Messages

Don't you mean 10/1/2004? I'm confused

**These aren't the droids you're looking for.**

the patriot act was passed by congress and has no relation to the president. Yes, he could of vetoed it.

Why the hell would he veto something that practically gives the government power? Your point makes no sense. Not only that, where do you think these bills come from? At the end of a rainbow? Why don't you look up the origin of the Patriot Act and then tell me it has no relation to Bush?

Also, I still haven't heard a good reason as to why people hate John Kerry so far. Someone please give me an actual reason!

I mean, it's not like the guy murdered his grandmother and danced naked on her grave. The guy's only in trouble for not sticking to a clear decision. I welcome that. When it comes the  shit hitting the fan, he won't stick to the same path as more and monkeys fling wad after wad of faeces in his direction.

The size of a station's audience has little to do with whether or not it's reporters and staff are biased.  It just reflects how popular the station is.  It doesn't even neccesarily reflect the bias of the audience.  If that were the case, would everyone who watches say, "Roots" be supporters of slavery?  I hope not.  Maybe that's a wierd example, but I suspect the attraction to Fox News is that it's news-er-tainment.  It's not dry, factual, or based in reality like other "news" programs...it's just an endless barrage of baseless opinion and ranting.  Like proffesional wrestling.

I was talking about the influence of bias in society. It's already well-documented that FOX News reporters are biased. You have several gatekeepers (a journalistic term) in newsrooms that make sure people are hired to fit the agenda of a certain network. Any journalist can tell you that. Plus, Rupert Murdoch has publically admitted he's a republican supporter too. Not only that, the idea behind Fox News' establishment was an alternative voice to so-called "liberal media". Like I said, this is all well-documented.

But that's not what I'm saying in this case. I'm saying that that effect of bias is more wide-spread as far as FOX news is concerned. Because they reach more people, they have the potential to influence a greater number. Thus, the amount of right-wing bias in society increases.

Let me put it this way: Would there be just as much right-wing bias today if FOX News didn't exist? The media is a very power entity to influence people. To say it doesn't "reflect the bias of the audience" is a very foolhardy claim to make (no offence intended). If you think people aren't influenced in this way, you should do a little more research.

To prove my point, here's a fancy diagram:



The diagram is a model of the agenda setting process. It was created by two crazy guys called E.M. Rogers and J.W. Dearing. They say that the media agenda does influence the public agenda. To have a bigger audience means you influence more people. Thus, this increases the amount of bias in society.

Also, I disagree with the comparison to professional wrestling. Professional wrestling is way more honest.

Regarding the actual breakdown of political affiliations/bias among the media...the polls that I've seen (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head) showed that most media outlet owners (and they are increasingly small in numbers) are largely conservative.  Polls among actual reporters show that while they are mostly liberal regarding social issues, they are quite conservative regarding economic issues.

A reporter's social standing (liberal, conservative, left, right, whatever) doesn't really mean much because they have to conform to the ideology of a media outlet's gatekeepers. If they don't, their stories either get: a) rewritten with a change in ideology, b) thrown out and thus they risk unemployment. It's happened to me -- I've been rewritten to fit a certain ideology of a particular journalism lecturer.

And in other polls, most reporters say that job security and editorial policies of organisations rate as the highest professional values.

By the way, I should mention I'm journalism student, Anarcho. I get horny for stuff on media studies.



Also, as far as "Roots" is concerned, it wasn't really a good example to use. The mini-series was more of a story about liberation than slavery (and on another note, my Aunty Leslie was nominated for an best Actress Emmy in that mini series too [She played Kizzy]).

Regardless, it would have been better to use Birth of a Nation as an example.

I find it strange that people say the media is owned by right-wingers when there are an equal number of people saying there's a liberal bias in the media (case in point, CBS's recent problems). I guess it just depends on your perspective.

My opinion: FOX has a bigger audience, so there's a greater right-wing bias.

Also, I never understood why people say they hated Kerry. I have not really heard one substantial reason from anyone as to why they hate him (and by substantial, I'm not talking "He flip-flops!" or "He's exploiting his military career!" or "North Korea loves him!"). I mean, if you're going to call Kerry a flip-flopper for first being for a war and then later against it, you might as well call Ron Kovic a flip-flopper too. And I guess the late author and soldier Ernest Hemingway is also a flip-flopper for calling any war a crime, no matter how justified.

It's stupid mentality to call people flip-floppers.

And every reason I've heard so far has been based merely on twisted perceptions. I haven't heard anyone say they hate him based on his policies. Why hasn't anyone brought out any of his policy decisions and said, "I hate this policy because..."

I mean, Bush attacked Kerry's National Security plan during his debate, saying it won't work. Why? Cause Kerry was an untested man. Bullshit. Bush has been tested, has no real plan or policy for post-war Iraq, and yet expects the American public to believe Kerry's plan won't work because he hasn't been tested. Why hasn't Bush attacked the actual plan? Did Bush even bother to look up the plan. I know he had the opportunity post-debate because Kerry pimped his website sometime during the beginning of the debate. I don't know who else looked up the plan, but I've found some probs with it. For example, "Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil" -- Okay, that's fine but where will the oil come from?

Look at this table from the US Department of Energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls

US oil is in decline, while Middle Eastern Oil is one a steady rise. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but Kerry's plan isn't really practical, unless he's got magic oil pixies hidden somewhere.

Now, think about that. I've managed to pull apart one of the key areas in Kerry's strategy based upon facts, yet Bush didn't even do that during the debate. He just used the same tired rhetoric. And he had every opportunity to argue based on actual facts. In fact, my argument  sounds like a proper Republican arguement. I'd make a better Republican president than Bush and I'm not even Republican... or American!

I don't hate Kerry. Never have. Can anyone who hates Kerry (or hated Kerry before the debate) tell me why they do so?

There is actually a license, but it only wavers Chris Jones from any responsibility when you make your game (e.g. copyright issues).

Also, the legal info page has some important info in regards to commercial sales of your games and third-party licenses. It's best to have a read, so the legal info page is here: http://www.agsforums.com/aclegal.htm

Apart from that, go crazy.

HOORAY!!
and there's my Colossal Man T shirt, and my hairy leg, and my sandwich, and my soul patch, and my Dave Gilbert's arm!  Why am I showing all of this off?

You do realise you have a plate growing out of your nads?

Kinda like this video: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bush-bs.html

Sure, I don't know what the hell Bush is talking about in the clip, but I bet he sure as hell means it.

No, he was stalling with the first thing that came to his head while he tried to figure out what the hell "tribal sovereignity" meant.

Even if he was stalling, he sure sounds like he believes in what he says. Notice the satisfied look he gives at the end of the first part, even though he explains nothing really.

From what I understand, Rodriguez gave Miller co-directing credit -- That's how much influence Millar had on the film. So much so that Rodriguez quit the Director's Guide due to their one-director-one-film policy.

I also read news reports that Tarantino directed some of it too.

Ah, the Chronicles of Ruddock. I could go on and on. He came to Brisbane last year to pimp the latest detenion centre that's going up in our eastern suburbs. I was doing a news story on the centre with a friend whose Dad used to be head of Amnesty --  Ruddock always wore an Amnesty badge when he was immigration minister. While in Brisbane, Ruddock called a meeting with certain specialist groups and people, including my friend's Dad. Her Dad asked him during the meeting, "Why do you keep embarassing Amnesty?"

Ruddock didn't have an answer.

Also, from an ABC news story: "An audience of about 50 million people are believed to have tuned in [to the US debate]."


EDIT: Just finished listening to the debate. Boy, oh boy, did Bush screw-up with his point on the war crimes court. Try making a coherent (and logical) argument out of that one.

I think you just did. 

We had our debate a couple of weeks ago and Howard lost to opposition leader Mark Latham (who speaks quite well) 66% to 33% which is the same percentage Howard lost in the debate in the previous election which he won. so it's not always a guide.

That's cause last election they had Children Overboard. If they want to win, they'd better pull something similar, though that's doubtful cause Labor will just call it Children Overboard 2 and call Howard a rodent.

I'm not going to get into Bush bashing.  As DG said, though he may not coherently form his thoughts into speech, I do think he believes in what he's saying.

Actually, I was Bush-bashing when I said that. I meant that yes, he believes in his actions and his opinions, but his actions are very misguided and his opinions don't have much basis.

It's kind of like Iraq. Bush says "Yes, invading Iraq is the right things to do."

Why?

"Well, WMDs and mobile weapons facilities and terror and Sept 11."

Eh

Yes, he believe strongly in invading Iraq, and people saw strength in that. Only problem is that believing strongly in something often blinds you from reality.

I only saw the clip of Kerry and the whole "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war, but the President made a mistake in invading Iraq, which is worse." Probably the knock-out punch, right?

Bush I think that whatever insane ramblings Bush gives, he sure as hell believes in whatever he's trying to say.

Not always a good thing though.

Kinda like this video: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bush-bs.html

Sure, I don't know what the hell Bush is talking about in the clip, but I bet he sure as hell means it.


Right now I'm listening to the whole thing via net radio.

I guess I just don't like politicians like Kerry, he promises everything, and I don't believe he could do half of it....

Four words:

No child left behind...

What is a Photoshop Prhiday? - The original name for this competition, which I cunningly stole from SomethingAwful. And I do it again. *sip* Good day!

See this link:
http://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop/

And for other examples, see here:
http://www.worth1000.com/

The two above websites should give a fair idea of what is involved. Also you can check out the earlier Photoshop Phridays in this forum.

Note: Photoshopping isn't drawing a completely new image -- It's editing images to create a new image, such as editing one image or combining several images.

Also, you don't have to specifically use Photoshop -- Paint Shop Pro, MSPaint, or any other programs can be used.

This week: Costume Party!!!

I've got the beers on ice, the bowls are full of chips, and my angry neighbours are out of town. Now I just have to wait for the guests to arrive at my fabulicious party.

Your job: dress any AGSer in a costume. Can be anything: a pirate, a ninja, Urkel... Just as long as I can recognise who it is. (Don't want any unwanted riff-raff crashing my party! Hmph!)

The party goes for seven days. After that, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here, you crazy kids!

He doesn't post here because he doesn't want to. He used to, but not anymore. And there's no point explaining whyÃ,  because a) it's been three or four years since he left and the story isn't all that interesting or relevant nowdays, and b) it's one of those things where "you had to be there".

He has his own website and forums, but I'm guessing you've found already them. And I don't think he accepts many offers for joint-gamemaking ventures. He's a real auteur gamemaker, but you can always try asking him.

Oooo, burn!

I'm with Rode on this, but if my extensive knowledge of hentai adventure games provides any insightful advice, it's that you should tie yourself to a chair and expose your panties to him. Repeatedly. And maybe with a tentacle alien raping you from behind.

Don't worry. Soon they'll develop a Das Kapital Expansion Pack for their out-of-reach audience, including all Marxists, beatniks, and bong-toting hippies.

On a frightening note, I bought Sims 2 and noticed my guy playing on his computer. Aimee, my younger sister and famed AGS game reviewer, walked into my room, looked at the game and said, "That's fucking sad! You're playing a computer game about a guy who plays a computer game!"

Hooray! I'll come up with a new one in twelve hours!

If you REALLY want something to laugh at...



RODEO CLOWNS!!

DGMacBuddha says: "The greatest adventure you can play is an empty template."

top ten adventures:
blank blank blank blank blank blank blank
blank blank blank. thank you.