text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It is logical to believe that a book written by Aramaic speakers, for Aramaic speakers, and about Aramaic speakers would be written in Aramaic.
Of course, by that time Paul had been all over the empire, so that observation isn't germane.
Please. If you knew the bible at all, you would already be aware of the various spots at which the gospels include quotes from the Aramaic.
"But what of Paul the Apostle? Surely this "Hellenistic Jew", writing to "Greek Churches" would have written in Greek!
And he did! Even the name Paul is Greek!
The custom of Palestinian Judaism at the time (under the Roman Empire, not like Babylonian Jewry under the Persian Empire) was that of dual language use.
The dual Helleno-Semitic nature of 2nd Temple period Judaism is admitted by all mainstream scholars (Jewish and Christian.)
Paul's Tarsus - in Cilicia, which had been Greek since the time of Alexander the Great (as was Antioch - which was primarily Greek in the days of Ss. Peter & Paul, as it remained until the Muslim conquest.)
Aramaic in the Jewish diaspora - same evidence as we have for Greek in the Diaspora.
The idea of Aramaic speakers as a 'race' is also quite false
Gentiles also included Latin Romans (called 'Kittim' in Hebrew texts), the Egyptians, Persians, Celts, Gauls, Goths and other Germans (all being garrisoned in the Holy Land at the time of Christ.)
Who brought the Gospel to our ancestors? Initially the Greek speaking Disciples. The Assyrian Church had initial success only towards the East (India, China, Japan) - but failed after it fell to the Nestorian heresy. So - why base one's faith primarily on anti-Indo-European sentiment?
If Christianity really is the fulfillment of Judaism, why would its sacred text be written in a language not commonly spoken among Jews? If Greek really were a common language of this people, please provide positive evidence, or point to where such evidence can be found, instead of appealing to anonymous authorities.
What then about the "lost 10 tribes", the Israelites? Since they are not Judean, are they Gentile? If so, we have yet another prominent Aramaic-speaking Semitic group, as part of "the Gentiles".
A interesting thought....contact Mel Gibson and compare Aramaic notes and sources...I'm sure his are original and "orthodox"...PAXjames
You were honest this time in one request - you aren't looking for reliable sources or hard evidence, simply for non-Western sources.
The evidence for Hellenic Judaism is so overwhelming from all disciplines that none have really ever challenged its existence
Why does Christianity as a fulfillment (and the continuity of Temple or 'Eucharistic Theology') have the Greek Scriptures?
However, it does illustrate how much racism and bigotry could be at the root of Lamsa's obsession.
Interesting thought - Christ spent his childhood where?
Because this was in Alexandria, Egypt, not Israel, a place where many Jews could not speak either Aramaic nor Hebrew, thus making a Greek OT necessary.
Because this was in Alexandria, Egypt, not Israel, a place where many Jews could not speak either Aramaic nor Hebrew, thus making a Greek OT necessary.
Judaism existed in the Greek-speaking world, but within the land of Israel, was not Hellenization greatly discouraged? The Qumran were outside of mainstream Palestinian Judaism.
A common argument made by Western scholars, especially by those skeptical of the Christian faith, is that none of the Gospels could have been written by an Apostle, or someone close to an Apostle, because of the quality of the Greek. It is assumed that Jesus' earliest followers lacked the education and exposure to the Greek language as to author such texts.
What reason is there to believe that George Lamsa was a racist?
Jesus spent his childhood in Nazareth. The flight to Egypt was temporary, as to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocents.
The only time when Greek-speaking Jews really had to fear in Palestine was immediately after the Maccabean revolt (things normalized after)
Write some scholars, ask them what evidence we have for majority opinions on the subject
Qumran and the others outside of the mainstream?
Rather, the Greek of the New Testament varies with the author
Ethnocentrism is racism and bigotry. Anti-Hellenism is racism and bigotry. Anti-Westernism is racism and bigotry.ÂÂ
Truth is not determined by a vote of the majority.
Perhaps ethnocentrism is what prevents the Western world from seriously considering Aramaic primacy
Majority opinion is based upon evidence and logic - if it can be argued well, stand up to criticism and peer review, then it becomes the majority opinion. So, not voting, but what is *tested* and tried.
What prevents Western scholars from seriously considering Aramaic primacy is the lack of evidence, the existence of solid evidence (and continuous tradition) otherwise, and rational thought on the matter.
As for the internal evidence - there are idioms and puns in the New Testament that work only in Greek, or in Latin, or Hebrew as well - so, no, Aramaic primacy is not the more reasonable option.
The first one is a *big* mistake of Lamsa's - Christ was directly quoting the Psalmist on the cross.
There is no 'attempt to explain away' anything, because there are no mistranslations.
Interesting. Could you please provide examples? As far as the mistranslations in the Greek which I have alluded to, could you please explain them?
Psalm 21 in the Lamsa translation reads, "Why have you spared me?" Nonetheless, the Aramaic word which translates as "spared" in the Gospel can be confused as "forsaken."
If the Father is in the Son and the Son is with the Father, and the Father is always with the Son, how could the Son be forsaken? That sounds like adoptionism to me.
Can you believe this glaring contradiction? What difference is there between a "good man" and a "righteous man"? Good thing in the Aramaic original, we find that seldom would one die for a "wicked man."
I know that Lamsa might be a lightning rod for criticism, but attacking the person rather than the actual argument is never good form. Furthermore, misrepresenting him as the entirety of the Aramaic primacy movement isn't accurate. That's like claiming that the theory of evolution is false merely because Charles Darwin popularized it.
As I've stated before, the Aramaic Peshitta is the traditional Biblical text of the Malankara Church. If you could show that it is not the authentic New Testament, but rather merely the copy of a Greek original, please do so.
Nope - not interested.
Yet it isn't - and don't let their sophistries talk you into it. It is a mystery of the Faith, not something you're going to figure out mathematically - go back and read up on "kenosis."
No contradiction
Apples and oranges. Lamsa is being exposed because of his being presented after the manner of his cult-followers.
The Aramaic peshitto is the traditional text - or does the Malankara church use the Nestorian editing of the manuscript?
Also, no question about its authenticity
Is there any book or website which refutes Aramaic primacy, without resorting to strawmen and personal attacks?
Could you please cite a source for this?
The authentic New Testament would be the original, anything else would be a copy.
Hate is a term of preference - the change in modern English for the term 'hate' was not intended by the translators.
And, as I've pointed out before - you're still trying to untangle the 'forsaking' like it is some mathematical puzzle. It is present in the Hebrew, is present therefore in the Greek
And, like it or not - Lamsa *was* a cult leader who associated with other cults.
See if you can make the argument without using Lamsa and his arguments?
but you now make a Western demand for citation of sources?
The urge to try to find some 'pure primitive' text or Church - that isn't Orthodox.
Orthodoxy is the pure, primitive Church, as founded by Jesus and the Apostles. And if His words will never pass away, there must be a New Testament text that preserves what was written in the original autographs.
Not necessary as long as the author is still around, and I don't think the Holy Spirit is going away any time soon. Perhaps you have read the life of St Mary of Egypt, who quoted the scriptures to Fr Zosimas despite not having a bible to hand her entire life.I remember St John Chrysostom saying something along the lines that scripture was only necessary because we were so useless at purifying ourselves of the passions, otherwise we would all become true theologians and have the Word of God in our minds all the time.John
How in Mor's good nameone hundred fifty four postsNo Rachel Weisz picSelam
I remember St John Chrysostom saying something along the lines that scripture was only necessary because we were so useless at purifying ourselves of the passions
How may I purify myself of the passions?
Die.There is absolutely nothing WRONG with the Passions as long as they do not consume us.
Even if that were true, it could not be used as a logical argument against his scholarship.
Here is another example, the imfamous false prediction of Matthew 24. Did Jesus foretell His second coming to happen within the first century, or is "generation" nothing more than a mistranslation?
Facts are facts, both in the West and in the East.
Orthodoxy is the pure, primitive Church, as founded by Jesus and the Apostles. And if His words will never pass away, there must be a New Testament text that preserves what was written in the original autographs.
How may I become a more selfless person?
How may I become a more selfless person?
Sure it does - where it exposes bias and agenda.ÂÂ
I should point out - you've argued Aramaic primacy pretty much solely from Lamsa and his followers.
Nothing 'infamous' or 'false' about it. 'They knew Him in the breaking of Bread, Alleluia'. We have a Second Coming everytime we partake in Holy Communion (or rather, partake in the only Second Coming, the same way we bloodlessly partake in the Sacrifice on the Cross.) The abomination of desolation occurred in 70 AD - the generation had not passed. That has been the traditional view, and doesn't require a 'cooking of the books'
1) As Paul says in an Epistle, pray without ceasing. (The Way of a Pilgrim is a good book on this.) and...
Is it me, or is this conversation getting nowhere quickly?
Right you are, which is why I have requested an outside source which confirms that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, rather than talking in circles any longer.
Page created in 0.172 seconds with 25 queries.


text:
Welcome to Newmak Technology
We Design your success...
Web Design HTML5, CSS3
We can design for you, the most eye-catching, content rich and navigation friendly website, to put across your messages to your target audience. Our expertise in the latest software and technology enables us to take up the complete process of web development.Learn more
Web Development Web Applications
If you need a website for promotion of your business along with e-commerce and several other functionalities, you definitely need a web portal, which will help you to organize many different sections of your business in a unified manner.
Web HostingAffordable hosting service
Newmak Technology provides web site hosting solutions backed with great care and support. We provide you hosting solutions ranging from home users web site to high-level companies.
Logo Design Awesome Photoshop Design
Your logo must be unique, memorable ... and simple. The creative team at Newmak Technology blends inspiration, design skill and marketing expertise to create logo designs that perfectly reflect your company brand.
Why Choose Us?
- We're Affordable
- Full-service company
- No on-going costs or hidden charges
- Fast turnarounds
- We are fair and honest
- We wear ourselves out trying to make customers happy
We're Affordable
Our streamlined website development process and highly skilled website designers allows us to provide our professional website design at very competitive rates. Prices start from as little as just Rs.2500 and because there are no hidden charges, this is the exact price you will pay for a professionally designed website.
Full-service company
We don't just design websites or just create logos, we can help with every aspect of your brand online. This can make your life much easier because you won't need several agencies coordinating to build your overall online strategy.
No on-going costs or hidden charges
Some website design companies will charge you the full amount every year, however we do not – our website packages are single payment websites with no annual fee. All our prices include all you need with no hidden costs. We believe in transparent pricing so you can see up front, all the costs you are likely to incur before you proceed with an order.
Fast turnarounds
We always try to efficiently deliver all websites as quickly as possible without affecting the website's design or functionality. We provide everything needed to get your business online efficiently.
We are fair and honest
We develop websites and design projects for you, so once approved you will own the copyright, domain, design and imagery. We believe that this is how it should be; you paid for it so it should then belong to you, no strings attached. We are a small, honest agency and we play by the rules. We offer advice and support tailored specifically to you, not 'one size fits all' solutions so that we are all working together towards achieving your organisational goals.
We wear ourselves out trying to make customers happy
The easiest way to get new customers is to have happy customers who then tell all their friends, family and colleagues about us. Making you happy actually makes our lives easier as we all know referrals are always a great way to build a business. So, we'll work tirelessly to make sure you have a website you love and tell everyone about.
We're always looking for customer satisfaction, Such that we try In addition to providing an excellent design, Our customers are able to we offer the best support, All of our customers are always satisfied.
Customer Satisfaction
Client's Say
I couldn't be happier with my choice of using Newmak Technology for my new website.
Sabari - Director – Kripa Construction
Newmak Technology have taken our business to the next level.
Parthipan - CEO, Pollachi Coconuts
Newmak Technology did a neat design and delivered on schedule.
Alex - CEO, Smrtisys
More Services
- Newmak Technology provides web site hosting solutions backed with great care and support. We offer web site hosting options after understanding the site's objectives. We provide you hosting solutions ranging from home users web site (who have a site for the first time) to high-level companies.
Are you looking for domain name registration service providers in India? Your search ends here! Register your desired domain names from a leading domain Registration Company at cheapest prices. Just check domain name availability and buy domain names fast and simple with Newmak Technology.
- Our voice Call enables you to communicate with your customers by calling their Mobile/Landphone numbers anywhere in India with a pre-recorded voice message through a fully automated Online System.
- SMS Marketing is useful for all types of businesses, especially in targeting the local customers. With the help of bulk SMS you can increase your sale by 200% in just a couple of days during the festivals or promotions.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
From a calming cup of coffee with a friend to a production line meal service, modern kitchen furniture has to play many parts. Having the right combination of storage, service and style is a must for kitchen tables, chairs and beyond. Give yourself the convenience of a few of these kitchen integrals. Kitchen islands and carts, for example, offer additional service areas for those busy meal preparations and also provide extra storage space when you need it.
If you still need space, pot racks are the ultimate space-saving marvels, creating tons of room where a cluttered mess existed only moments before. Durable and designer-friendly, pot racks are the solution to all of your bulky, awkwardly-shaped and excess kitchen supplies from strainers to woks and that wide basting pan you use for family dinners. Hanging pot racks utilize the seldom-used ceiling space to create a tremendous amount of storage room at arm's length. Wall mounted pot racks are also handy for making storage out of space, filling the empty vertical spaces in your kitchen. Finally, standing pot racks can be a chic alternative to the standard closet, great for storing odds and ends, decorative items or larger items that don't fit nicely into drawers. Whichever you choose, pot racks are a fabulous choice for expanding your storage in an attractive and user-friendly way.
Once you've sorted out your storage areas, it's time to take a seat. No literally, kitchen chairs are the next item on your shopping list. Available in a huge range of styles, sizes and heights, kitchen chairs offer you the well-deserved rest before, after or during your busy day. If you have a smaller kitchen, then you'll love how kitchen stools work. Taking up a minimal amount of space, kitchen stools can be tucked away in a corner, closet or under kitchen tables when out of use, but easy to pull out at a moment's notice. The other thing that kitchen stools have going for them is their height. Because these unique kitchen chairs are taller than most, you can use them together with kitchen islands and countertops.
Kitchen tables are integral for any successful kitchen. Kitchen tables are the place to sit and share meals, pay bills, do homework and so many other daily family activities. Sets are available with coordinating kitchen table and chairs, so you don't have to worry about. From kitchen carts to stools, find everything you could want in one convenient place. Get your kitchen in order with the right kitchen furniture for your home today.


text:
Friday, March 5, 2010
(One Of) The Reasons I Hate XKCD
I used to like XKCD. Like, a lot. I was embarrassingly fanboyish about some of the comics. When I first found this blog (I don't remember how this happened now; it was long ago and much has changed) I was an XKCD apologist. Unlike many cuddlefish, however, I was willing to engage in intelligent, reasonable discussion, and quickly found that many of the comics were indefensible. At first it went something like "well, he's having an off week." But that off week never went away. As is so often the case with this scenario, there's no one moment or one thing that swayed me. But in the space of a few weeks, I went from apologist to hater.
The problem isn't just that Randall stopped being talented, though, and often the posts here focus on what makes an individual comic so bad. This often misses the broader picture, and is part of why I started writing these posts in the first place. There is more than simply the details we point out, and it is in some ways part of XKCD's entire corpus. It is also why I used to like it.
The problem is basically this: Randall does not write jokes, as such. He writes inside jokes.
You see, Randall is synonymous with XKCD, far more than any other webcomic is synonymous with its creators. In almost every other comic--and I am including here Overcompensating, despite its function as a journal comic--there is a break between the creator and the created. There is none with XKCD. Perhaps it is the stick figure style, the fact that it started as doodles and notes he never really intended to share with anyone. But this is why the Megan thing feels so creepy--a phenomenon that I maintain would not happen with other webcomics--and this is why XKCD is so irritating.
I first truly noticed this phenomenon with the Tautology comic. Members on the forums started coming up with their own "tautologies" based on this. This appears to be fanboyish behavior, but I was unconvinced that this alone was to blame, because I was struck with how similar this looked to your garden variety inside joke.
Any social circle has inside jokes, and most social circles have at least one person who is the constant source of them. They are generally not, strictly speaking, funny of their own right, but to the social circle, it provides amusement which is derived almost entirely from being part of the ingroup. It goes something like this:
While getting coffee with his friends, an idea strikes a central charismatic figure for something that amuses him--an observation about something fairly mundane in the world. He mentions this to his friends, who agree that this is amusing, and come up with other examples. The next several minutes of conversation consist of coming up with and discussing examples, and picking favorites. If the idea is particularly memorable, or if it strikes the fancy of the central figure--if he really fixates on it--then this will become more than just an evening of conversation. It will become an inside joke. It will be a little game they play, where they come up with examples for each other.
This explains XKCD fairly well, but it does not, at first, seem to explain the proselytizing. However, one must recall that many social circles try to include other people in their inside jokes. They make them around others, they explain the origin stories. This feels validating. It's a form of social bonding.
Except with XKCD, the ingroup is essentially the entirety of internet culture--or rather, this is what they perceive themselves to be. XKCD is an inside joke for everyone who is into the internet; its fans do not see it as a comic but as a source of inside jokes--they are part of a massive social circle with Randall as its central charismatic figure, but which, they tell themselves on the forums, is filled with very excellent and very intelligent people.
This also helps to explain the utter shock that some XKCD fans demonstrate towards someone disliking the comic. If you express dislike for a central figure in any social circle they will react with confusion--this is not only someone they personally like, but someone who is at the core of their social lives and those of several other people. To be in that social circle and yet dislike its core is nothing short of baffling.
The problem that I have with this arrangement is not the community as such--I appreciate the internet's potential for community formation--and it is not the fact that inside jokes are not actually funny--every social circle has them and they can be quite enjoyable.
No, it is that this community, this feeling of being part of an ingroup, this sense that the ingroup is the entire internet, is a ruse. The XKCD fans think that everyone is part of the group or would gladly join it if they somehow missed out. They act as if the whole internet is their community, casually drop references or links whenever something that reminds them of one of their corpus of 700 inside jokes pops up, and then act hurt or confused when you tell them you don't like XKCD. Randall Munroe is not their friend. In all likelihood he will never be.
And so they try to proselytize and seek members for a community which does not exist, never once pausing to analyze their motives here, but always congratulating themselves for being part of such a wonderful community. And Randall Munroe cheerfully continues the deception, writing things with a formula that's pretty easy to repeat, inside-joke style, and writing about an array of things such that every member of his ingroup will have an opportunity to repeat the injokes. It is built entirely on a false premise and devotion to a concept that isn't even real.
98 comments:
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 12:21 AM
...but xkcd has always been like this. It doesn't explain why it stopped being good.ReplyDelete
- ScottMcTonyMarch 6, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Really? I read the first 75 today and they rang so strongly of a lone voice speaking tentatively to no one that the contrast almost made me break down and have a nice cry before I remembered that I am a man.ReplyDelete
- Mr. SunshineMarch 6, 2010 at 2:09 AM
XKCD is a brothel and Randall is the pimp
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 2:12 AM
I find it deeply frustrating how Xkcd somehow manages to be the inside-joke authority in fields that its author doesn't actually understand all that well.ReplyDelete
xkcd is not a religion, it is a cult.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 5:36 AM
Just don't read it. Why is it so bad it's worth the trouble of making a website hating it? Is it offensive somehow?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 6:03 AM
"[a] vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic."ReplyDelete
People are bored on the internets.
@Anon 5:36pm: You don't read movie critiques or book reviews very often do you?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 7:14 AM
IIRC the closest Carl did to this was when he talked about how XKCD has now premise or format and can pretty much do whatever it wants, which makes it all the more disappointing that it ends up sucking so often.ReplyDelete
"People are bored on the internets."ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 7:44 AM
Nah. Most XKCD posters don't go to the forum, they see the comic, then do something else. I hardly think Randall is a central charismatic figure. He does use in jokes, but they're very much just internet meme+idea+maybe maths or something.ReplyDelete
Otherwise, great blog. I generally read it after I read XKCD. If XKCD was bad, then this blog can be pretty funny. If XKCD was good, then it's funny to see you guys trying to justify disliking it.
- lostfrogMarch 6, 2010 at 8:13 AM
If XKCD was goodReplyDelete
*not bad
- lostfrogMarch 6, 2010 at 8:16 AM
If XKCD was goodReplyDelete
*not bad
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 8:28 AM
You keep saying that XKCD "used to" be good. In my opinion, it has NEVER been good. Can you point out a few of these older comics that you think aren't filled with pointless science references, creepy emotional stuff, or lame inside jokes?ReplyDelete
The early ones had a different tone, and I still find it somewhat amusing, if you understand the references. Not necessarily funny, but something to think about for a few seconds. Kind of like the 'lolcat' thing, but a little more serious in tone. Except for 709, which was just weird.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 9:57 AM
Well done, Rob. Another insightful and convincing deconstruction of the XKCD-fail machine. Keep 'em coming.ReplyDelete
- Sherlock HolmesMarch 6, 2010 at 9:59 AM
@Anon 8:28ReplyDelete
Your mileage may vary on whether you think the joke is any good or not (Hitler is a pretty played-out topic), however this one does fit your criteria. Also, pretty much all of the ones that are just sketches of something or other.
- Gamer_2k4March 6, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Just don't read it. Why is it so bad it's worth the trouble of making a website hating it? Is it offensive somehow?ReplyDelete
Well...in a way, yes. Bad things aren't a problem if they don't have followers, or if they're followed by a contained (and consequently harmless) group. The problem is when something is bad and a large and influential group of people continue to believe that it's good. In these cases, it's crucial to reveal the central figure for what he is: a talentless hack being followed by little more than sheep. And, like it or not, those sheep are pushing their way into our lives (see Rob's Rants #1). Because we're directly affected by this, it's our job to put a stop to it if possible.
Oh, and this reminds me of something. Can I make an outdated and only barely relevant rant here? Please? Thanks.
Okay, remember how in the September 20 post, we had a video of Randall talking about this blog? Near the end, he waves it off as people thinking "someone is wrong on the internet," much to the amusement of his fans. It's like he doesn't even get his own joke! The reason that idea is so absurd is because you're trying to correct someone who, in the big scheme of things, doesn't matter one bit! You're wasting you're time for the sake of being right. That's why it's normally silly to act because "someone is wrong on the internet." However, the guy who writes XKCD isn't someone; he's Randall Freaking Munroe! He's influential (well, on the internet anyway)! He has thousands of people who think he's the next messiah or something! That's why it's so crucial to correct him, and that's why his little "wrong on the internet" joke is completely inapplicable.
Okay, done now.
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Gamer I don't think you get it. It's only people on the Internet who disagree with you who are sad and petty. If they agree with you they're obviously reasonable people who just want somewhere to express their opinion.ReplyDelete
Except in that clip, he was referring to himself, not the blog.ReplyDelete
Aside from that, it's not "crucial" to correct him at all. If you enjoy criticizing it, fine - so do a lot of people - but claiming that anything about this blog comes out of necessity is just stupid.
Loved this whole essay, Rob. Continue your infallibility until you become popular and I am forced to hate you because of your rampant followers.ReplyDelete
Reposting this line for truth: "The problem is basically this: Randall does not write jokes, as such. He writes inside jokes."
- Giant SquidMarch 6, 2010 at 2:10 PM
This is a really astute way of looking at xkcd, but I don't think you're right to see it as a sham. The people who read xkcd and enjoy the inside jokeyness of it don't think that they're Randall's friends, they think that they're the friends of other people who read xkcd. So that when you say "delicious cycle" in a situation where it's appropriate, you and your friends share a moment of recognition. People don't just think that they find that enjoyable, they actually do find it enjoyable.ReplyDelete
In a lot of ways, I think that xkcd is the nerdy webcomic equivalent of Seinfeld (which I love). Seinfeld isn't great because it does things that are totally unexpected, it's great because it's full of clever little observations about situations people find themselves in. As such, most of the fun of being a Seinfeld fan is in finding yourself in the situations described in Seinfeld and seeing the humor in them. Same goes for the better xkcd's; the pleasure is in recognizing things that you can see and notice in your own life and realize that other people notice them too. I think that also explains why xkcd is so noxious to people who are annoyed by it; it's very nature compels people who like it to bring it up all the time.
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Long time reader, first time poster.ReplyDelete
What the fuck is a cuddlefish?
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM
Last question
I think that xkcd is the nerdy webcomic equivalent of SeinfeldReplyDelete
No, Seinfeld had characters with personality traits that were distinct. xkcd really has no characters, so xkcd cannot be the webcomic equivalent of Seinfeld.
A lot of the humor from Seinfeld basically came from the fact that all the characters were in different ways pretty terrible people and acted like complete assholes (whether intentionally or not). But they still had defined character traits, they were all assholes in different ways, and it was those characters that made the humor. If every episode of Seinfeld starred different people but was exactly the same otherwise, the show would not be well-received because then it would just be a bunch of random people acting like jerks, instead of established characters.
In the xkcd webcomic-verse, we have three characters. Mr. Hat fits the Seinfeld description pretty well but he shows up far too infrequently. Beret-guy really has no character traits, he seems to change in every appearance and the closest thing to a character trait is his weird obsession with baked goods. The final character is Megan who doesn't really have a personality at all except to be pined over by the other stick figures/Randall.
Giant Squid: the tv show or the stand-up comic? if it's the stand-up I agree; if it's the show I disagree.ReplyDelete
xkcd's humour is I think hugely GOOMH-based. The only reason people are slow to click that it's basically identical to Seinfeld's whole "ya ever notice..." style routine and call it out for the hackneyed crap it is is because the things being noticed were fairly leftfield, oddball, unusual, nerdy.
The laughter xkcd produces doesn't so much signify "what cleverness, what wit, what humour" as it does...well, some kind of convoluted social relations.
Hey did you know most laughter in everyday life isn't in response to a joke at all? Typically it just pops up in casual conversation as a way of establishing rapport. i.e. "Hey Joe long time no see!" "Hahaha hey Mack!"
"Looks like the weather is changing" "Ohoho you bet it is!"
The point I'm getting at is: the type of laughter made in response to xkcd is more towards the indicating-social-rapport end of the scale than the reacting-to-humourous-humour end.
xkcd is not actually funny.
- unibus pluramMarch 6, 2010 at 2:51 PM
You just summed up the behaviors of American television for the past thirty-five years.ReplyDelete
Self-reference and reflexive irony make it (xkcd) invulnerable to attacks because it's created this feedback loop that writes off attackers as outsiders to this tight-knit "ingroup," which has somewhere in the ballpark of 100 million readers a month.
"This is a really astute way of looking at xkcd, but I don't think you're right to see it as a sham. The people who read xkcd and enjoy the inside jokeyness of it don't think that they're Randall's friends, they think that they're the friends of other people who read xkcd. So that when you say "delicious cycle" in a situation where it's appropriate, you and your friends share a moment of recognition. People don't just think that they find that enjoyable, they actually do find it enjoyable."ReplyDelete
I'm not saying they don't find it enjoyable. I mean, obviously they do, or I wouldn't complain about them finding it enjoyable. The idea of people saying they only think they like something has always felt disingenuous to me.
And I'm not exactly saying they think they are actually Randall's friends. It's more that the premise of inside jokes is based in many ways on the social circle, or the origin of the jokes. In the case of XKCD, it's essentially an inside joke where it doesn't come from inside the circle and has no real basis in anything. Does that make sense?
Essentially, I'm saying the only reason people like XKCD is because they like XKCD, and so XKCD gives them a source of inside jokes. What I'm saying is the reason they liked it in the first place was the sense that this was a comic made by One Of Us--this false feeling that they were connecting with Randall, almost like this was something a friend drew.
And it's fine to feel a sense of connection with an artist, but usually there's something more to it than that. I may feel a connection with my favorite band, for instance, but I have actual solid reasons to like their music; with XKCD it appears to do nothing but cultivate a sense of connection.
"Nah. Most XKCD posters don't go to the forum, they see the comic, then do something else. I hardly think Randall is a central charismatic figure. He does use in jokes, but they're very much just internet meme+idea+maybe maths or something."
It's not just the forumites, though. You can't throw a stick without hitting someone who references an XKCD when they think it's appropriate. The forums are I think more indicative of the problem than part of the problem itself: it's where the worst of them go to perpetuate the idea. If it were isolated to the forum it wouldn't be a problem. But this sense of XKCD as a massive internet social circle seems to stretch to people who don't go to the forums.
"You keep saying that XKCD "used to" be good. In my opinion, it has NEVER been good. Can you point out a few of these older comics that you think aren't filled with pointless science references, creepy emotional stuff, or lame inside jokes?"
I'm willing to admit that I may have been deluding myself, though there are a few old ones I still think are either good or close enough that it gets a pass. That is: while it's possible that XKCD was never really good, I do think it has definitely declined in quality, and it was that decline which helped me break free from the "I love XKCD" mindset.
- Giant SquidMarch 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM
I should clarify with the Seinfeld thing. Seinfeld is good for many reasons, one of which is great characters and great interactions with characters. Not just the main four, but people like George's parents, Uncle Leo and the like who are just amazing. On top of that, though, is the "you ever notice" sort of humor, which lets people bring up Seinfeld in all sorts of common situations. xkcd really only has the second part of this, but, as a webcomic, it also has a little bit less time to do multiple things than does a TV show.ReplyDelete
Rob, I agree with you that xkcd basically injects inside jokes into peoples' social circles that come from an outsider, and I sort of agree with you that it defines an extremely broad community of people who use the internet and consider themselves nerdy. I guess I just don't see what's wrong with that, exactly. Social groups incorporate outside influences all the time; pretty much every cultural medium can create inside jokes, and pretty much every "cult classic" does exactly that. The argument that this is all xkcd does is somewhat valid, but I don't think is exactly right; I think that xkcd's appeal comes at least as much from showing people how many others are like them than it does from generating inside jokes for that community. Part of the reason I started to like xkcd was that I felt an identification with some of the things Randall wrote about, like coming up with rules about what tiles to walk on or finding all the pitches you can tap on a desk. In a way, I think xkcd involves the "did you notice" seinfeld thing with the group identification thing from pluggers. Neither one is really manipulative, but neither one is all that entertaining for people who either don't belong to the group in question, or don't feel a strong emotional connection to being in that group, or don't want to have to share their group with all the fans who think they're in it.
First: I think XKCD could be salvaged from the slag pile if it had great characters. Or characters at all. I am very fond of comedies and stories which are based on excellent characters instead of relying on jokes (it's part of why I'm not really a big comedian person).ReplyDelete
Second: My problem with XKCD is mostly that I don't see any reason for the inside jokes to get injected. Cult classics have some things which are legitimately interesting about them. XKCD's sole quality seems to be inside jokey-ness and references. When you reference XKCD you are basically not referencing anything at all.
I don't think it's manipulative as such, but I think it's a false premise. Maybe deception was the wrong word to use. I don't think Randall is sitting there producing comics in bad faith. But I think he's comfortable with his role as the arbiter of inside jokes. He's perpetuating a false notion. I don't think that makes him a liar or manipulative, but it does strike me as a problem.
As much as I hate to bring up the analogy because I hate to sound like one of those atheists, but it's like religion. I don't think that being religious makes you a liar or an idiot, but I do think that if you are proselytizing you are furthering what is ultimately a false belief.
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 7:20 PM
Character based comedy, so do you like Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 8:08 PM
@Anonymous 2:18ReplyDelete
This is in the FAQ, but a cuddlefish is the collective term for anonymous xkcd supporters
or something like that
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 8:23 PM
Cuddlefish means anonymous poster and since a lot of anonymous posters are not too bright XKCD fans it also means that sorta.ReplyDelete
It's also more broadly come to refer to basically anyone who posts here, especially one who isn't a regular.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Rob is the biggest cuddlefish of allReplyDelete
um if you say soReplyDelete
"Character based comedy, so do you like Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei?"
I'm not familiar.
I've always wanted to study the quantum mechanics of sucking, but these posts look so long...ReplyDelete
SO LONG FOR THE WOOOOOOOOOOORLDReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Ian said...ReplyDelete
"@Anon 5:36pm: You don't read movie critiques or book reviews very often do you?"
No, I don't ever read movie critiques or book reviews. But that's beside the point. To me, those are in place because movies and books are something that you generally pay for, or at the very least, will often make up the night's entertainment. A comic, is free and takes a minute to read.. If you don't like the author's work, then if you accidentally come across it somewhere, just ignore it and skim passed it.
I'm not a fanboy, in fact I don't care for probably most of his comics. It just doesn't seem worth the energy to me, and I'm just very puzzled/intrigued about this site's obsession about the comic.
"No, I don't ever read movie critiques or book reviews. But that's beside the point. To me, those are in place because movies and books are something that you generally pay for, or at the very least, will often make up the night's entertainment. A comic, is free and takes a minute to read.. If you don't like the author's work, then if you accidentally come across it somewhere, just ignore it and skim passed it."ReplyDelete
You're reading them wrong. Reviews are an art.
- Sherlock HolmesMarch 6, 2010 at 10:12 PM
I'll never understand why xkcd, that webcomic who's fanbase claims to be all about math in science is so often afraid of analysis.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM
>>You're reading them wrong. Reviews are an art.<<ReplyDelete
Thanks for clarifying this Rob, reading xkcdsucks makes xkcd amusing (again).
xkcd is like the party. There are no characters with their own personality because everyone has the same collective personality.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 3:13 AM
once again rob fails. miserably.ReplyDelete
Let's reverse your metaphor.ReplyDelete
That is, early xkcd was such that if a friend of mine brought it up as an inside joke, he'd maybe get a chuckle and it would become such an inside joke.
However, current xkcd is such that if one of my friends made a similar joke without it being an xkcd reference, he'd get a smack upside the head.
This is like when a comedian has warmed up his audience, they will laugh at jokes that would've tanked earlier in the act. Randall has warmed everyone up and his smack-worthy stylings are now gobbled up.
"xkcd is like the party. There are no characters with their own personality because everyone has the same collective personality."ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 6:43 AM
oh _the party_ not a party .. wellReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 7:19 AM
look I know you were here in the OLD DAYS of the web and all us YOUNG PEOPLE freak you out for being 10 years younger than you and you wear the fact that you were on Usenet when there was no way of communicating in anything but plaintext but it's 2010 and there's ways of emphasizing things that don't look completely retarded you might want to try them out because insisting on pretending it's still 1995 isn't going to make you any younger so get over yourselfReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 7:24 AM
Hell even if you want to pretend that technology is the same when you're a 30-year-old basement troll as when you were a 15-year-old basement troll there's STILL ways to *emphasize* certain words without looking like a total tool.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 7:30 AM
I am angry. ANGRY ABOUT THE WAY PEOPLE PUT EMPHASIS IN TEXT.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM
ymmd! I'm just too lazy to look up how to emphasize text here, but I'm happy that I could provide you with so much rage.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 7:41 AM
It's called HTML!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 7:44 AM
cool story broReplyDelete
Good to know, I wasn't aware of how to do that that either.ReplyDelete
R - Oh you. I was hoping someone would do thatReplyDelete
what ever happened to WMH anyways? The thought police must have gotten him.ReplyDelete
The fact that even WMH has moved on to twitter truly is the testament of the internet's doom.ReplyDelete
"Ian said...ReplyDelete
@Anon 5:36pm: You don't read movie critiques or book reviews very often do you?"
There's no comparison. Movie and book reviewers review a wide variety of movies/books as they are released to help you choose whether it is worth going to see the movie, or reading the book. That is totally different to setting up a site devoted to describing in detail what you don't like about every single thing produced by one man. I'm not saying I disagree with the reviews on here, but you can't deny this whole blog is pretty pathetic, and saying it is 'no different to movie reviews' is just nonsense.
What about batman? He's kind of like supervillainssuck.blogspot.com.ReplyDelete
There are entire websites dedicated to bloopers and goofs in media - people examine movies with a fine-toothed comb to see if someone's hand or a prop is out of place between shots, or if they can spot cables that should have been hidden.ReplyDelete
On the flip side, people send copious amounts of time on fansites and wikis, creating databases of every inconsequential piece of trivia they can find, and creating montages of clips backed by linkin park songs.
You troll those websites as well, I presume, and call them pathetic for dedicating so much time to a specific activity for no particular reason aside from being entertained by it?
"This one is dedicated to my fans, who complain that my posts are too long and ask if I have nothing better to do.... Hugs and kisses!"ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM
There *were* ways /for/ adding _emphasis_ on the Usenet.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 7, 2010 at 1:36 PM
"There *were* ways /for/ adding _emphasis_ on the Usenet."ReplyDelete
but the way that anon above decided to do it was retarded, and the fact that you decided to follow in his/her footsteps makes you retarded.
And if you didn't actually notice that anon above (I won't tell you which one; consider it a treasure hunt), then you're retarded for entering a discussion without having thoroughly read it first.
@Anon720: "Character based comedy, so do you like Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei?"ReplyDelete
I wouldn't call Zetsubou a character based comedy, just because it has lots of characters. It is more satire than anything else. Each character is meant to be a satirical rendition of a stereotype found in japanese culture. These characters (which are completely flat and static) don't really move the story forward in any way... because there IS no story. It's just these (many) characters are then put into a stereotypical (by japanese cultural standards) situation which unfolds in a satirical manner through clever observations and humorous writing. Don't get me wrong, I love Zetsubou, I think it's hilarious, but as with most satire you need to know quite a bit about the subject being discussed or you are not going to get any of the jokes. This is significantly different from character based comedy which generally do not have prerequisites to find humorous (besides having started reading from the beginning in some cases).
I also like satire, of course. Vonnegut is a wonderful writer and I was very sad when he died.ReplyDelete
Satire is marvolous. When done well, easily the best form of humour (imo).ReplyDelete
I have some Vonnegut in my room right now... Slaughter House Five and Hocus Pocus. I've yet to read either of them though, I was convinced to pick them up at a used book store almost a year ago but always found myself reading other things before them. I take it I should read them then?
Your tongue-in-cheek insult against Carl is so cute! YOU'RE ADORABLE ROB!ReplyDelete
Changing gears here.ReplyDelete
Rob, your post made me think back to when I first started reading XKCD. Friend of mine told me to read it, but I remember exactly which comic it was that made me respect XKCD.
Okay. This comic really feels relevant to this post of Robs. That comic was a bit of a shock to my system because like most Monty Python fans, I would take every opportunity to quote lines to other knowledgeable Monty Python fans. Not only was it a way of showing off my "knowledge" of a cult classic, if I was better at quoting the lines it showed that I was clearly higher in the pecking order for Monty Python knowledge. I never really questioned this behavior of mine until I read that comic.
At first I felt insulted of course. But then as I thought about it more, I realized how right he was. The irony of the situation was brought to my attention and I felt rather foolish for not noticing it sooner. The Alt-Text described a situation that I regularly would experience and I thought it was the greatest thing ever. The very idea that there could be a Monty Python fan who could think otherwise was completely foreign to me!
This comic was one of the instances of XKCD NOT using a simple nerd culture reference to get a laugh, and instead telling everyone to think about the foolishness of the situation for once... to stop just following the pack. It strikes me as Ironic that now, a website about how much XKCD sucks is what embodies that sentiment, rather than XKCD itself.
"You troll those websites as well, I presume, and call them pathetic for dedicating so much time to a specific activity for no particular reason aside from being entertained by it?"ReplyDelete
Is everyone who disagrees with you a 'troll'? Do grow up.
Looking for bloopers is, once again, no comparison. It's possible to look for bloopers or mistakes in a whole range of films and still love the films themselves. Indeed, I suspect that most participants to these sorts of websites DO love the films they are talking about.
Yep, I'm afraid I do find dedicating a whole site to saying that something 'sucks' pretty pathetic. Occasionally the contributers here try to justify it by saying that want to 'help XKCD improve'... but then, they also know Randall never reads this blog, so what's the point?
Ultimately, this blog is all about getting entertainment from writing snarky articles about almost every single xkcd comic, and then watching all the xkcdsucks fanboys come on and agree. Sometimes the blogs are right, sometimes they're funny, sometimes there are astute comments about what makes a good joke. Some of the contributors here could write a great site doing general webcomic reviews with a less obviously biased stance. Nevertheless, as it stands, the whole premise of the site is just kind of sad. Sorry if that bothers you but hey, I'm just trying to make it a better site :)
xkcdsucks fanboys? no one here worships Carl. there's about one positive comment about his person and posts to every ten negative.ReplyDelete
unless you mean that we're fanboys because we all think xkcd sucks, which is ridiculous. it's like saying technology forums are for technology fanboys, or that science websites are for science fanboys. it's absurd.
"Ultimately, this blog is all about getting entertainment from writing snarky articles about almost every single xkcd comic,"
yes. that is it. so? does there really have to be a deeper reason?
also bias is not bad.
"there's about one positive comment about his person and posts to every ten negative."ReplyDelete
Nonsense. Count them. Anyway, the fact is this is a community of people who have only one thing in common, which is thinking that something 'sucks'. You seriously don't think there's something a bit pathetic about that?
Come on. Everyone here reads xkcd, and then you all come on here to talk about how much you hated it. Then, a couple of days later, you still go and read the next comic, and then, once again, scamper back here to read someone telling you why it sucks. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Sorry, but it's just a bit sad.
IT. IS. FUN.ReplyDelete
why are you still here if it's so pathetic anyway
a question. what is your opinion on webcomic forums?ReplyDelete
"Nonsense. Count them."ReplyDelete
why don't you
"a question. what is your opinion on webcomic forums?"ReplyDelete
They're mostly pretty pathetic too. I think what's funny is how similar this place really is, though.
Still, what's worse, jumping on your computer almost every day to discuss how much you liked the latest XKCD, or to discuss how much it 'sucked'?
- AnonymousMarch 8, 2010 at 8:51 AM
I don't really see any difference.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
"Anonymous said...ReplyDelete
I don't really see any difference."
So your point is... you're both as pathetic as each other?
I rest my case.
And yet, you have clearly been reading this for a while...ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 8, 2010 at 9:44 AM
TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING YOU LIKE IS BADReplyDelete
ME READING SOMETHING I DISLIKE IS GOODReplyDelete
i rest my case
(the need to be condescending has filled this pathetic individual with cognitive dissonance)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 8, 2010 at 9:57 AM
NO EVERYTHING IS BAD!!!!ReplyDelete
Oh, poor concern troll. You could at least come up with a more compelling narrative.ReplyDelete
- AmbivaliciousMarch 8, 2010 at 12:34 PM
"I'll never understand why xkcd, that webcomic who's fanbase claims to be all about math in science is so often afraid of analysis."ReplyDelete
Well said, Holmes. That sums up the whole point of this blog pretty concisely.
- AnonymousMarch 8, 2010 at 8:59 PM
Who cars, they are just jokes.ReplyDelete
Just some dude telling jokes, not really even worth my comment time (wich makes me wonder: Why even press the "post comment" button?)
- XKCDSSMarch 8, 2010 at 8:59 PM
"Long time reader, first time poster.ReplyDelete
What the fuck is a cuddlefish?"
A cuddlefish is an inside joke. It's Rob's way of pointing out that this whole website should be taken with a heavy dose of irony.
- AnonymousMarch 8, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Except the popularity of xkcdsucks isn't entirely based on its inside jokes.ReplyDelete
It isn't? Shit.ReplyDelete
I'm not sure about the inside joke thing either. I found XKCD funny when I first started reading it (the older ones) without really knowing any 'inside jokes'. Now it's definitely less funny, but I don't think it's because it relies on inside jokes. Out of the last, say, five comics... do any of them use an inside joke? Ok, the R2D2 one I'm not sure what the hell it relies on, but I don't think it's an inside joke, just not a joke at all. The rest are all perfectly understandable by someone who's heard of maths, board games, sex dice and lie detectors, which practically everyone has.ReplyDelete
I would like to add in support of my post the following comment from the XKCD forums w/r/t the I Am comic:ReplyDelete
"Or possibly Randall was trying to start a new meme. Just attach "And this is my counterpart, R2-D2" to the end of any self-introduction."
I would also like to note that the shitfuckers on the XKCD forums are all calling Yggdrasil "the Yggdrasil" and I AM GOING TO FUCKING MURDER YOU RANDALL MUNROEReplyDelete
- MichaelMarch 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM
I like XKCD because I have a sincere love of bad jokes and math humor. Don't read too much into it.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 19, 2010 at 3:00 AM
Interesting point Rob. Much of humor is based on observation and people can observe the things in xkcd comics on a daily basis which makes them easy to reference which makes them kind of a inside joke to readers. I also find many of the comics funny. But please don't be such a hater/troll just because you don't enjoy his comics, read something you enjoy instead and lay off the hatorate. Life is too short to waste on things you don't enjoy.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM
well i think xkcd is run by a bunch of stuck up nerd prick hackers. not even a phrase but since this isnt xkcd i wont be ragged on about bad grammar.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Shun the nonbeliever.ReplyDelete


text:
Find Winston County Alabama police departments, precincts, and stations. Police departments provide information on public safety, police reports, dispatch, impounds, and policing.
Addison Police Department 16323 County Road 41 Addison AL 35540 256-747-1981
Haleyville Police Department 1901 11th Avenue Haleyville AL 35565 205-486-5201
Accredited Police Departments have gone through the accrediting process of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). CALEA is a non-profit professional organization that assesses the policies and procedures of law enforcement agencies. Accredited Police Departments are considered to have implemented best practices in law enforcement.What is Community Policing?
Community Policing is an approach to public safety that involves building relationships between the Police and individuals and groups in a community to help solve problems and prevent crime. Community Policing is intended to be proactive in nature by addressing social disorder and other causes of crime.What kinds of special purpose districts have Police Departments?
In addition to state, county, and local Police forces, states often confer police powers to other government agencies and entities. Special purpose Police Departments are commonly found at universities and colleges, transit authorities, port authorities, airports, and conservation agencies.


text:
Whole home inspiration and exclusive designer advice.
Flooring installation, warranty and maintenance knowledge will ensure years of enjoyment.
"Try on" different flooring products right in your own home
Find flooring that best suits your wants and needs
Use the Compare Tool to better understand your options
Creating an account is easy.
Already have an account?
Sign into your account to keep track of all your favorite items and create boards by room or project.
Already have an idea but need a little help? Try the SelectAFloor™ Finder.