Messages

Is it gonna be secret this year as well? Or are we gonna tell people? Like on the forum?

Loominous; well, in the best of worlds, there need be no rules at all If all c&c were to be just constructive hints politely uttered while approvingly nodding your head, as in the hypothetical art gallery you mentioned, it would hardly be an issue! The thing is c&c is always "hot stuff", always subjective, and not always appreciated. You said it yourself.
It looked promising this time because Ildu is an artist you respect and who can deliver thoughtful and concise advice, but next time it may be Squalman on a bad day.
So my final word in this matter, re-post the picture in Critics lounge if you want critique. If you spot possibilites for improvements, you can even ask the artist if you may publish it on his behalf, and include your paint-over/pointers.

Now let's discuss this further in the sticky, and leave the thread for the contestors

I agree that we shouldn't nail any single ags-er to the cross or label him as racist or whatever at first sight. My previous post just said that Skyfire made a bullshit post, which was mainly to make him realise that it wasn't a matter of an isolated personal attack on DG's part, but a general opinion.

Now, enough flame-baiting, all of us. Let's go back to pertinent debating, or the thread is better off locked.

Skyfire, it doesn't matter what you think of DG, what you said back there on page 4 was still a bullshit post of paramount proportions.

Well actually, as Ildu said, this isn't the critics lounge. I don't want to sound conservative or so, and sure, a bit of encouragement is always welcome. However, c&c often side-tracks into discussions, and the thread will be cluttered up if people start arguing how a certain picture could have been made. In the critics lounge, people can back up their comments with paint-overs and detailed instructions. This is not the place for that. In the critics lounge, people must be prepared to recieve c&c, good or bad. This board can for some people be a sanctuary from that.
Cast your vote and include a concise motive.
Apart from that, including the contributions in the first post is a good idea.

I'm thankful for my family, my wonderful girlfriend and my great friends who arranged a surprise-party for me last night.
I'm also grateful I don't have to eat turkey with distant relatives and say grace and listen to random people testify how they owe their God/nation/president this and that while they get tears in their eyes.

None that I know of.

I'm pretty sure I must have some somewhere. Nah kidding, but serisouly, about the quote, was that really necessary? I mean.... spam ahoy

Rule number 1: "Is your post interesting, helpful or funny?"  Emphasis on the word "funny."  I think his post was funny. 

The Raggit has spoken.

Yeah, it doesn't say that it needs to be funny in a non-adolescent, non-male-chauvinist way

Rain dogs. Undoubtedly his best.

It's not his best album, but I'll be gone is probably one of his best songs.

EDIT: and, hm, I'll fix some new websites to link soon enough

Evenwolf, just wanted to take up some space in this...less serious thread to point out that your signature ares r0x0rz Great song!

Nacho, I don't even know why you're bringing violence/bombing/terrorism into the discussion.
To bring the discussion back to its track; from the start, I've never endorsed racism, "reversed" or "normal", I've said it's a difference in gravity when you kick down on an under-privileged group and when you kick up on a group who don't suffer any major discrimination due to their race/origin/gender etc.
That's what I said.
The topic of this debate (at least the part I'm partaking in, even if people try to put words in my mouth) has to do with whether it's worse to call someone "nigger" (whose heritage and social connotation I've been trying to pin-point) than an equivolent term referring to white skin. Yes, both are bad, terribly bad, but in my opinion there is still a difference.

The term 'reverse racism' is one of those buzzwords to describe what you are doing: legitimizing black racism because they are 'owed' something for having been slaves.Ã,  Every race has seen slavery, and none more than the Jewish people, and yet (I will say it again) why do they choose to live life on equal terms without clinging to past wrongs?

I can hardly demand that you back up all that; it's seems too dire a task. "None more than the Jewish people..."??, "...without clinging to past wrongs"...no offense, is there any group of people who cling on to the past more than the Jews? (Be it justified or not. I'm not accusing the Jews for anything, it was you who brought them into the picture.)
Seriously, Progzmax, that just seemed like the wrong argument to pick for this debate. Are you, pray, misstakingly referring to the Amish?

Thank you No ceiling fell on my head, I guess that's a good sign.

is as hypocritical as it is narrowminded.Ã,  Nice way to legitimize reverse racism, Andail!

Hm, I don't legitimize "reverse" racism (and please tell me what's reversed about it, isn't it racism regardless of direction?). I'm saying that I'm a bit tired of people who don't understand the difference in gravity when you kick "down" and when you kick "up".
The average white, western male don't suffer particularly from his race, origin or gender, and must simply accept that he can't run very big cases on racism etc, whereas when you attack underprivileged groups or minorities it's simply more serious, end of story.

Edit:
I'm not often called narrow-minded, so allow me to express a certain amount of indignation.
As for my mindedness, be it narrow or not, I have tried to broaden it all my life. I've been to arabic nations and been exposed to their hostility against "westerners". My girlfriend is from an islamic country and I've got pretty good insight in her culture.
The boxing club I'm a member of is in the middle of my poorly integrated suburb, and I'm the only "pure" swedish (aka white) person there, with one or two exceptions. Do you think the middle-east/african/whatever kids look at me and my western heritage with respect and awe? Not really.
But do I choose to start whining about it? Do I suddenly think that "nigger" is not as bad as "whitey" or whatever?

Darth, I don't quite understand your points.
Nigger is a word that has been used excessively during the major part of your nation's history as a derogation, to epxress how a person is worth less due to his skin colour. The word has been used overly as a racist remark, and people of various colours are still offended by it. The entire black community were subject to slavery 150 years ago, but after that they were treated like shit for another hundred years, and still treated questionably in many ways. Look at the demographics of your poorest.
Are there no reasons to be a bit careful with racist comments just because it's 2006?
And what's up with the "why isn't a black person racist when he comments the colour of a white person? etc"...well use your imagination, for God's sakes. Have the white "race" suffered anything during the past, or nowadays? Have your parents been forced off of buses because of their pale skin? Were their parents hanged from lampposts, refused jobs, spat on etc?
Why do you think it matters what you think about the word "nigger"? Isn't the important thing if there, still today, exist people who use it to express their hatred, and if there exist people, still today, who feel hurt when hearing it?
For you it's just a word, but, really...use your imagination here.

Nice theme, loomy. I might whip up something if I get the time

6 Day Assassin is basically one terrible puzzle after the next. But that's ok, I forgive myself, it was a long time ago.

*Eric refreshes page every third second to see when someone writes a consolidating post stating the opposite*

What bothers me the most is the plethora of tv-shows that american networks totally pour out over the world of television, all following the fools-proof moulds designed by huge teams of market analysts, promoters and professional material writers, which in the end makes every sit-com look like every other sit-com, every soap opera like every other soap opera and every reality show like every other god darn reality show.
Before anything is allowed to come even close to a viewer, it has to be groomed, polished and worked over by the endless rows of experts who know exactly what the broad audience crave, until the whole thing reaches a stage where the professionals dictate what the audience wants and the audience goes along and think they want it too.

I think when people discuss differences between cartoon sit-com X and Y, they don't realise how painfully similar these actually are, and that they both belong to a very narrow and crowded paradigm. Network pr, campaigns and commercialism only allow clones; the truly original stuff is too unsafe and may not appeal to the masses fast enough to yield profit.

Until we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones; copies of a prototype whose sole purpose is higher ratings quickly.

Learn how to use the forums, and consider what is of general interest to this community.
People have been patient and encouraging with you, so you're whining for no reason, really.

Andail: how about we tell the story when we lost our virginities to each other in mittens 2003? It was cold in the cabin...

Sorry, it wasn't me, it was AGA.
And it wasn't you, it was a sheep.