What she says seems truthy, wise-sounding or even oracular. She is of the kind that'd scare you crapless if you near her. Disturbed?! Congratulations, Mr Holmes, you seem to have found a genuine Cloudcuckoolander.
"The Cloudcuckoolander is one of the most mysterious character of all the Writers' Stock, and may or may not be dictated by the Rule of Cool -- at whim. She is generic mad, but friendly and not take over the world mad and not angry mad."
--== CONCLUSION ==--
Too Good To Be True, Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From.
DID I MAKE MY POINT?
- Mood:researcher
It is true that on some occasions artists want to go for oldskool and repixel their unwrought fantasies.
How should they do it?!
a) Use an MSDOS port of the program---say DeluxePaint---they wish to use.
Nope. The highest resolution: 8-bit VGA [320x200x256/262144] NOT the effect we want.
b) Use an emulated Amiga, an emulated dongle, set off a disk image, and run the original DeluxePaint.
Better -- 'though with the danger of the DeluxePaint detecting the "dongle" is a "shim".
This makes a powerful workstation humble itself to conform to the Amiga level and be an excellent platform for low-end multimedia.
Backward Compatibility FTW! er, WTF?
- Mood:
amused
Gamers like vintage. The 2D graphics, pixelled in down to monochrome, and on rare occasions 64 out of 512 colours, or 32 out of 4096 colours; the low-quality samples (8363 Hz, 8 to 14 bit), and beeps and boops that once were cutting-edge technology; ANSI graphics and sprites; blitters; vector displays; all this carries its own thrills, way far from the Uncanny Valley. Its own thrills that few modern children---even some gamer ones---would understand.
Why would they, when they have a brand-spanking-new XBOX 360, or the Wii, or the PS3, to play out their dreams?! Wouldn't NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams suffice to supplant the good old original Rayman 1 Gold?! Wouldn't Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas suffice to supplant and---heck---even SUPERSEDE old Filmation titles?! Why be content with the infantile Mario or Sonic?!
"While the PS3 Slim has attracted a lot of compliments for its design, it's also drawn questions about the various functions of its hardware. Ars Technica spoke with SCE's director of hardware marketing John Koller about everything from the presence (or lack) of a power brick to the ability to swap out hard-drives.
Despite the mostly positive reaction to the PS3 Slim and new cheaper price, the primary question a lot of gamers have was about backwards compatibility, which was present in early models of the PS3 but has been absent in the console's configuration since 2007. While certain fans desire backwards compatibility greatly, Koller shot down the possibility of it returning either in the form of new hardware or downloaded software.
'It's not coming back, so let me put that on the table,' said Koller. 'It's not as big as a purchase intent driver as you may be hearing. We've got such a substantial lineup of titles on the PS3; most people are buying the PS3 for PS3 games. They've buying it for PS3 games and Blu-ray movies. [It] won't be returning.'
That sounds pretty definitive to us. If backwards compatibility is important to you, the earlier models of the PS3 are your best bet, or just hold on to your PS2." -- INDUSTRYGAMERS, il pors GameDaily
Of course you would like your Sonic Unleashed at DeskHD [1680x1050] but we are saying here that PS3 is sh!t when it comes to backwards-compatibility. Namely it can't properly play PS1 & PS2 games ... look around Final Fantasy X on PS3, and we see substandard special effects, then Coconut Effects crashed, plus jagged edges AMPLIFIED, (*narr*)! Bad appearance -- BAD!
These games are intended to play in NTSC -- where there is little to no evidence of jagged edges. Also a tinge is noticeable in either PS2 or PS3.
Should we believe backwards compatibility in games? IN GAMES, BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY IS *THE* MOST FRAGILE.
- Mood: amused
Beware the moment when kudzu overtakes your story -- its mile-a-minute growth and quick-growing story arcs quite tend to confuse your gamers.
You can just go on with the confusion ... or do what cly5m did in his three games, "Kudzu"---hence the name "kudzu plot"; the incongruous capitalization is because cly5m writes all in lowercase---, "Turmoil" and more notably "Seiklus". That is, come up with a trope---as old as video games---which cly5m himself conveniently lampshaded: "But Thou Must".
--==ANECDOTE==--
you are at a bridge. at the opposite end is a tower that stretches upwards, out of sight. however, the bridge is broken down and you cannot pass. ... look, this is where your parachute fell!
stretch the parachute over?
> no
:ei
but thou must.
--==USE OF BUT THOU MUST==--
The RPG version of You Can't Fight Fate. The player is offered multiple options but they all lead to the very same fate.
"Or will you please reconsider?"
Dragon Warrior is the original etymology of But Thou Must, especially since the game uses a whole lot of thous and thees.
It was cly5m who popularised the phrase, originally as "but thou must." in the narrative-oriented ZZT game Kudzu, with a psychedelic/hippie/'70s/trippy lean, and it was used there just as confusingly as the rest of the game was.
"Or will you please reconsider?"
The Guybrush Threepwood series also used---'though implicitly---the whole unlampshaded trope.
have an ice day.
YouTube! HomeStar Runner! Tetes-A-Claques.TV! Google Video! Hulu! All in "wonderful" Adobe Flash.
The many ads on Ads by Google are Adobe Flash 9-centric and would make Arachne, our local and a little quaint Bowser Browser, CRINGE with unreadable data.
The reason? Arachne doesn't support Adobe Flash 9! It's bleeding obvious!
Let's take a brief look at Arachne. It is a 1996 system for use with Dial-Up modems for the then-emerging Web 1.5.
... Web 1.5? What the @#$% does THAT constitute?! The Answer is simple: it constitutes something in between the old BBSes---Web 1.0---and prosumerate WWW -- Web 2.0.
During the early, clever, nonprosumerate days of Web 1.5, there were no cable modems, advanced windowing gadgetry, nor were there ADSLs. The connection went Dial-Up---by analogue phoneline---at sluggish speeds, say 56 Kbaud at most.
Arachne supported monochrome CGA, EGA and a variety of tweaks for DOS, as back then Windows was not in so wide a use.
Whilst a YouTube video still may not be read by Arachne, this bete pour son temps might still read a blog or two -- a wisp from the prosumerate Web 2.0.
Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.
Examples: "I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I've had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!" The conclusion here is "You should give me an A." But the criteria for getting an A have to do with learning and applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us to accept---people who have a hard week deserve A's---is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might FEEL relevant and might even get the audience to consider the conclusion -- but the information isn't logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious. Here's another example: "It's wrong to tax corporations -- think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses!"
Tip: Make sure that you aren't simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making them feel sorry for someone.
Appeal to ignorance
Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."
Example: "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist." Here's an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: "People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists." In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven't found it, and it's the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven't found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn't exist.
Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence.
Straw man
Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive either.
Example: "Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who reads it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its readers should be left in peace." The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated -- in fact, most feminists do not propose an outright "ban" on porn or any punishment for those who merely read it; often, they propose some restrictions on things like child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers, not readers, for damages. So the arguer hasn't really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.
Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an opponent's argument, then you've really accomplished something.
Red herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.
Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well." Let's try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument:
"Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.
Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do."
When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent -- the fact that something helps people get along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.
Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?
False dichotomy
Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two -- and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends!
Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear the building down." The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question -- for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.
Tip: Examine your own arguments: If you're saying that we have to choose between just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven't mentioned? If there are other alternatives, don't just ignore them -- explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there's no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.
Begging the question
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we've discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion---which you might hear referred to as "being circular" or "circular reasoning"---or simply ignores an important---but questionable---assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase "beg the question" as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn't given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that's not the meaning we're going to discuss here.
Examples: "Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death." Let's lay this out in premise-conclusion form:
"Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.
Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable."
If we "translate" the premise, we'll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice: "decent, ethical" means pretty much the same thing as "morally acceptable," and "help another human being escape suffering through death" means "active euthanasia." So the premise basically says, "active euthanasia is morally acceptable," just like the conclusion does! The arguer hasn't yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking "well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?" Her argument "begs"---that is, evades---the real question.
Here's a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to make the argument valid is completely ignored: "Murder is morally wrong. So active euthanasia is morally wrong." The premise that gets left out is "active euthanasia is murder." And that is a debatable premise -- again, the argument "begs" or evades the question of whether active euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the premise. The arguer is hoping we'll just focus on the uncontroversial premise, "Murder is morally wrong," and not notice what is being assumed.
Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion. Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial and you've just glossed over them, you might be begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says the same thing as the conclusion, but in other words. If so, you're begging the question. The moral of the story: You can't just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you're trying to prove.
Equivocation
Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.
Example: "Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money." The equivocation here is on the word "right": "right" can mean both something that is correct or good (as in "I got the right answers on the test") and something to which someone has a claim (as in "everyone has a right to life"). Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like "freedom," "justice," "rights," and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, it's important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.
Tip: Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren't slipping and sliding between those meanings.
--==FINDING A FALLACY IN YOUR OWN WRITING==--
Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your own arguments:
* Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you're defending. What parts of the argument would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special attention to strengthening those parts.
* List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your claims and evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a particular claim, or it may help you look more critically at the evidence you're using.
* Learn which types of fallacies you're especially prone to, and be careful to check for them in your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely on weak analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see if there's a particular kind of fallacy you need to watch out for.
* Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping words like "all," "no," "none," "every," "always," "never," "no one," and "everyone" are sometimes appropriate -- but they require a lot more proof than less-sweeping claims that use words like "some," "many," "few," "sometimes," "usually," and so forth.
* Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents, to be sure they are accurate and fair.
You can make your arguments stronger by
1. using good premises, ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand;
2. making sure your premises provide good support for your conclusion, and not some other conclusion, or no conclusion at all;
3. checking that you have addressed the most important or relevant aspects of the issue -- that is, that your premises and conclusion focus on what is really important to the issue you're arguing about; and
4. not making claims that are so strong or sweeping that you can't really support them.
It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic -- if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you're more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence. To help you see how people commonly make this mistake, this handout uses a number of controversial political examples -- arguments about subjects like abortion, gun control, the death penalty, gay marriage, euthanasia, and pornography. The purpose of this article, though, is not to argue for any particular position on any of these issues; rather, it is to illustrate weak reasoning, which can happen in pretty much any kind of argument!
--==ANECDOTE==--
1 Several billion years ago, the Great Thrift made Earth,
2 a planet soon to be an insignificant pebble
3 infested with insignificant specks of life.
4 At first it was hell.
5 But the Great Thrift had his mercy,
6 and slowly created conditions as they are now; life formed.
7 With the last of these specks, the Humans,
8 the Great Thrift gave them thought.
9 With thought came Logic.
10 Logic was superstitious, so the Great Thrift said,
11 Be thou split into truth and lie,
12 Prince of a Thousand Fallacies,
13 Those who follow their flesh to lie
14 will for shame be shent as the fallacious;
15 But those who follow Me to use thy truthful half
16 shall keep in themselves the truth of the Great Thrift.
--==WHAT FALLACIES ARE==--
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others' writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the causal reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this handout, then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to help you look critically at your own arguments and move them away from the "weak" and toward the "strong" end of the continuum.
--==WHAT FALLACIES LOOK LIKE==--
Hasty generalization
Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate. usually because it is atypical or just too small. Stereotypes about people---"frat boys are drunkards," "grad students are nerdy," etc.---are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.
Example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!" Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.
Tip: Ask yourself what kind of "sample" you're using: Are you relying on the opinions or experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so, consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion.
Notice that in the example, the more modest conclusion "Some philosophy classes are hard for some students" would not be a hasty generalization.
Missing the point
Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion -- but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
Example: "The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving." The argument actually supports several conclusions---"The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious," in particular---but it doesn't support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.
Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if you've actually given that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you're claiming something big.
Post hoc (also called false cause)
This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this."
Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later-for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.
Examples: "President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime." The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other.
Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime rates. And that's what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should have something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and B came later!
Slippery slope
Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.
Example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don't respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now." Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won't necessarily take place. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things stop -- we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not yet been given sufficient reason to accept the arguer's conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal right now.
Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain of events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action. Here's an example that doesn't seem fallacious: "If I fail English 101, I won't be able to graduate. If I don't graduate, I probably won't be able to get a good job, and I may very well end up doing temp work or flipping burgers for the next year."
Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say "if A, then B, and if B, then C," and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.
Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
Example: "Guns are like hammers -- they're both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers -- so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous." While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features---having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence---are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share -- it'd be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.
If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world: "My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains---I work more when I'm stuck inside---and they're both kind of murky." So the mere fact that you draw an analogy between two things doesn't prove much, by itself.
Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion -- arguers frequently compare fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would violate the rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether these arguments are good or not depends on the strength of the analogy: do adult humans and fetuses share the property that gives adult humans rights? If the property that matters is having a human genetic code or the potential for a life full of human experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so the argument and the analogy are strong; if the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to survive on one's own, adult humans and fetuses don't share it, and the analogy is weak.
Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether the two things you're comparing both share those properties.
Appeal to authority
Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions -- he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.
Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather than just saying "Dr. Authority believes x, so we should believe it, too," try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person's reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.
Ad populum
Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else---supposedly---does.
Example: "Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!" While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn't determine what is moral or immoral: There was a time where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.
Tip: Make sure that you aren't recommending that your audience believe your conclusion because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if you believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always the right one!
Ad hominem and tu quoque
Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem---"against the person"---and tu quoque---"thou, too!"---fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person---ad hominem---or a hypocrite -- tu quoque. In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.
Examples: "Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is an ugly, bitter person, so you shouldn't listen to her." Dworkin's appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.
In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent's argument shouldn't be listened to. Here's an example: Imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn't smoke, and they've given a lot of good reasons-the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, "I won't accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!" The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in their argument---smoking harms your health and is very expensive---so your response is fallacious.
Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rather than on their personal character.
The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about someone's character -- if your conclusion is "President Clinton is an untrustworthy person," premises about his untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.
*klatsch* *KLATSCH*
*MMM-BOOM* *WOO-HOO*
Search'n for a Blatant Cause
Blame it on Da Menopause
Or perhaps the Stress And Strain
Credit Cards, Lumbar Pain
Creepy Children, Stoics, Spocks
Butcher'd English, Bono Vox
Mary Sues, or Pass-and-Fail
Psychedelics, Monorail
Fred's face discovered---NOWAI!---
Japan makes a Japander a lecher that leers
Sorry about the *KLATSCH* klatschsong,
We will be having news stories for years ...
*KLATSCH* *klatsch*, *KITSCH* *KITSCH* *KITSCH*
--== TV TROPES ==--
Have you ever stopped to think, WHY is "this world I am watching on the TV ... better and more realistic than reality?" To think WHY you are such a fan of anime?
An easy answer to an easy question; a dumb answer to a dumb question. YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE "MOTLEY" TV AND THE "BLACK" REALITY.
"To accept reality for what it is, represents a kind of mental parochialism." You might be thinking this way at the moment, especially because YOUR STANDARDS FOR TRUTH ARE DOWN and YOUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY IS DEFORMED BY A MASSIVE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY SCHEMING TO ELIMINATE THE INTELLIGENT REASONING FOR THEIR INSTINCTIVE PURPOSES.
This is done in various ways: the trope that the C64 is cutting edge technology, that is the Koala trope; the self-explanatory LensFlareMania trope; the children that look cute---even angelic---but SOMETHING JUST ISN'T QUITE RIGHT ABOUT THEM ... that is the Creepy Child trope -- "Do you not like me with my clown? I can see I make you frown." "Hellooo, mother deeaarr."---Now that's a heartbreaker!---or the oracle maiden. The last is too horrid to be spoken of.
But As You Are A Television Viewer, Probably All This Unreal Sh!t Is Normal For You ... Unless You Are Well Equipped!!!
--== CONFOUNDING CLUES ==--
"Her out-of-place British vowels or her twisted diphthongs and smoothed triphthongs will pwn you for sure. She, although a tween or early teen, may be 'wise beyond her years'---I assure you---and 'gothic' in a way. A Wunderkind?! A Child Prodigy?! No, congrats---especially if you mentioned she speaks in monotone key---congratulations, you have just experienced the horrors of an Oracular Urchin. Congratulations, Etienne, but I honestly doubt you will EVER part with her.
"She most often is a coerced McGuffin, perchance mind-controlled. However, coercion only plays a minor part here. She seems emotionless, usually has ash blonde hair and usually, 'though not so often, wears a white dress and an optional pendant, in most pendant cases with a pentagram, either to avoid confusion with a 'Hollywood Angel' trope or, to make her more eerie/creepy/spooky/uncanny/'there's-jus
"Can't stand this brand new arrangement of 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star'?! You feel there's something eerie about it?! What!!! a little off key? Well for your viewing discomfort, that ain't gonna change: Congratulations, Monsieur Poirot, you've run into another Ironic Nursery Theme.
"Used on TV especially in conjunction with a range of unescoted eyases, the Creepy Children -- eerie little monsters who use their spooky monotone tactics to LEAD THE HERO TO HIS DOOM!!!!!!!"
--== CONCLUSION ==--
Too Good To Be True, Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From. Television Can't Be Learned From.
DID I MAKE MY POINT?
Note that the only things known are that the odd geezer from the government is missing; that Autumn Dreams hide their software---which is already crippleware or ransomware---from New Revolution; that the hedgehog-man is still handing out flyers throughout Pasadena; that the last Muppet show, Mah Na Mah Na, is nothing but railing on Destiny Software; and that there is quite a bit of animosity---which, indeed, is no amity---between Arctic Fusion and the Jim Henson Muppet/SuitMation Corporation. As far as anyone knows, this could have happened ...
" ... but whatever the character of this agony be, the forming of the ratings body is painfully late," the spokesperson drew his speech to a close. He fumbled his fingers and took a whiff of his cigar.
He turned on the cassette phone, saying, "Take a butcher's at this!"
"Bi---gasp---Bill Gates vetoed the"---said the shrill voice of a pre-teen girl with breathing problems---"pronouncing of th -- the W-word, in -- in accordance with the United Nations' law---gasp---law, Resolution Twenty-forty-eight." It was clear the voice had a London accent. Then, a nerdy male voice with a Dutch shibboleth followed, "Chitchat Radio, 96.4 MHz."
"Whose voice do you think it is?" said the spokesperson. The hedgehog-man said, "I know both of 'em."
The spokesperson cried, "THE HEDGEHOG-MAN!!! AFTER HIM!"
The hedgehog-man did spin, out of the window, breaking the window, and ran for dear life ...
"Faster, Corporal Thorpe, faster!" the girl in the wheelchair urged the soldier to push her. She was already six minutes behind schedule.
They arrived as soon as they could at Mike Wiering's office.
Mike Wiering said, "Hey, how may I help you, Helen?"
Helen said, "Mr Wiering---gasp---did I do fine?"
Mike Wiering asked, "Perfect! Now let us con -- what does this sign mean? 'We'll drop da bomb on ya'."
Helen said, "It means we need something other than vapourware."
And Mike Wiering exclaimed, "Oh, @#$% ... "
--==MEGAZEUX AND OTHER AMATEUR GAMES==--
Not a true story, but it sums up the vapourware ethos just fine.
Vapourware is a computer product, any computer product, announced either while still in development or before development, and probably never to be released.
Amateur games in the era of game prosumeration abound in vapourware: SCI Studio 3, and nearly all of the GCSes; well, MegaZeux CAN make a good solid game IF you know how to use it, even 'though that's quite a lot of know-how to be held. However, even MegaZeux has its own vapourware-within-a-solidware: the infamous, notorious Autumn Dreams series. The only non-vapourware Autumn Dreams game is the CANS trilogy, there was a plan for a sequel, but it's vapourware---that's what Autumn Dreams and game prosumeration does to you, HAH!---Look at Sivion! Look at Honour Quest! Also, Spirit Revenge is an AD game that as far as I know, ISN'T vapourware, 'though there are a few bugs here and there.
--==OUTSIDE OF GAME PROSUMERATION==--
The second greatest example of this is Final Fantasy XIII and in the vaporware ultimate is Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. As Matt C. wrote, "So: hotly anticipated product? Check. Inexplicable and tactically weak delay? Check. Public assurances that the product hasn't been shelved? Check. The sound of millions of fanboys' hearts breaking around the world? Check."
--==WHY THE HAX0RZ LOVE UNIX==--
1. It Is L33t.
Unix/Linux/any other X-OS is free, cool to use and under a GNU/GPL License! The OpenSource programz r0x0rz!
Plus, using it is like programming---hax0rz think it r0x0rz to practise, practise, PRACTISE---and it is all based on the Internet.
2. It Does Not Endorse Anti-Semitism.
Look at Windows -- It plays commit charge according to gematria. Look at Wingdings: NYC = "Killing Jews is Good!"
3. It Is For Free.
What can I say? It costs only what the retailer needs, nothing of that goes to Linus Torvalds or the distromakers.
"Stuff is JUNK. I want to call up Klee Irwin and have him meassure my bowel droppings to see if they are sufficient!! That's all he talks about is the weight and size of people's []. He is a sick [] that looks like a creep. We should all pettition to get this stuff of the shelf. I can believe that it already hasen't been done. BUYER BEWARE. I have had nothing but problems with my insides." -- Phil McCraken
"I took colon cleanse for three weeks. i started taking one,two times a day, nothing so two,twice a day, nothing but hell!!! i woke one night with the worst pain i have had sence my appendix burst. i have had 3 children drug free and this pain was worse than childbirth! i sweated a gallon. i passed out twice! cramped all night, and felt like a horse kicked me in the stomach for a couple of days. I never had more than one bowel movement a day and honest to God thought i was going to die! not only should this product be banned the ass holes who make it should get a good cleansing themselves a bank account cleansing! this product is not safe! I would not wish the pain i felt on my worst enemy! buyer be ware!!!" -- jenn
"My brother bought the book, Natural Cures, and he let me borrow it to get my take. Not only was that book filled with fluff, that led to yet another book, but this, sadly, continues on to the newer books that he is now marketing regarding the sad state of our ecomony. I just got off the phone with a representative selling another of his books, Free Money, and he is was not aware that Kevin Tudeau, himself, on TV, for God and Everyone to hear, said that he is not making a penny on the book regarding Free Money, and, the price listed is not accurate. What I got from my conversation is that he is selling the book Debt Cures yet AGAIN to unsuspecting people that have already purchased it if they buy the new book, Free Money. HOW DOES THIS GUY SLEEP AT NIGHT?" -- Jacqueline
"So i got the book along time ago, and all he tells you to do is eat organic. Thats all this book is. you dont need to buy the book. the web site is a better choice, but still every cure starts with ... eat organic, get your body Ph to 7.7 or whatever. the book just tells you to go to the website. Definate scam. I think we all should boycott anything hes selling." -- Justin
"Yes, you can loose something with this amazing sauna belt....YOUR TIME!! I have this product for almost a year and me and my daughter used it and we did not loose an inch, all that it does it's got hot and burns your skin!!! Don't waist your money with this thing!" -- SARA
"In 2005 I bought into this system convinced that I would be able to trade stocks being guided by doing research on their Investools website and then after learning about the companies and their history and stock track record, I would be able to buy and sell stock practicaly risk free, by following their system of red and green arrow prompts. So I paid them $3000 to get started as a sucessful trader. The next day I was at their workshop only to find out that I need education to really suceed in this buisness. So now they have me convinced that the best education would be to invest in their PHd program. So that would enable me to use the system to it's highest and best use minamizing chances of failure. So here goes the sum of $20,000 to get my PHd. I did it because I wanted the protection of the education and I wanted to suceed in this thing. After 2 years on this PHd program I realized that there is no end to this education and I do not have the natural inclination needed to suceed in this industry. Now I am thinking, wait a minute, in the begining I was led to belive that I only neded to have this website, do my dudiligence homework, and follow the green and red arrow prompts, to be a sucessful, well informed trader. But that was the initial SCAM!!! I was misled at the very begining, and then spent all of this time learning so much crap,and I will never use it! I don't have the inclination for this trading and their tools don't make up for it. So it's time to get my money back! I was on a PHd program, so that meens that it should take some time to get that PHd, right? PHd's don't happen over night. So after 2 plus years the truth starts to take hold, we have been duped, scamed. So I have been back and forth with them. First it was ******, then it was ***, and she said no way, no refund. So I googaled them and that's when I desided to get out there and protest thier next two meetings here in SD. I got into a suit and tie, made a sign saying Investool's is a SCAM!! and went to their hotel veniue and protested with my sign and a flyer. That was VERY effective and fulfilling. I would like to encoourage all of you to protest their next meeting in you town. Just go to their site and put in your zip code and go and make your self heard in the most dirrect way possible 45 minutes before their meeting. I did it and it was a great thrill to be apart of something really effective. 'IT'S A SCAM!! Do your homework before you buy' That was good enough to have people come over to me and find out my story BEFORE the went in for the 'BRAINWASHING' starts. Want to make a difference? Demonstrait!! I went with my wife and she took pictures. I'll share them with you if I get a chance. LA is next on my list. Will you be there? After all that I am talking with *****,the 'Dirrector of operations" and she offers me more "education" to pasify me. I told her, 'Hell no'! It's $23,600 of my money that you need to refund me, nothing short. Forget about the $700. I lost using your arrows, just give me the money your company tricked me out of, and we are done. But no way. So I am all over their case and I hope to get to know some of you and we can meet in Feb in LA. See you there!! Greg..." -- Greg
- Mood:
confused
"All the programs taped from WZEN are for personal use only and businesses cannot profit from showing them. This will also be enforced with a cover charge for viewing.
"WZEN is scheduled to sign on the next day at 0445 local time. Good night.
"O say can you see, / by the dawn's early light, / what so proudly we hailed / at the twilight's last gleaming, / whose broad stripes and bright stars, / through the perilous fight, / o'er the ramparts we watched, / were so gallantly streaming? / And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night / that our flag was still there. / O say does that / star-spangled banner yet wave / o'er the land of the free / and the home of the brave? / / O thus be it ever, / when freemen shall stand / between their loved homes / and the war's desolation! / Blest with victory and peace, / may the heaven-rescued land / praise the Power that hath made / and preserved us a nation! / Then conquer we must, / when our cause it is just, / and this be our motto, / "In God we trust." / And the star-spangled banner / in triumph shall wave / o'er the land of the free / and the home of the brave!
"*beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep*
"*HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
The Signoff, or the Closedown. A common procedure in television?! Not Any More! It has been replaced by a vile phalanx of ephemeral films known euphemistically as the Infomercials, Talkshowmercials, Storymercials, etc., etc., or collectively Paid Programming.
INFOMERCIALS: 5-minute bites of idiotic mediocre quackery whose pitch mark lines make you dial an idiotic 1-800 number and spend billions trying to refund for an obvious scam. These take the form of PITCHERMERCIALS, TALKSHOWMERCIALS, POLITICSMERCIALS and STORYMERCIALS.
PITCHERMERCIALS: Parodied in Tetes a Claques, these are the most readily recogniseable for what they are -- idiotic advertisement mediocre quackery scams. They feature an attractive host who seems to be able to say only mediocrities such as, "Hey, pal!" and various pitch lines.
Beware of pitches such as:
Would You Pay: This lists outrageous prices that quickly decline before the mediocre Spammer Scammer Host rejects the past prices and hypes the lowest price possible for a scam. A really mediocre way to get customers a-flockin'.
This Product Usually Costs ... But Right Now You Won't Pay That Much: Of course you will, this is a scam. Once they get your credit card, they'll spend billions off it!
This Revolutionary Product: In fact, most products sold on Infomercials are substandard.
TALKSHOWMERCIALS: These are more devious than their cousins PITCHERMERCIALS. They take form of talk shows/chat shows in order to downplay the fact that they are advertising bunk they actually are. They are about 30 minutes in length and usually offer alternative medicine or other quackery like that. MANY HAVE BEEN SCAMMED WITH THIS, DON'T LET YOURSELF BE SCAMMED TOO!!
Beware of pitches such as:
Oh, No!/Uh Oh!: The Host goes into an exaggerated description of the problem of an "ordinary" product solved by the advertised product. Don't be fooled: the so-called "solution" is always or nearly always a photomontage!
Are You Tired Of: The host lists faults "solved" by the advertised product, but the advertised product does as much to address these issues as a brand-new chocolate teapot.
But Wait There's More: Yes sirree. More lies. Used to pitch "away" a payment. It does nothing; don't be deceived.
Not Available In Stores: In fact, the products always are available in stores at a wallet-ripping price.
STORYMERCIALS or EPHEMERAL MOVIES: Usually in Populuxe or doo-wop musical trappings, these are retro and even more devious than their close cousins PITCHERMERCIALS and TALKSHOWMERCIALS. Glamourous and flashy, bathed in fireworks signage, which is nowadays often mostly computer-generated, these are in general usage for the nowadays-much-appreciated retrofututistic look. They last anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours and do not feature pitch lines, but their essence captivates even better. In a word, they look just like ordinary movies. EVEN YOU MAY HAVE BEEN DECEIVED.
Beware of pitch lines such as:
If You Pay By Credit Card, You'll Also Get: Just a way to rob your credit card. Customers, don't give in!
I Am So Convinced That You'll Love This Product That I Am Offering: Who would?
Free Trial: Of course, this trial is not in any way free nor will it keep them from robbing your credit card. It's crippleware.
POLITICSMERCIALS: Lasting over 5 hours, these infomercials are only there during political elections and are trying to solicit a vote for the candidate advertised. Usually even less devious than PITCHERMERCIALS, but they are born out of the very same mentality as any other type of infomercial.
- Mood:
angry
In a discussion by Fischman et al. (2004), there was a tackling of how student journalists learn the ethical norms that define their future careers. They often did so by WRITING FOR A COLLEGE NEWSLETTER. For the most part, the student journalists worked in cohesive and insulated settings and were supervised by adults. Their work was---for better or for worse---sheltered from outside exposure or commercial constraints.
Consider how much of these traits may be applied to the PARTICIPATORY CULTURE. In a world where the line between the PROducers and conSUMERS is blurring, youth are finding themselves in situations no one could have anticipated a decade ago.
NO ESTABLISHED SET OF MORAL OR ETHICAL NORMS SHAPES THE ACTIONS OF BLOGGERS OR PODCASTERS! ...
The Ethics. The Book of the LORD our God, signd and seald of seuenfold with blood, Wheerein darke things were writ -- haard to be vnderstood. Also, the blocks of the Covenant, held safe in the Ark, on the which the hundreds, most likely even thousands of Commandments were writ, the highest being the Ten Commandments.
The Bloggers' and the Podcasters' writing is much more open to the public and can have much more far-reaching consequences. The young people are creating new modes of expression---demos, fanfic, zines, filk, mashups, ZZT, etc.---that are poorly understood by adults, and therefore receive little-to-no adult guidance. The ethical implications of these practices are fuzzy and ill-defined. Young people find that the information they put online to share with friends can bring unwelcome attention from strangers and even lead to cyberstalking.
Ethics are much murkier in MMORPGs, where identities are assumed and actions are fictive, designed to allow "broader rein" for exploration of darker fantasies. This leads to crime in the real world.
Essays such as "A Rape in Cyberspace" [Dibbel 1993], "Playing Politics in Alphaville" [Jenkins 2004] and "Bow Nigger" [Always-black 2004] remind us the participants in these fantasy worlds follow different morals as they confront each other.
There is a saying online that Internet is 1% knowledge and 99% sh!t. True -- with no ethical morals, WHO IS THE WATCHDOG?! Does the ability to mask one's identity or move from one community to another mean there are less immediate consequences for being antisocial or rash?
HOW DO WE MAKE THE CONCORD OUT OF THIS DISCORD?!
A PROBLEM, INDEED! ...
***
NOW WE PRESENT ...
--== THE TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM ==--
Simulation games. Made to be transparent teaching tools, but way too opaque. In SimCity 2000, for example, the computers are taught how to simulate a system and he game teaches kids what rules are in it ... slowly; BUT THE KIDS ONLY WANT TO MASTER THE GAME -- NOT recognise how the system's rules apply to their perception of REALITY. THAT MAKES IT EASIER, however, to see WHAT IS IN THE GAME than WHAT THE GAME LEAVES OUT.
Shrier (2005) developed a location-specific game for teaching US history -- the intent was to encourage reflection on the contradictory accounts of who fired the first shot of the American revolution. But the youth took all the information from the game AT FACE VALUE, acting as if ALL the information from the game was authentic.
"Professional" sites, in a style-over-substance fallacy, are made to seem MORE CREDIBLE than "amateurish" sites, as is a 3D game with flashy effects like Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess SIMPLY AND INHERENTLY MORE IMMERSIVE than a puisne ZZT game with a lot of ZZT Syndromes---to use Barjesse's phrase---like T2.ZZT. Put any lie on a "professional" site and it becomes an authority of blind dogma. Put any truth---yes, even that of God or that of ultimate rudimentary science, like two plus two make four---on an "amateurish" site and it will be frowned upon as a bald-faced diabolical devious lie forevermore.
On the Neopets site children had trouble spotting sponsorship -- if not overt advertising. THE CHILDREN WERE USED TO A SYSTEM THAT SEPARATED ADVERTISING FROM ENTERTAINMENT CONTENT AND EQUATED BRANDING WITH BANNER-ADVERTISING. With the advent of ADVERGAMING, the transparency issue becomes especially dangerous.
While playing Civilization III, students were adept at formulating "whatifinations" and testing them out during gameplay -- but they lacked a vocabulary to express HOW THE GAME MISCONSTRUCTED HISTORY.
STUDENTS ARE INDEED LEARNING HOW TO READ INFORMATION FROM AND THROUGH GAMES, BUT THEY CANNOT READ GAMES AS TEXTS!
"The Internet is more like a mall than a library; it resembles a gigantic public relations collection more than it does an archive of scholars" [Seiter 2005, p. 38]
Children need a SAFE PLACE in which they can learn all the skills they need as citizens, CONsumers and PROsumers, as they learn to parse through advertising and other messages from self-interested parties and separate fact from falsehood as they begin to experiment with new forms of creative expression and community participation.
Learning for the NEW AGE --; Half a league, half a league, Half a league onward!
***
YES WE CAN! We got YouTube, LLC! We got eSnips! We got all the Blog sites -- Blogspot, LiveJournal, Blogger And Much More! We got Last.fm! We got Hulu! We got Google Video! We got ZZT and MegaZeux! We got a SCI Studio 3 in development! We got cramoisy! We got Sphere and NovaSHELL! We got Inform, 7 already! We got Amazon! We got the Seventh Sanctum and chaotic shiny! We got the FORA! We got the CHAT ROOMS! We got AIM! We got ICQ! We got all the MMORPGs! We are going to make HISTORY!
An' with a li'l wee thrust from the Seventh Sanctum, we can all be creative! Write Filk or fanfic! Original novels to jot down for eSnips! Mux in a mashup! A WebManga, or a 'Zine!
WHAT IS THIS NEW AND EMERGING PARTICIPATORY PROSUMER CULTURE?!
The Web 2.0. Allowing for an endless possibility of Hermetic wonders. It, the COMPUTER SCREEN, forces users to PARTICIPATE, to TAKE ACTION ...
BUT SOMETHING IS BAFFLING THIS UTOPIA!
--== THE PARTICIPATION GAP ==--
The access to the opportunities distinguishes still the two castes: the PRODUCERS---the Moguls---and the CONSUMERS---the Muggles---and FELLS US BACK INTO CON-SUMERISM.
How Come? There are youth whose access to the Web 2.0 is limited---topping off into the extreme in rural and INTERNET ENEMY areas---and these children would, this being THE WORLD OF THE FUTURE, NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR COLLEGE.
This world where PROducers and conSUMERS blur into the glorious PROSUMERS -- unfortunately ISN'T ACHIEVABLE UNLESS INTERNET ENEMIES' SWORDS ARE BEATEN INTO PROSUMERS' PLOUGHSHARES and WE ALL WORK TOWARDS A UNITED INTERNET-FRIENDLY COMMUNITY.
"Philadelphia will allow low-income families, families that are on the cusp of their financial capacity, to be able to be fully and completely connected. We believe that our public school children should be -- their families have to be connected or else they will fall behind, and, in many cases, never catch up." [PBS, 2005]
This proves there are "Consumerish" communities who will KEEP HUMANITY CONSUMERIST. They would stop-at-nothing in claiming that CHILD EMPOWERMENT is against, "Honour thy father and thy mother ... " In the extreme, that is correct. BUT THE CHILD EMPOWERMENT WE SPEAK OF IS NOT MEANT TO THAT DEGREE.
I wouldn't go into a debate over whether Cress Albane is better than Harry Potter -- BOTH teach child empowerment in a way or another. YET WHAT IS COMMON IN THEM?! They teach child empowerment -- but at a terrible price.
PROSUMER CULTURE is largely promoted and proselytized by FRANCHISES. Children's access to Filk and Fanfic sites is LIMITED, as I said ... so watch out.
- Mood:teacher
The aforementioned res pavoris that makes all the Scenists barf is the newbie Seen [sic], where they mock the ’leet Scene amateurishly trying to pixel catapillers [sic] then touch it up with the new CS3 special effects (ooh, they depend on that!) and then present it as their own pixel art!
Then comes the wimpy world of mingling middlebies, where norm and form are appreciated, yet they are big wimps and are unable to take on themselves the full job of a ’leet Scenist, and put together the whole megillah to put it on their brand-spanking-new BBS.
Then come the grand and glorious, uberluxurious oldbies; they speak in ’leetspeak (they call it l3375p34k or simply 31337); pixel good scenes of heavy, heavy metal and gothic, avoiding rather than evading dirty tools; compose black metal MOD music on the Amiga 500; hack into programs with double dongle, and warez them to the general public -- these are the famous ’leet Scenists.
However, observing carefully the rather irrational and confused hassling in the Scene, I propose an adage: “You bin newbie, you stay newbie.”
Then, a question comes to mind: How to prevent your child from going snafu and becoming a retard rejected and ridiculed by his/her peers?
It all boils down to parents’ strictness and the first no, which should be started at approximately age 2. Too early or too late with it, your child is permanently damaged. Too early -- s/he becomes an outlaw or a cynic. Too late -- s/he becomes a spoiled brat and irredeemably unable to sustain him/herself.
The right period for the first no lasts only a few seconds -- and most parents know how to spot it.
If you are ’leet, don’t cry if you miss the first no.
- Mood:nerdy
