Messages

Well, I'd perfer a cyborg body

Me too. I'd be part man, part machine... ALL COP!

Also: Earlier this year, I had a dream where I died and instead of waking up my soul started to float into outer space. So then I could explore the infinite reaches of space for eternity. Only problem was I only got a few lightyears away from earth before I woke up.

It'd be really cool if something like this happnes when you die. I like the idea of being a space explorer in the afterlife.

Maybe other souls are doing the same thing.

Perhaps I might meet my old dog Bugsy in outer space.

Helm wins this thread. Move along.

Yeh, I remember Rubican was the character in Dante's Inferno who liked to make lots of posts on the internet.

NOW EVANWOLF STOP TLAKING ABOUT DEVINE COMEDYS AND STICK TO THE TOPIC PLAESE

we have to get this maniac mansion project up and running pronto

ps. I actually like the name Grampa Stinky. Hehe. Stinky.

"wolfy"? Specism!!!

Just look at how you use more exclaimation marks than you do question marks, ya fucken punctuationist!

I reckon Andy Penis did quite a bit to advance the career of Andy Milonakis.

So yes, in hindsight, not my brightest idea.

Take DG.   He's always on the edge and gets under people's skin (usually individuals at a time)  and that's what I associate with "DGMacPhee".

I'm on the edge? When did I become the forum's own Martin Riggs?

I can't remember having ever seen any proper flaming on these forums. The worst name-calling usually takes the form of "you're stupid if you think that! *smile*". In other communities, you call somebody a "fucking faggot" even when you're helping them with their problems. I know, it's absurd.

I think it's because they're comfortable with each other and not afraid of offending delicate sensitivities. I know this is the case on one other forum I go to. You have guys and girls jesting each other, making fun of others but getting it as good as they give it. It's part of a relaxed atmosphere and no one is overly worried about offending others.

I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm saying it works in their case. As for AGS, I'm not so sure. I think if we resorted to a lot of playful name-calling, there'd be some people who wouldn't be able to hack it. I reckon there'd be a lot of confusion about what they actual intent was. Like is someone says "hey fucksticks!" I reckon it'll leave some some people thinking, "wait did he really mean to call me a fuckstick for serious or was he just joshin??"

P.S. GARDA!!1!

Even, you probably heard this a million times but you have a very Jimmy Kimmel look and way about you.

Thus, you should have your own late night talk show.

Should have told him how much you thought Krippendorf's Tribe was an awesome movie.

I've never claimed that television can't make you more intelligent, just that you've got to get away from the mainstream, market-driven stuff and seek out the quality content.

That's fair enough, but I still think that the mainstream TV has improved over the last 50 years, thus improving our intelligence.

I don't really see how this disproves my previous arguments. I see the commentary tracks as replacing a layer of information, not adding a new one (i.e, visual stays the same, audio is replaced). You're still processing just as much information listening to the commentary track as you are listening the dialogue track. You're not really watching the show and the commentary, it's either one or the other. If there are three different audio tracks, you just can't turn on all the streams and watch the show once, you'll have to watch it three times to get all the information. Sure, you end up with more information in the end, but you'll have to invest more time and effort in the process.

But you have to have an understanding of plot prior to listening to commentaries or else it's harder to link everything together. The fact that you're relating the two audio streams together, using the visuals as part of that link, is what's key.

I see what you're saying, but do you really think this is what mainstream media is doing? Sure, the geek who buys all the Star Wars spin-offs is piecing together a picture of the whole Star Wars "universe" from variety of different media, but it's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, any knucklehead can buy anything with a Star Wars logo on it, each with it's clearly-defined place within the continuity, and get the picture. That's a far step from collecting pieces of disparate information, somehow linking them together, and forming some sort of conclusion. It's not even putting a round peg in a round hole, it's picking up a round peg with a label that says "put me in the round the hole."

I don't deny consumerism can go overboard sometimes, but I do think there are many examples of how such can help intelligence. Consider Pokemon. Before I thought it was an easy marketing ploy. But I've never actually played Pokemon. There are kids who know the names of every single Pokemon as well as all their strengths, weaknesses, and history. This is a pretty complex game compared to something from my childhood, like Hungry Hungry Hippos.

You may not have implied it but that's how it came off. You're saying, "all them black people just want to get a quick buck," as if it were inherent in their nature. I'm saying that's bullshit. I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I've gone completely off the rails, the person I mentioned who sued Starbucks was white.

It came off like "that" because you were being a asshole and wanted to find a reason to flame someone.

No, it's cause you're an idiot. Me being an arsehole has nothing to do with it. Plain and simple, you said something stupid and retarded. About five or six people in this thread have said so.

It doesn't matter if I have the vile of Satan's arsehole or if I'm as holy as Mother fucking Teresa, you still said something retardedly racist and for this, and all your subsequent posts, I award you with the prize of "Dumbest Man Alive".

See, I don't make the distinction between black and white. I make distinctions between idiots and non-idiots. If the hecklers are suing Richards, they're idiots. If Richards calls them "niggers", he's an idiot. If a guy sues Starbucks because he spilt coffee on himself, he's an idiot.

Sadly, life doesn't work like that young one. Did the guy sue starbucks because he was called a cracker? No! You can't make distinctions the way you want to because society says that race always plays a factor. Besides, why are you always bringing up starbucks? It reallly has nothing to do with racism and you're only making yourself look stupider by trying to prove a point with it

It's because you think only black people will do anything get some money. The Starbucks example shows that black people aren't the only ones involved in frivolous litigation. Cause you seem to think there's something inherent in the nature of black people to always want to engage in frivolous litigation. Don't worry, you're not the only one. Mel Gibson thinks all Jews are money hungry. Of course, everyone thinks he's a dipshit too.

But it's obvious you didn't pick up on my point. Y'know, since you're a moron.

Having read this thread, I regret wasting my time attempting to argue with DGMacphee.

laters

Haha, of course that one game is the total summation of my work with AGS. And of course it so definitely wasn't made as a parody in response to another idiot who kept saying over and over he was going to make a one million hour RPG. And it's in no way taken out of context!

But forget all that because I don't have anything to prove to you since, for a start, you're a racist nutbag who thinks only black people will do anything for cash.

So, I'm changing the title of this thread. Enjoy!

Are you 12 years old? I implied nothing like what you're saying. If a black comedian on stage started to call a white man a cracker, no lawsuit would ever come up.

You may not have implied it but that's how it came off. You're saying, "all them black people just want to get a quick buck," as if it were inherent in their nature. I'm saying that's bullshit. I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I've gone completely off the rails, the person I mentioned who sued Starbucks was white.

See, I don't make the distinction between black and white. I make distinctions between idiots and non-idiots. If the hecklers are suing Richards, they're idiots. If Richards calls them "niggers", he's an idiot. If a guy sues Starbucks because he spilt coffee on himself, he's an idiot.

And if you seriously think the situation is proof that black people will do anything for money, you're an idiot.

It's interesting you mention how people react to the book. For me, I went from thinking all TV is shithouse to reading the book and deciding, "Wait, it's not as bad as people think."

*jumps in a plane, writes "SKYFIRE IS A RACIST" in the sky with smoke, then jumps out of the plane mid-air, does interpretive aerobatic dance to demonstrate the extent of Skyfire's racism, pulls rip-cord, lands on a cushion target with Skyfire's face drawn in the centre, pulls pants down, urinates on cushion target, makes love to Skyfire's mother, has children with Skyfire's mother, tells all of Skyfire's half-brothers and half-sisters they're better than him, and convinces them to give Skyfire a lifetime supply of wet willies and noogies.*

Too much?

Instead of replying to your massive TL;DR piece of text, I'm just going to reply to one part that negates a lot of what you said and proves that you are a product of a culture where TV can make you a more intelligent person.

Generally against the desires of the studio, or with their deep reservations, if the commentaries on the DVDs are to be believed.

Bingo.

DVD commentaries. Perfect example of how multiple threads are being tracked. Firstly, The Simpsons itself is show that requires a lot of intertextuality to understand it. But secondly, you're following that plus the DVD commentary tracks. Now follow what the writers, directors, producers and actors are saying (how they describe each scene, each reference, etc, etc) and think about how you piece all this information together.

I haven't listened to the commentaries for The Simpsons, but I've listened to commentaries for Futurama. If that's anything to go by, there's a lot of infomation being presented when you're watching both show and commentary track. If I were to draw a chart showing how all this information is pieced together, if would be very fucking complex. But somehow I'm able to follow it all.

Now, you might be thinking, "So I know a lot about The Simpsons. Big deal!" And it's similar to what you said here:

To me, it's like saying the new Star Wars movies are more complex because of the glut of promotional marketing and spin-off material surrounding it. Sure, I could go out and read the books, watch the cartoons, play the video games, buy the action figures, and build the Lego sets that explain who all the new, random, previously-unintroduced characters in Episode III are. But why? Even if I do know who General Greivous is, where he came from, which Jedi he killed, and his past relationship with Anakin and Obi-Wan, it's all completely inconsequential and meaningless with respect to the plot. The film is 45 minutes of movie and 2 hours of promotional tie-ins. It's a completely substanceless attempt to make me go by all the spin-offs and put more of my money into Lucas's pocket.

But this is where you miss the point. And I've said this many times, but I'll repeat it once more.

It's not the content that's making us intelligent.

It's our ability to see the links and to understand the relationships between entities that's making us intelligent.

The fact that you can understand how the complex world of Springfield works demonstrates your strong ability to piece information together. Likewise, my understanding of how everything fits together in Futurama. Likewise, the Star Wars geek who knows what General Grevious had for breakfast the day he killed such-and-such jedi.

The additional content seems inconsequential to the plot but that's besides the point. It's not additional content or the plot that's aiding our intelligence. It's what the additional content and plot does: they help us relate things together and they train us to form these links faster.

thems black people just wants to gets the money to buy more fried chicken and malt licka

DY... NO... MITE!!!

Not that I'm trying to be racist or anything but that just proves how far black people will go to get free money. They've always used racism as a trump card but now its going too far. What Michael Richards did is wrong but paying money for flying off the handle at some black people is just ridiculous.

No, that is a fucking racist thing to say. In fact, forget racist, it's just fucking dumb. You make it seem like the hecklers had this all planned in advance: an elaborate plot to heckle Krammer in the off-chance he'd go nuts, start calling them niggers, apologise on national TV so they had some justification for playing the race card and sue him? Give me a break!

I mean, Christ, this is no different to any moron spilling coffee on himself and suing Starbucks. Doesn't matter if you're black or white.

I do agree with Darth in some respects that the word "nigger" is just a word. It's like George Carlin said, they're just words -- it's the context that you use them that's racist. It's white trash piece of shit that's using the word that's racist. Racism exists outside of the word. And you can also use the word without being racist.

The comparison I make is like this: imagine two white guys. One of them uses the word "nigger". His name is Quentin Tarantino and is using it in Pulp Fiction: "Did you see the sign that says 'Dead Nigger Storage'?" We know he's not a racist. If anything, Tarantino wishes he was black.

The other white guy doesn't use the word "nigger". In fact, he's spoken about equality of minorities. However, you can tell in his voice he is a lying sack of shit and very uncomfortable around other races. And he has supported others who have promoted racial segregation. His name is Trent Lott.

However, in Richard's case, he brought up race for no reason whatsoever. It was unnecessary and retarded. And to say that black people couldn't say those sorts of things 150 years ago -- what was the point of that? Did he have it in his mind that Martin Luther King had a dream where his children could one day heckle comedy shows of cracker-ass honkies?

And fork up the arse? I mean, seriously! What the fuck was Kramer thinking?

As for "cracker ass white boy", I think if Richards brought up race, it's fair game for the heckler to call him a "cracker ass". That's why the black guy isn't being called a racist. He's trying to fight Richard's on the same terms established by Richards. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak.

I won't defend what he said, but it does appear to be an outburst of anger, not something stemming from actual racist sentiments. It was stupid of him to say those things, but does his saying them mean that every molecule in his body is fueled by racist feelings?

I agree that it might not stem from racist sentiments, but what I have issue over is the fact he got angry at them interrupting his comedy show and used their race as a means to retaliate. That's stupid, it's like accusing their blackness as the root cause for them interrupting his show. If he got angry at them and just called them idiots, then I could handle that. But there was no reason to bring their race into it.

DG, I really don't understand your venom. If you disagree with something I wrote, why the ad hominem attacks? If you want to hold a discussion like civilized humans and explore different viewpoints, we can. If you want to fight, the forums aren't the place, that's what parking lots are for.

Just because I'm not supporting my statements doesn't give you the grounds to shriek BULLSHIT whenever I type a sentence. You're way out of line here.

Christ, are you really that sensitive?

What "ad hominem" attacks? I never once attacked your character. Probably the worst thing I said was, "Haha, this coming from someone who calls himself 'big brother'." If you're so offended by that, get a sense of humour, mate.

I mean, do you really think I'm saying this stuff because I hate you or something? Because I'm not. I don't hate you or anyone here. But it does disappoint me when people make baseless claims. And not just baseless claims, but claims that turn out to be false. And then trying to validate them when there's no basis for validation. That's just sheer insanity.

Yeah, I call bullshit on what you said because it IS bullshit. You tried to tell me that TV viewership was going down when the reverse was happening. I'm all for intelligent and civilised debate, but get your facts straight first. Otherwise, I'm just going to think, "Jesus, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about."

Where did I say that interactivity doesn't engage people?

You tried to say that "intertextuality" doesn't matter to an audience when later you said it does. Intertextuality functions as a form of interactive engagement. Not only that, you're trying to say there's a shift away from TV even though TV is becoming more interactive.

Something doesn't smell right in what you're saying. Maybe you can offer a further explanation?

When did I say that we're getting dumber? But since you asked,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37/b4000070.htm
might be worth checking out.

That doesn't prove our cognitive ability is declining. That just proves online video games can be an unhealthy addiction. Using that article to prove we're getting dumber is like trying to say chocolate isn't delicious because it's fattening.

Big Brother has made a statement based on facts.

No, he didn't. He assumed. And he based his assumption on something that had no relevance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UomfLKQr57U


Edit by Andail:
Changed title.