text:
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Comic 705: Die Harder
Randall, please do not draw facial hair on your stick figures. In fact, please don't try to draw facial features on them at all, you've done it a few times now and it pretty much always looks like shit. Either you learn to draw for real, which won't be happening, or you keep it simple. You can't have it both ways.
We all know what's wrong with this comic. Right? Comics are a visual medium, even stick figure comics, and it's just not OK to have a talking head narrating the situation. It's pointless and lazy. The visual element of comics is a tool, it's the main strength of the medium over, you know, text. Showing something crazy happening is always more interesting, and usually funnier, than just describing it, whether the pictures are accompanied by narration or not.
The last line of dialogue here is also awful. Despite its flaws, this comic actually came pretty close to making me laugh (I've known sysadmins like that), but when I finished it, I went from ready-to-laugh Jay to disgruntled, glowering Jay in like a second. It's post-punchline dialogue, which of course is well-loathed, but worse than that, it's pandering. It's a shoutout to all the sysadmins in the audience, "hey, I recognize you!", to make them feel special. It spells out the punchline (so does the alt text), it's awkward, it's not something any human being would say. Not even in xkcd's universe. Don't believe me? Replace "sysadmin" with something realistic, like special forces op, anything. "Shit, we're dealing with an X." Italicized for extra emphasis. People don't talk that way.
In summary, there's a potentially funny idea here, at least for people who are aware of the sysadmin stereotype, but it's ruined by its execution. What a surprise that is. We'll be seeing each other again soon, but for now I'm going to turn you over to Carl. I'm grumpy, going to bed.
161 comments:
- AnonymousFebruary 23, 2010 at 9:38 PM
Actually, that "extraneous" line is what would give the comic it's punch, if it really had any. It's a slightly-dramatised way of speaking, slightly over-the-top like it might be in a movie, where we are expecting something movie-size cool. Instead we get "sysadmin". That's the whole point of the comic. You missed the whole point.ReplyDelete
The comic sucks but so does this criticism.
I guess it could be a parody of bad action movie dialogue, but I doubt it. I agree with Jay.ReplyDelete
Also, this reminded me of that Denzel Washington movie where he held a hospital hostage and pantsed a SWAT agent. I mean, it doesn't really have much to do with this comic, but man was that movie awful.
- AmbivaliciousFebruary 23, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Yeah, it *could* be a parody of bad action movie dialogue, but even with that benefit of the doubt that's really not a good place to put it.ReplyDelete
I said I was going to bed! I lied!ReplyDelete
Anon, if it's a parody, it's a lackluster parody, because people don't talk that way in action movies either. But it's not a parody. People talk that way in xkcd, because Randall cannot write dialogue, as he has demonstrated many times.
You are just wrong here. OK. Going to bed for real.
Dialogue like that actually does crop up in movies (and TV) - for whatever reason people love to "tell don't show" which is the opposite of how it should be imo. I sort of thought this one was funny.ReplyDelete
The current one: is it just me, or does the alt text, for once, contribute (even if just a little bit?)
- Nobody in particularFebruary 23, 2010 at 10:30 PM
If you're going to parody the way people talk in movies, make it obvious. Parody is exaggeration of action and behavior, much like caricature is exaggeration of physical features.ReplyDelete
If a reasonably-minded person can read this comic without even thinking that parody was even a possible choice here, then the writer has failed in its parody. Could Randall Patrick McMunroe have achieved that in four panels? Was he even trying to? Probably not. It's probably him just not being very good at writing.
Still, the problem with this comic, as has already been pointed out, is the reliance on overview instead of action. It would be pretty cool, funny almost to see a man break into a building, walk over glass, and beat up bad guys only to fix some broken wires. Decent use of anticlimax there. Instead? We hear a man explaining how somebody else did that. Show, don't tell. That's what any beginner writer learns.
- AmbivaliciousFebruary 23, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Way Walker's much-improved edit from a few posts ago deserves to be reposted right about now:ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 23, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Same Anon as #1.ReplyDelete
Your post is called "Die Harder". The comic features awkward dialogue specifically referencing Die Hard. But I bet it has nothing to do with action-movies, right guys?
Seriously, take the comic again, imagine Jay's edit. That is, take out the "post-punchline dialogue". Does it get funny? Does it get at all funnier?
Fuck no, but he's claiming it does. That's what I don't like here.
- AnonymousFebruary 23, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Same guy again. So I checked out the edit, actually shown and not imagined. It was better T_TReplyDelete
What have I doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooone
- Nobody in particularFebruary 23, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Better, still just tells us about something we'd much rather see, but at least it doesn't jam the joke into our heads.ReplyDelete
- TheMesosadeFebruary 23, 2010 at 11:28 PM
XKCDsucks is now appearing higher up than XKCD when I type "x" into the URL box. Strange, I still consider myself more of an XKCD fan than a hater. I like to think this site grew to something more than a hate site. Not to mention, here there is no meme spam (Except by you, anonymous)ReplyDelete
Comic 706.
You know what I realized from this comic? The awkwardness of 2 dimensionality. (I'm not even sure if I'm making up words now).
I decided to look (Pretty much purely) at the art on this one, and noticed several small, non-intentional humourous parts. Even funnier when I make it into a comic of my own, just take out the words. Panel-by-panel analysis, as people break things down easier when it's done like that.
Panel 1:
Art wise, there is NOTHING unique here. Wait, I'm wrong, these seem to be two stickfigures who do not suffer from a severance of the carotid and jugular blood vessels. That's right, total attachment here, the package deal.
Panel 2: OH NO! Stickfigure Left has severed his head, and collapsed his hand into a wave generator, possibly FM radio. Evidently, some freaky stuff is happening now.
Panel 3:
Gadzooks! His head is still off! His hand deflated back to it's regular pointy end, and no longer emits radio signals. But his head! Worse still, Stickfigure Right head has came off TOO! He seems to be questioning this odd anomaly, by way of raising his bony, pointy right-stick hand to his detached circle-head.
Panel Beat:
WHAMMMMM! Evidently some collision has taken place!
Panel 4: Stickfigure Right's hand has now metamorphosed into a defunct wave generator! His head seems to be falling off even FURTHER! However, Stickfigure Left's is once again in one piece. This is strange, but one a highly scientific mind can infer that Stickfigure Right has bludgeoned Stickfigure Left's head onto his body. The cartoon scars and stars (Holy wow, look at that rhyme there!) signify that he has indeed been bludgeoned! Lastly, he is on the floor, and his distinct lack of expression shows his emotional animosity with Stickfigure Right, for he had been bludgeoned by him, but he saved his life too from certain death by hemorrhaging.
Also, since there is no floor, we can safely assume that Stickfigure Left has also become a mario-jump shadow of Stickfigure Right, in his fondness.
Luckily, in this comic, sans text, we can actually assume a fair bit of what happened. My interpretation was just one of the less orthodox ways of interpreting it. Hope it was funny.
third panel is Randall trying to be "deep"ReplyDelete
- Nobody in particularFebruary 23, 2010 at 11:57 PM
Honestly? The most recent one isn't that bad to me. I feel it's a call back to some of the very early XKCDs. Sure, it's not very deep philosophy, and can be countered completely by "Of course we don't do those things. We have the ability of long term planning."ReplyDelete
But it's a simple enough thought, and the "punch"line (har har) isn't bad, though pretty well-tread territory. In the end, it's just some food for thought. Hell, if Randall didn't sound so preachy it might even be a *good* comic. Perish the thought.
- DudemandudeFebruary 24, 2010 at 12:04 AM
whoa man it's likeReplyDelete
like we can do whatever we want
but but the MAN is holding us down
fricking fascist
rules are for sheeple YO
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 12:38 AM
Ya, wouldn't have got this joke without the sysadmin. Then I got it on an intellectual level but not on a relateable level. Wasn't the target audience for this one.ReplyDelete
New comic blows dick. Seriously, the joke states that the action that constituted the punchline was predictable. Come on Randall, look at your comic for 5 seconds and you can see that.ReplyDelete
I don't really get the hate on the new comic. As far as xkcds go, it's pretty good. Plus, it makes for a great goatkcd.ReplyDelete
- Nobody in particularFebruary 24, 2010 at 1:12 AM
I haven't see Goatse in so long. Thank you, my friend, for bringing it back. I'm almost sincere here. It's liking meeting an old, horrible friend.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 1:32 AM
Revised alt-text: "Let's see how much he cares about uptime when we kidnap his wife and kids.... Oh. Right, a sysadmin."ReplyDelete
I agree here. I don't really care about whether people talk like that normally or not, I don't see the issue with stylised dialogue. People don't talk like they do in Pulp Fiction, but it's still a great movie.ReplyDelete
The major problem is the usual for xkcd, the post-punchline dialogue. Some people won't get it without it, but he should just accept that. People who don't get it until it's spelled out, won't find it funny anyway.
Also, it's a crime against the medium, that he just describe whats happening. He should have made the three middle panels into a Die Hard action sequence, with a concise narration floating over all of them. This could've actually been a great comic. Shame.
Panel 1:
Same as now
Panel 2
Image of guy climbing up through the ventilation duct
panel 3
Image of guy walking on glass
panel 4
Image of guy shooting bad guys
In the corner of panel 4:
A picture of hans having the phone conversation. His receiving phone talk bubble says "But then this guy broke in, and killed everyone we sent to stop him.", and is placed above panels 2-4.
panel 5:
Hans: Fuck, did he get the hostages?
Phone guy: No. He just reconnected the cables and muttered something about "uptime".
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 2:15 AM
Grrr, I hope 706 pisses you off. So predictable. And the "that's the beauty", doesn't make sense.ReplyDelete
Oh boy, the latest 'Freedom' comic is the best in a long time.... I didn't see that punch coming at all! I was sitting here thinking, gee, all this talk about random violence, I wonder how it's going to...WHAM!!! Right out of nowhere!! The guy talking about randomly punching people gets punched by his friend! It's funny because he should have expected it, and he didn't!ReplyDelete
The BEST part, though, is that among all the things in the setup that he lists as random things he could do, he mentions punching someone TWICE, just so you can be EXTRA amazed that you didn't see the punch at the end coming from ten miles away!
About 705 and Jay's criticism, I'm not sure the dialogue is that farfetched for an action movie parody/reference. It does throw the joke on our faces, which is just as bad. It's as if Randall has just given up trusting his audience to GET his jokes.ReplyDelete
About 706... not THAT bad. Up to the third panel it's usual xkcd with hammy dialogue and stick figures on hite background... then it breaks the layout for the sound effect and we have, at the very least, a very communicative "I'm fucking hurt" stance from Stickman on The Left. Actually, I think that's the only good thing here in this comic: that stance.
Other than that: punchline was telegraphed from the first sentence of the second panel; the stick people's heads don't connect with their necks once again; and the humor itself is no more than random violence, which is just as good as a substitute for a joke as pop culture references.
That's all for now. Mole out.
What I did like about the new one was that at least it was, on the whole, anti-left-stickman's-statements: it's true that you CAN be a maverick and break rules, but if you do you'll get punched in the face. Better than if it had been "OMG you're right! let's go do something quirky in public [ie sex!]"ReplyDelete
I like how everybody is suggesting that Randal should have drawn the action instead of just showing a guy on the phone explaining it.ReplyDelete
I agree that the comic is more boring as it is, and that "show, don't tell" is the right way to go, but..
Do you guys really think Randal would have been able to draw that shit, in a way that would make it possible to tell what's going on, with his shitty stick figures? If Randy had shown us what was going on, you'd be complaining about how terrible the art is. Shit Jay, you have a problem with the guy's goatee. I don't see anything wrong with it. In the same way that long hair on a stick figure SHOWS the audience that it's a girl, I think the facial hair does a good job of SHOWing us that we're looking at a bad guy right off the bat. It's a visual cue that plays along with Randal's style of art. I think it's appropriate and works.
Fuck me, did I just defend an xkcd strip? I hate that he threw in the post-punchline dialog to explain the joke, effectively ruining it, but that's it. I otherwise think it was a good concept and is otherwise a pretty decent strip. Certainly better than some of the more recent comics.
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 5:38 AM
Well I guess you'd be used to defending things you secretly hate, wouldn't you Ben?ReplyDelete
Ann, I think it was more "it sounds pretty rad punching someone in the face, but it's not the same when it's your face, innit?", which is a lame statement. It's just hipocrisy, instead of anything significant.ReplyDelete
Let's do an imagination experiment... Let's say the comic didn't go the way it did. Instead, it goes like this...
Panel 1: Everything the same. Epyhphany, "oh?" and all that.
Panel 2: Stickman-on-the-Right goes on how he could just punch the person he was talking to and all that crap.
Panel 3: Stickman Right adds "In fact..."
Panel 4: WHAM
Panel 5: Stickman Left with a bruise on his "face" complaining: "What the heck, man?" and Stickman Right goes on about some extra fauxlosophy.
Panel 6: WHAM
Panel 7: Stickman Right on the ground, realizes the reason people don't go maverick and take stupid decisions is that there are consequences.
And, just because it isn't Randall Munroe without it... Stickman Left delivers some PPD.
Well... this is a sketch of a script, but there. That's how it should go if it was a comic about consequences and all that. Alterntively, it could start with Stickman Right punching Stickman Left and then explaining, and then taking the consequences. Whatever.
Point is: now, it's just a comic about... how you shouldn't give assholes any stupid ideas? I dunno.
PS.: Ben, I think someone actually suggested a good alternative: showing AND telling. Rather, I'd say Randall plainly shouldn't have tried to tell a joke he wouldn't be able to.
I think I screwed up the sides... well, heck, you got it, left? ...I mean, right?ReplyDelete
- MilkshakeFebruary 24, 2010 at 6:11 AM
My takes:
705: Could be better if he'd made an attempt at drawing the action. He's done this before. It's possible. It'd be even better if he did it without stick figures, but we all know that isn't happening anytime soon.
So why didn't he do that? Is he in a rush to put something out on schedule? If that's the case, and he has a day job that's taking up the rest of the time, then he needs to slow down. If he doesn't have a day job, he needs to put more time into these things.
706: Professional Mole did a better take on this. I didn't like the original at all. "Oh, look, we only don't do stupid things in conversations because of social mores!" And why are those social mores in place? They didn't just form on their own, did they?
Oh wait. For the most part, they did. The ones that lasted the longest (i.e. "not punching people in the face randomly") did so because the people who followed them were able to breed. The ones who couldn't follow the rules found it harder to breed. Funny, that.
"Do you guys really think Randal would have been able to draw that shit, in a way that would make it possible to tell what's going on, with his shitty stick figures?"
Yes, I think so. Especially since we already know what he is trying to draw, having watched Die Hard several times, plus there would be included some narration.
"So why didn't he do that? Is he in a rush to put something out on schedule?"ReplyDelete
Well, Milkshake, I have a theory. First, the premises: we know Randall has no job and lives off his sales on xkcd store and other xkcd related business. Which means, yes, his webcomic is his job. I think he said that one time or another. Anyway, if that is not a fact then the theory is even easier to grasp.
Now, it was also mentioned at least once -- in the Reddit "ask me anything" rally, I think -- that he has a buffer. That's the center of the theory this buffer.
My theory is: Randall has no buffer. That's the best explanation for so many shitty/subpar strips in the first place: he's rushing. Why he can't make an extra effort to show instead of telling? Because he needs that strip ready for Monday, that's why! Why he doesn't connect those heads to the necks? Because the deadline is coming, and he has no strip to put on the site when midnight strucks!
Granted, it might be more complex than that, I think he might have had a buffer some time ago, but blew it on wasting his time making poster comics. Which are a good waste of time, seeing it makes him money and are an awesome view, but, without a buffer, he's back to rushing strips and making them even shittier than they'd be if he just took his time working better on them.
Bonus corollary: that is also the reason why he can't have an editor. See, he'd have to have the strip done, sent to the editor and then sent back with comments on improvement, and who knows how many times it'd take! But, on a rushing schedule, Randall just can't send his strip for review, or else he'll miss his updating schedule.
I rest my case.
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 7:02 AM
What with all the facial hair, climbing through vents and killing all these people I was SO expecting this to be something about Gordon Freeman. I either worked too much on the Half-Life code or it was too long ago that I have seen Die Hard. (Or haven't I seen it even? That'd sure cost me some nerd credits!)ReplyDelete
Of course there's PPD as usual, but I think for the alt text it IS acceptable to spell out the punchline. If Randall can't make enough money if he doesn't explain every joke right away, the alt text sure is a better place to do that than appending PPD. I just hate the completely unnecessary meme reference in the alt text. Why not just my own blog's server? Why would my cat's blog be hosted somewhere else? "It sure doesn't make any sense, but take this wacky meme reference!"
"Freedom"'s end is missing. Or wait, is it actually... no, no, this completely expected (and therefore not random) violence sure can't be the punchline! It can't be that lame, can it? (BTW, having someone actually punch someone else in the punchline sure was never seen before in recent xkcd comics.)
- Anon 07:02
- MilkshakeFebruary 24, 2010 at 7:34 AM
Prof. Mole: True, but also not a good model. You know it already, I'm sure, but if it's his job now, he should be spending plenty of time on each comic as it is. If it's his job, he shouldn't be half-assing things.ReplyDelete
Also, I took a second and dug out a much better sysadmin joke he did, way back. Notice that he didn't explain the joke.
706 reminded me of a calvin & hobbes strip where calvin talking about how the means justify the ends and etc, and then hobbes pushes him into a mud puddle so he won't get dirty, and calvin's all "dammit it's only meant to apply to me".ReplyDelete
it was - surprise surprise - better done than randy's. but hey i dunno it's not like he's ever read any calvin & hobbes is it? right hardly i don't think he's ever even heard of that comic i mean it is pretty obscure.
also it made me think of that whole thing all learner drivers go through when they realise wait the only protection they have from not dying in a firey steelsmashing collision when they sit in their little metal box of high-speed danger is because they trust complete strangers to obey some totally arbitrary rules and maintain control of their own little metal boxes of high-speed danger.
another argument for Professional Mole's no buffer theory: some fo randy's ideas (like that behind 706) aren't bad, but they need time to be honed into their best/most interesting shape. there's craft involved in bringing forward the ideas behind what you're saying ina way that's...artful. and above anything you need time to do it.
randy is clearly putting out raw incomplete half-formed 'i just thought of this' ideas, and it suggests he just doesn't have time to consider and rework what he's writing.
That comic isn't funny though.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 8:17 AM
Maybe if the joke was that we were so sure he would hit him, and then he doesn't. Because that is the new option for him. I think I would find that amusing.ReplyDelete
Come on, Jay! If you wanna complain about unrealistic dialogue, complain about the "walked across broken glass" line! THAT thing is awfully jarring; it's something that wouldn't be said in that kind of conversation, and is there ONLY to make the explicit reference to Die Hard. That is a clear token both of the "tell, don't show" mentality AND of Randall's terrible writing skills.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Racists, every single one of you.ReplyDelete
"As far as xkcds go, it's pretty good."ReplyDelete
I hate this argument it's akin to saying, "as far as feces goes, this batch doesn't taste to bad."
Ben: So what you're really saying is that no matter what Randall did, the comic would suck because he has no talent. Yes. Yes it would. Your whole line of reasoning boils down to, "the route he took was the best, because it doesn't suck as much as other possible routes." To which, I would refer you to the beginning of my post.
Did a crappy edit of the new one:ReplyDelete
I didn't know how best to deal with alt text, so I'll post it here, a few lines down for your spoiler-y convenience:
"Now, to publish my philosophical ideas before someone beats me to the punch..."
Did you cringe? I did.
Somewhere, at this very moment, Bill Watterson has developed a splitting headache.ReplyDelete
A new version of the latest comic:ReplyDelete
(Inspired by TheMesosade above)
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 10:20 AM
#1 and others, the humor in the comic is how it pokes fun at geeks for being cloistered and oblivious, not that it's a sysadmin doing things sysadmins don't normally do (like shooting terrorists).ReplyDelete
It would have been perfect if it had more panels and showed the story. People are taken hostage, the cables are cut. A guy shows up. He goes through dangerous situations. He repairs the cables. It's still set up like an action movie - you think he's going to call for help and rescue the hostages.
Instead, he gets a bag of chips from the vending machines and returns to his workstations, muttering about careless coworkers and uptime.
Obviously, that could use some tweaking and editing. However, it still would do a better job than the original.
This just goes to show that Randall should abandon the M/W/F update pattern and only update once a week. He should use the week to develop a good idea, bounce it off people so he can edit and revise it, then make the final product. I like his longer comics - almost all of them demonstrate his effort and creativity. Most of his short ones just seem lazy.
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Oh yes a guy who has a sight dedicated to a comic sucking yup that sure is going to be an objective sight no bias here noseree bobReplyDelete
Who the fuck cares about bias? Do you say this to all the fansites full of praise too? (I'm assuming there's fansites. Just seems like there would be.)ReplyDelete
You are biased against xkcdsucks.ReplyDelete
Therefore you have no right to criticise this blog, you fucking hypocrite.
You see, in an ideal world everyone is an opinionless automaton.
Lostman: I think xkcd would need a recurring plot, setting or cast beyond BHG and running gags to warrant a fan site.ReplyDelete
That was hilarious
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Just sayin having a sight dedicated to how much Xkcd sucks of course your going to say something bad about every single comic so it's not like it's the most convincing thing in the world?ReplyDelete
Anon 11:01AM. Are you saying it'd be more convincing if the blog was named "XKCDRocks!" and then criticized it?ReplyDelete
Not every single comic. Just the crappy onesReplyDelete
So... Most of them
Also your bias against this blog has failed to convince me yet again.
- ScottMcTonyFebruary 24, 2010 at 11:25 AM
You have it backwards. We don't think the comics suck because we're on this site, we're on this site because we think the comics suck. That, that really should be obvious.ReplyDelete
@Mike: He might be suggesting that if the website was called "BehindXKCD.blogspot.com - An in depth look at the writing, art, and humour of the popular web comic by Randall Munroe" and then proceeded to bash the comics, it might be easier for fans to swallow. =)ReplyDelete
@Anon 11:01 - You're right about the site having bias, but that doesn't make the arguments any less valid. FTFA: "Replace "sysadmin" with something realistic, like special forces op, anything. "Shit, we're dealing with an X." [...] People don't talk that way." That is a valid point that I agree with. People DON'T talk that way. Maybe it matters more to Jay than it does to you or I. I don't mind that the dialouge isn't believable, but that doesn't mean what Jay says is any less true.
@Scott: Some of us are here because we find it entertaining, but still like XKCD!
I like you Rinnon. It's refreshing to see an xkcd fan here who isn't incredibly stupid or blinded by his love for the comic (usually both.)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 1:05 PM
To be brief, 706 blows. Hard.ReplyDelete
@Scott: I think the claim sometimes made, that even Carl conceded might hold some truth, is that it starts out the way you said and transitions into the other way around over time. Not that it matters, as several people have pointed out bias is largely irrelevant. Also your last line reminded me of something God would say to T-Rex in dinosaur comics.
@R.: Thanks! I don't think it's that most fans are stupid, or blinded by love of the comic though... even the ones who who come on here and call everyone bias etc. Some of them sure, but not most. I think the main problem is that most fans (most people really) take a critisism of something they like personally. As if it's an insult to them directly, to their tastes in humour (or whatever is being critiqued). So when they find this site critisising something they like (especially if they really like it), people tend to take it personally and they get mad. They get mad like someone just said something insulting to them, and when they get mad, they want to lash back at this group of people who is insulting them. Except when you're mad, you don't reason very well, and so they come off as either stupid or blind. This is of course, just my theory, take it or leave it, I have no evidence to support it.ReplyDelete
Rinnon, what a pleasure!ReplyDelete
"He might be suggesting that if the website was called "BehindXKCD.blogspot.com - An in depth look at the writing, art, and humour of the popular web comic by Randall Munroe" and then proceeded to bash the comics, it might be easier for fans to swallow. =)"
Hm... or maybe if we were called XKCDRocks and only gushed at every comic, no matter how lazy and unfiltered it is, that Randall throws at you. Let's
face it, it has nothing to do with bias alone, it's because we don't have HIS/HER/ITS bias. Same thing I said about bash/hatesites and fansites before, and also what you said later about people taking criticism of things they like personally. If we don't like the same things, we're wrong. Yay.
And, Scott, you fuking rock. Seriously!
- Way WalkerFebruary 24, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Edit 1: I liked uncivlengr's comment that he advertises the punch too much. I also think that if you want to do that joke, which is a pretty straightforward joke, then you should get to the point. So, I took out the second panel, "hid" the punch between the two other suggestions, and removed most of the post punch dialog. I also changed the characters to straw beard and black hat. I think that making him straw beard works better with my edit of Revolutionary because it sets him up as someone who is long winded and better fleshes out his brand of philosophy, but I think it can still work.ReplyDelete
Edit 2: Just trying to change things up after the expected happens.
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 2:07 PM
The interesting part is the word couldn't. That being amazed by all that we can do is meh, just as being amazed by all that we can't do isReplyDelete
"Just sayin having a sight dedicated to how much Xkcd sucks of course your going to say something bad about every single comic so it's not like it's the most convincing thing in the world?"ReplyDelete
The weirdest thing about these assertions is the assumption that somehow the site (that's how it's spelled by the way, dude) came first and then the opinion that it sucks came after. "Of course you think it sucks--you have a site about how much you think it sucks!"
The writers here did not start with the blog and then decide that it sucks to support this opinion. They came to believe that XKCD sucks and then went on to write for the blog. Certainly, once you've developed a negative view of something you will be more prone to dislike it--but it has nothing to do with writing a blog about it.
The slightly broader version, "Of course you hated the comic--you hate XKCD!" is pretty circular and doesn't actually address any of the points we bring up. If you are going to complain about bias, you can't just say "you're biased, so everything you say is invalid." You have to address why bias invalidates any given point.
Unfortunately this usually ends up being "you're just looking for flaws!" Which is true--as critics, we look for flaws. And guess what? We found them.
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 2:13 PM
So this new comic, "Freedom," had potential to explore the idea of determinism and how if you follow your mental rules rather than do any choice you can think of, you don't really have a choice at all [i]even if you acknowledge you have the choice[/i]. But instead, physical humour. Sweet. And by sweet I mean man that comic sucked.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Man fuck the "people don't talk that way" shit. Like WTF!!!! Do comics need to have realistic dialogue? Does it add to the humor in any way?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Very crappy review Jay.ReplyDelete
Also I think you people are overanalyzing this. It's a fucking webcomic. Rob, I think your next rant should be on "you guys are too serious on the comics," because I really need the answer.
Also yes, you guys ARE really really biased. If it's meh, then it's bad. If it's bad, then its the WORST FUCKING THING TO EVER EXIST IN THE FUCKING WORLD OH MY SHITFUCKS I WANT TO KILL MYSELF.
With fanboys- if it's bad, then it's a meh, if it's meh, then its really funny, if its good, they orgasm at the awesome might of Randall.
Anon 2:24pmReplyDelete
If you subscribe to the "comedy arises from the unexpected," then greater verisimilitude assists in that, for delivering realistic dialogue makes for a greater break from reality (i.e. Saying something unnatural in a natural way gives a better "wait, what?" effect).
If, instead, humour arises from comprehension of the many levels of a situation, then realistic dialogue aids the reader in rapid comprehension of the many levels employed, and thus any barriers to comprehension should be limited and ameliorated. Realistic dialogue that a reader intuitively grasps aids then.
So, yes, realistic dialogue can and does add to humour.
"With fanboys- if it's bad they orgasm at the awesome might of Randall, if it's meh, then they orgasm at the awesome might of Randall, if its good...THE UNIVERSE WILL IMPLODE."ReplyDelete
@Mike: Awesome explination of why realistic dialogue adds to humour. I wasn't 100% sold on that point until now.ReplyDelete
I like how since Rob's rants went up to the sidebar, there has been a significant decrease in the number of mind-bogglingly retarded statements cuddlefish come in and say. Sure, there are still plenty of morons but at least it keeps them fresh instead of hearing the same things over and over again.ReplyDelete
Yeah, I've been pretty pleased with the result. And amused by the people who say "this isn't going to change anyone's mind, you are dumb for writing this."ReplyDelete
Mind you, I don't think it's actually changed their mind, but I think seeing their argument already on the sidebar discourages people from posting it. I call that a win!
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Rob have you written an article about "Dudes it doesn't NEED to be realistic!"?ReplyDelete
If not I might take a stab at it.
The thing is, if dialogue is unrealistic, it should at least have verisimilitude--it sounds realistic enough, with most of the deviations coming from the omission of verbal pauses and circular dead-end conversations that real people have. If the dialogue rings obviously false, it should do so for some overriding reason. Why is the dialogue howlingly unrealistic, instead of something that might seem, even for a moment, like something someone might say sometime? Is it in service of a joke, or a point? Ultimately, no. It's only so awful because Randall is too incompetent to write good dialogue, or because he needs to cram in exposition and is too lazy to figure out a somewhat pleasing way to do so.
I haven't. I might do one but if you want to, by all means.ReplyDelete
@Rob: I'm just saying it could have been worse, Randall could have been all "this man is right! woo! fight the power" (he has form) but wasn't. I'm not saying it was particularly deep, or even intentional.ReplyDelete
- Way WalkerFebruary 24, 2010 at 3:51 PM
I don't have any problem with how he crammed in exposition. Given the medium (comic) and the genre referenced (action movie) it's fine. The problem is that the last line of 705 doesn't fit. "Dangerous" isn't part of the IT stereotype and it wasn't set up in the comic. What the comic did show is that the sysadmin won't really be an issue. So why the concern?ReplyDelete
I guess that could be the joke, something like the Knights Who Say Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoo Boing Zow Zing and the pain the word "it" causes them.
"Huh? The admin didn't really do anything."
"Oh, don't you see? The plan is doomed now!"
"No, really, it's going fine."
"FOOL! Get out while you still can!"
I doubt it.
@Rob: Actually, almost every single rant on the left was a pre-conceived notion I had, before I arrived here. You called me on all of those and they were the single greatest factor in my realization that this is not actually just a site for angry hate mongerers, but that there might really be people here I could enjoy discussing things with, even if we don't agree. So in short, good on ya!ReplyDelete
@Fem: That topic is definitely in need of an article. I look forward to reading it!
'About 705 and Jay's criticism, I'm not sure the dialogue is that farfetched for an action movie parody/reference. It does throw the joke on our faces, which is just as bad. It's as if Randall has just given up trusting his audience to GET his jokes.'
If it's a parody then it's a failed parody. I mean, OK, it's melodramatic, and action movie dialogue is melodramatic, but the melodrama isn't what immediately hits me about it: it's the awkward syntax. And action movies aren't known for especially awkward dialogue, in the way this is awkward. They ARE known for overly-slick, lifeless dialogue and one-liners.
'Do you guys really think Randal would have been able to draw that shit, in a way that would make it possible to tell what's going on, with his shitty stick figures? If Randy had shown us what was going on, you'd be complaining about how terrible the art is. ... [also I don't mind his goatee]'
I do! Randall can draw passable scenery, though he fucks up sometimes, and he seems to have a decent grasp of perspective and anatomy. I think he could draw the scene well enough that we (I) wouldn't mock him for it.
The goatee doesn't REALLY, REALLY bother me, I just think it looks stupid. He's drawn much worse.
'Come on, Jay! If you wanna complain about unrealistic dialogue, complain about the "walked across broken glass" line! ...'
Can you explain what's so jarring to you about it? It barely even registered with me.
Anon 2:34, I'd sure love to respond to you, but you didn't manage to fit any points into your comment, just vague generalities. Your opinion has been duly noted, however.
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 6:36 PM
GUYS, RANDALL IS JUST LIKE HITLER:ReplyDelete
Rob for your to-do list: "you're taking things too seriously/you're thinking about the comic too much".ReplyDelete
that needs to die.
i will think about that one. hopefully i'll have time this weekend maybeReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 6:42 PM
Isn't that kinda already covered by rants #1 and #4?ReplyDelete
Kind of. Sometimes you need to address it explicitly. And it's slightly different in the sense that it's about taking it seriously--assuming that because we talk about something we think it is SRS BZNSS, rather than that because we talk about something we spend every waking moment talking about it.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 24, 2010 at 6:51 PM
I truly want to know how Randall spends his day. I really do. There is no way, no way it takes longer than an hour to write/draw/upload one of these. And he only does it three times a week.ReplyDelete
I remember the Ryan North interview where he jokes that he wrote 2,000 Dinosaur Comics in one super-productive afternoon and has just been posting them ever since. I honestly wonder if that's what Randall does? I bet he could make three a day, easily.
Is it possible Randall just sits down once every three months and writes like a hundred of these and just posts them over the next few months? Yes? No? Maybe?
i picture randy one night thinking "shit it's 9:30 and i haven't got a comic yet, shit shit shit. wait diea! it'll have to do!"ReplyDelete
and then next time being like "pshaw, i got it up last time and i didn't even start until 9:30, i got plenty of time yet".
and then eventually being in a situation where it's 11:45 and he's thinking "nah it's cool, i'll get something done i'm totally on top of this".
ryan north probably has a whole bunch of discarded not-good-enough dinosaur comics, tossed away as part of the process of writing and rewriting and drafting and working on his comic.
i can not imagine randy having so much as a single panel just lying around unattended.
he's sort of like the beatles circa the Get Back sessions.
whenever 'idea' is mistyped as 'diea' i mentally replace it with diarrhea.ReplyDelete
diarrhea'll have to do.
- AmbivaliciousFebruary 24, 2010 at 8:23 PM
I did kinda like the sentiment of the latest comic, since it reminded me of being back in junior high having my first similar thoughts about "mental rules."ReplyDelete
But I didn't think it was actually funny. Once again, Way Walker's edit is MUCH funnier. We *could* see it coming, so having the punch just be weak was a genuine subversion of expectations.
"But shouldn't you exercise that freedom at least once before you die?ReplyDelete
This line has really been bugging me. - Why - should you exercise that freedom? Is anyone better off because you acted like an asshole and hit a guy in the face? Is that what allows you to die happy?
I mean, I know it's supposed to be humorous but there's something so philosophically irritating about it, especially since the entire thing is so puerile and ill-defined.
you know, notes from the underground is actually funny as hell.ReplyDelete
It's actually pretty common among some people to feel that if you never do anything unexpected or anything that breaks the rules you're limiting yourself--that you can't be truly free without actually exercising that freedom.ReplyDelete
It's similar to the idea that free speech is useless if you never say anything controversial. Most people are probably not too bothered with it, but there's definitely people who would argue that if all you ever do is follow rules, you're not really living, or you're not living up to your full potential.
Of course, it's usually not expressed in such a prosaic fashion as "I could punch you in the face at any time." This is part of why this comic is so terrible. It is trying to capture a reasonably interesting sentiment--one which, admittedly, has been expressed many times in many ways by many better writers than Randall--but it does it in a way which is completely bereft of romance or nobility. It's not a defiant affirmation of the self, nor even a restless moment of existential despair. It's a quotidian observation followed by an entirely predictable punchline.
Thanks, Randall.
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 4:36 AM
But really isn't thinking that you're not exercising free speech unless you say something controversial for the hell of it just as dumb as saying you're not really free unless you go around punching people for no reason?ReplyDelete
No. If you never have anything controversial to say you are a boring human being and there is no purpose in your continued existence.ReplyDelete
"If you never have anything controversial to say you are a boring human being and there is no purpose in your continued existence."ReplyDelete
That's why I always say THE BEATLES SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man, I should *TOTALLY* make a nerdy webcomic to show off my cool philosophical issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
What do "rules" mean, precisely, then, Rob? Are they social standards, literal legal principles, or internal moral standards? Because all three prevent me from punching someone else (in most circumstances). I guess by "mental rules" Randall is trying to say "social taboos", but the idea that rebellion for rebellion's sake is positive just seems so juvenile to me.ReplyDelete
Also, how arrogant do you have to be to insinuate that someone's life is meaningless without meeting some arbitrary criterion? If I'm a dull, uninteresting person who always follows the rules (or an interesting, engaging person who always follows the rules; I've known them!), who's to say I am not living a pour-soi existence? Shouldn't it be I who is the only one qualified to make that judgment?
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 7:13 AM
"No. If you never have anything controversial to say you are a boring human being"ReplyDelete
Oh, I agree. Hence why I said "for the hell of it". If you legitimately have a reason for saying something that'll piss people off that's OK but being "edgy" for no reason other than to make people mad always struck me as an arrogant-14-year-old type mentality.
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 7:16 AM
@nymous: don't bother arguing with rob. he's a fucking idiot and won't take you serious.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 7:55 AM
So if we're not really living unless we express our freedom of speech and say something controversial, does that mean I can keep talking about filthy, penny pinching jews? Can I call Latino people Spicks? Can I call muslim people infidels? Can I call "brown" people pakis? Can I hit the highest possible and call black people niggers?ReplyDelete
I somehow get the feeling that we have these "social norms/taboos" in place so that people don't get hurt. I can call the above groups of people those duragatory terms from the safety of my home, or behind their backs, but if I start calling them those things to their face, someone's going to get hurt, and it would probably be me because I am being malicious.
@Cam: Controversial doesn't have to be insulting. The social norms that you've listed are all based around the idea that you are being controversial by insulting someone. However, if I was was to openly discuss why is it that the word nigger is insulting to black people, when used by a white person and not when used by fellow black people, the conversation itself could be considered controversial, without nessecarily being insulting to anyone.ReplyDelete
"Oh, I agree. Hence why I said "for the hell of it". If you legitimately have a reason for saying something that'll piss people off that's OK but being "edgy" for no reason other than to make people mad always struck me as an arrogant-14-year-old type mentality."ReplyDelete
Well, yes. It's the arrogant 14-year-old mentality of Randall's comic that makes it so incredibly useless. The point shouldn't be that you're breaking rules just because the rules are there; the point should be that you're breaking rules because you have a reason to break them. Most people have a reason to break rules at some point; most people will also never actually break them, because there are rules in place.
So, you're right. Just punching someone in the face for the hell of it is no better than saying something just because it's edgy. In both cases it generally indicates that you have nothing interesting to say or do on your own, and are still just defining yourself based on the rules.
"Also, how arrogant do you have to be to insinuate that someone's life is meaningless without meeting some arbitrary criterion?"
You have to be a person on the internet. I'm constantly amazed at how often people don't get this.
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 9:45 AM
If you don't like XKCD you're basically a humourless shell of a person and there's no point in you continuing to live.ReplyDelete
"If you don't like XKCD you're basically a humourless shell of a person and there's no point in you continuing to live."ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Hey Rob, you might want to get some ointment for that BURNReplyDelete
- DudemandudeFebruary 25, 2010 at 9:53 AM
i think this advice would be like super bono helpful to rob and his cohorts yo
I CAN'T IT'S TOO SEVERE I NEED A SKIN GRAFTReplyDelete
@Nymous:"Also, how arrogant do you have to be to insinuate that someone's life is meaningless without meeting some arbitrary criterion? If I'm a dull, uninteresting person who always follows the rules (or an interesting, engaging person who always follows the rules; I've known them!), who's to say I am not living a pour-soi existence? Shouldn't it be I who is the only one qualified to make that judgment?"ReplyDelete
You think you should be the only one allowed to judge whether or not your life has value? You don't think THAT is arrogant? This takes us right back to the whole Subjective/Objective argument. YOU seem to think life value is subjective, and as such only YOUR subjective judgement of yourself has any meaning to you. Rob seems to be implying a persons value can be objectively determined by a set of criteria. I don't agree with Rob that Controversy is that criteria, but I certainly agree with him a person's value can be judged by a set of criteria. Some people are just more worth remembering than others.
@Rob: Clearly, as per Anon:9:45, or as I think he should be called: "God", that criteria is whether or not you like XKCD. I guess that settles it. I never thought in my wildest dreams I'd discover the meaning of life here, in a blog comment, but there it is. Looks like I've got a head start on you here. But you can repent! Come with me and we'll read old XKCD comics until the end of time!
I'd rather reign in Hell than read XKCD in Heaven.
well Rinnon, I actually wasn't being serious with my post, I was just throwing it out as more of an "oh, so I should break the rules then? So you're giving me permission to be a racist douchebag then." but I would also bet good money that some people on these here interwebs would see all this "you should break the rules occasionally" and go call the Chinese guy at the liquor store an "imported Chink" because he's "breaking the rules"ReplyDelete
@Rob: Don't be foolish. What do you think they're going to have down in Hell to torture you with?ReplyDelete
Cam: Ah okay, It's hard to judge sarcasm and how serious someone is being on the interwebs. But yeah, you're probably right. Someone with less braincells than fingers is going to figure that fighting against determanism by doing something radical is the way to a fulfilling life and is going to get himself beat up. On the other hand though... why do I care if said sheep gets himself beat up?
"Up Next, Randall writes a comic about how cool it is to stick a fork in an electrical socket to be "different"! Gene pool saved from possible contamination! Nobel Prize Awarded!"
Rob: I agree completely that it is sometimes necessary to break rules or law to do what is morally right; I just think that what is admirable is not the breaking of the law but the doing of the right, if you catch my drift.ReplyDelete
Rinnon: I do absolutely believe that value is subjective. You can create a set of objective standards for it, but the assertion that those standards measure "worth" is subjective.
I realize that on some level this argument is perhaps a touch semantic, but the implication that a twenty-four-year-old (or however old he is) webcomic writer can walk up to a samana who has spent his life meditating on a mountain and become completely satisfied with his place in the universe and say "Oh, you haven't REALLY lived" is somewhat infuriating to me. Maybe this is a personal weakness.
"I agree completely that it is sometimes necessary to break rules or law to do what is morally right; I just think that what is admirable is not the breaking of the law but the doing of the right, if you catch my drift."ReplyDelete
Sure, that's definitely a good way to live.
I'm not talking about what's right, though. This is about being an individual and expressing yourself against the norms and expectations of society--of being willing to be exceptional, or to have the adventures that society frowns upon, instead of simply fitting perfectly into society's molds.
It's hard to say that without sounding like you encourage people doing edgy shit just for the hell of it, but that's no more interesting. That just means that you've defined yourself negatively based on the rules, instead of positively.
What I'm talking about is a triumphant affirmation of the self, and being actually, really free. The sort of individualism that doesn't need to be anti-society because it's so profoundly individual.
Part of this the reasoning behind some of the philosophy behind things like parkour and some lockpicking groups. There is no reason that a locked door or a fence or a railing should actually keep you from going where you want to go or seeing what you want to see.
I guess I see where you're coming from - I just don't agree that it's a categorical necessity. If you need to do parkour (I do a bit myself, recreationally) to feel that you are affirming yourself, more power to you. I just don't think that everyone does need to - it's really more of a personal thing.ReplyDelete
so if my theatres have a "bottomless bucket" policy when you buy a bucket deal (for certain highly advertised movies, they get merchandised popcorn buckets for said movie and the deal is you get 2 large drinks and the bucket, and the bucket is refillable all day) that you can refill your bucket as long as you purchased it on the premises, am I being "edgy" or just a penny-pincher when I sneak the bucket back in to save $5 on popcorn each time I go to that theatre?ReplyDelete
Note about above hypothesis, back when my theatres did this, my dad and I were all over that shit and would always sneak buckets in with maybe some of the attendents wise but they never called us on it, but every time a new high advertised movie came out, the buckets changed and the jig would be up, so for we'd have to pay another $9 to keep having free popcorn for a month :(
@Rob: "it's so profoundly individual."ReplyDelete
There's only one problem with that. A personality and its traits can only be defined as "individual" when you compare it to another. Art may have an objective component, but personalities do not. You cannot be kind unless someone else is cruel. You can't like something unless someone else dislikes it.
That may sound patently ridiculous, but hear me out in a few examples:
First we explore merit being relative. That's an easy one to demonstrate. A company fires the five worst-performing employees. No hiring occurs, then later, it wants to fire the five worst-performing employees. Since they got rid of the previous bottom, there's new people on the bottom to get rid of, even though previously they were good enough to stay. Their quality depending on the time and place. Alternatively, think of a society where every single person follows every single law perfectly at all times. Now imagine that someone throws a candy wrapper on the ground. We'd say "So what? It's just a damned wrapper." But in that society, it'd be a major deal. Someone broke a law. They'd have no sense of scale, because it'd never happened before. It might be a capital offense even. Interpreted as an attack on the very fabric of their society. Time and place.
Second, is the "in a vacuum" portion of this experiment. Imagine that every person currently on the planet just *vanished*, and everything became automated. Put in one newborn. Raise them up to adulthood and educate them through these automated processes, and no contact with anything. Set them loose on a library, or in a video store, or on the internet. They'd have no context for anything. Would they be able to grasp humour? Would they know how to laugh? Would they know evil? I doubt it. Without a society, there's nothing to inform a person's personality, so saying someone's an individual and disregards a pro- or anti-society stance is an impossibility. In fact, individuality itself is a myth, since a person is still making a choice, even if it's to not make a choice, about how they act, so conformists are just as individual as counter-culture or anti-society wanks. Freedom isn't disregarding society to the point of being neither pro- or anti-, freedom is acknowledging the influence it has upon you and your actions, and considering that in what you do any why.
If you'd please direct me to the point where I said that "freedom is completely disregarding all societal influences / doing absolutely nothing with any sort of societal influence at all," I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.ReplyDelete
@Nym "[...]but the implication that a twenty-four-year-old (or however old he is) webcomic writer can walk up to a samana who has spent his life meditating on a mountain and become completely satisfied with his place in the universe and say "Oh, you haven't REALLY lived" is somewhat infuriating to me."ReplyDelete
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with your example here, but I don't think we agree for the same reasons. The problem with the example you have provided, is that all we've done is switch the subjective point of view from the samana (the one we are trying to determine value for) to the webcomic guy. It's still a subjective point of view, as we don't know what criteria he is basing the statement "You haven't really lived" on. Without knowing what prior knowlege he posesses on this samana, if we assume that he has none beyond what you provided, I would agree that his subjective statement has little or no real merit in determining the value of that individual. To that end, the implications of objective determination of the value of a person are quite the opposite of the example you provided. Objectively determining the value of a life means that no one person, including yourself, can decide value. It can only be told to you according to a set of criteria that are pre-determined. What the criteria might be is far beyond my limited ability to decifer though, so I'm open to suggestions!
@Rob: "freedom is completely disregarding all societal influences / doing absolutely nothing with any sort of societal influence at all,"
Doing absolutely nothing with any sort of societal influence at all strikes me as next to impossible, perhaps with the exception of someone who did not grow up in a society. I mean, I understand your point: that making your desicions not based on rules placed by society, but based on what you feel is the right thing to do is important. I even agree with you completely. But I don't see how someone can have a societal influence factor of 0. That doesn't seem possible.
Rinnon: the point I was making there is "I never said that." I am fully aware that we are all a product of our society and upbringing. The point is that you can own that and disregard it, instead of simply allowing those influences to be all you are.ReplyDelete
(This is usually the part where determinists get all "ah, but your decision to reject that is also a product of your environment," which is entirely missing the point, like determinists tend to do.)
Nymous: It's not a categorical necessity, but I find people who don't break rules incredibly boring. I also like categorically insulting people on the internet.
Well that was foolish of me. I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. I thought you were litterally quoting yourself in retaliation to Mike's point.ReplyDelete
And yeah, I'm familiar with the determanism argument. It's a pretty lazy argument frankly, stops you from ever needing to think about ANYTHING really. It's fun to use to scare 13 year olds though.
It also just misses the point. Even if I am nothing more than a bundle of external factors, random chance, and etc influencing my every decisions, that bundle of etc is me. Even if it's hopeless to aspire beyond that, the aspiration itself is a noble endeavor.ReplyDelete
The whole is more than the sum of its parts eh? Couldn't agree with you more; though I've never heard that counter argument to determanism theory. I like it. You seem to have put a lot of thought into the pursuit of "self".ReplyDelete
- ScottMcTonyFebruary 25, 2010 at 2:13 PM
The way I feel about that type of determinism - technically true, but it doesn't fucking matter. Suppose it means I was definitely going to make that decision, that certainly does not mean I haven't made it. It's the same way I feel about emotions just being chemical reactions - fine, that's just the physical events that make me feel that way.ReplyDelete
Pretty much it's the way I feel about the idea that gravity is why things fall down.
"Objectively determining the value of a life means that no one person, including yourself, can decide value. It can only be told to you according to a set of criteria that are pre-determined."ReplyDelete
Pre-determined by whom? Whatever your answer, all you're doing is deferring the validity of the criteria to something else.
Vis-a-vis the samana: I am aware that all I am doing is comparing the subjective value judgments of the samana and Randall. Objectively, they are equally valid. My sympathies, nevertheless, lie with the person who has much more self-knowledge. I feel that this is generally true.
The idea of objective value requires a set of measurements that must tautologically determine something's worth for all observers. These simply do not exist.
Rinnon: Yes, I spend a lot of time thinking about the self. It's a concept of philosophy which is slightly more relevant than most, and my favorite art tends to be in the genre of "figuring out who we are."ReplyDelete
(Sort of relevant, here is a monologue from The Designated Mourner that I enjoy.)
ScottMcTony: Yes exactly.
- MilkshakeFebruary 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Which rules do you find boring? I'm fairly sure some of the rules are there for a reason, and other rules can cause problems if adhered to too often.ReplyDelete
Of course, if we want to go with the simple "controversial statement" thing, science seems to do that on a regular basis. When we discover something new that runs counter to the whims of the unmoving, we get a ton of loud arguments. This is a necessity to progress, but the arguments slow things down.
Of course, fear of argument in the first place would mean we never advance at all.
all of them.ReplyDelete
- MilkshakeFebruary 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM
In that case, porglep zalphyd yglem.ReplyDelete
see my previous comment w/r/t "breaking rules for the sake of breaking them," which makes you just as boring as following them all the time, and a little dumber.ReplyDelete
- MilkshakeFebruary 25, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Then you're contradicting your own statement. I simply demonstrated by breaking a rule. Was I doing it for the hell of it? Of course not. I had a definite reason behind doing so.ReplyDelete
Some of the rules are there for a reason. My point was simply "If you're going to consider all of the rules as pointless, then why speak intelligibly at all?" It was a simple example.
You've failed to follow it. C'mon, Rob, you're better than this. You're disappointing me.
You weren't breaking it for the hell of it, but you were breaking it for the sake of breaking a rule. You had no purpose in breaking it beyond the purpose of "breaking a rule." There was no reason behind it, nothing triumphant, no affirmation of anything except the fact that you like making toolish arguments.ReplyDelete
- MilkshakeFebruary 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Continued disappointment. If you can't see the reasoning behind following simple rules of social interaction, then there's no reason for me to bother talking to you.ReplyDelete
Got more amusing things to do elsewhere. 'ta.
Finally, something we agree on.ReplyDelete
@Nym: "The idea of objective value requires a set of measurements that must tautologically determine something's worth for all observers. These simply do not exist."ReplyDelete
I've considered your statement here, and I feel you've convinced me. The more I think about "value" the more I realize that I may value something more than you, but that doesn't say anything about the intrinsic value of the item or person. I suppose I was thinking too much about things which have a numerical value associated to it, like cost, and less about things which could be considered to have sentimental value, for lack of a better term. A rock could be extremely valued to me, and have no value to you. It doesn't change the value of the rock, just our perceptions of it. If I follow this reasoning backwards, it seems almost irrelivent what criteria we personally use to determine value, since it would end up being subjectively decided anyways, and thus my criteria argument has no meaning.
I believe my argument was misguided by my feelings that some people are more worth keeping around than others. Example: It feels trivially easy (to me) to make the desicion to kill 1 person who is a known rapest and murderer to save the life of one of their victims. I would argue that the latter's life has more value than the former. But I suppose this isn't an intrinsic value, it's a value that is determined by societal norms, as interpreted in my mind, and then applied to the two people in question. In any case, I recant my previous statements.
@Rob: I plan to read that monologue when I get home from work and have enough time to devote to it.
Here is a simple example of what I BELIVE Rob is getting at, as far as rule breaking is concerned. I am driving in my car at 4:00am. There are no other cars on the road at all. I come to an intersection with no visual blockage and I can clearly see all 4 directions. The light is red so I stop. I double check to make sure there are definitely no cars or pedestrians, and then I proceed through the red light. I am not breaking the rules for the sake of breaking the rules, I'm not doing it to be a rebel, or to be different, but there IS a purpose behind my breaking of the rules (I have no reason to be stopped here). Instead of what most people do, which would be arbitrarily wait at the red light, because that is the rule, I look beyond the rule itself to the meaning of the rule. The meaning is, of course, to maintain order on the road so as to prevent collisions and pedestrians being run over (and I support this). However, at this moment in time the rule is not actively doing any of it's intended purposes. Breaking the rule at this point doesn't put anyone in danger, it's not as if it's particularly exciting, but simply waiting at that light is like not being willing (or able) to think beyond the dogma of the law itself. This is of course a VERY simple example, but I think it gets the job done. Someone correct me if I'm wrong or you disagree.
also, finding all rules boring doesn't mean I don't understand them. I don't mean to be too mind-blowing or anything.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 4:16 PM
I guess it varies by a case-by-case basis but I wouldn't generally support breaking the rule when you "know" it's not going to do anything because in most cases the reason the rule is there is that people is dumb and can't be trusted to make judgments like that.ReplyDelete
- MilkshakeFebruary 25, 2010 at 4:31 PM
See, the red light bit? That's sensible. The earlier bits about la parkour and lockpicking clubs? Those are also sensible. But here you're dealing mostly with laws, which are very high-level rules. There are certain low-level rules that we don't even think of as rules anymore, but psychologically they still count as rules.ReplyDelete
These are the basic rules of social interaction, mostly. Communication, persuasion, bonding, humor, and many other aspects of human interaction besides arise from these low-level rules. This site wouldn't even exist if they were irrelevant.
As for following rules versus not following them, it definitely depends on the situation. If it benefits you and does not harm others, no problem. Otherwise, you're just going to cause problems for yourself in one way or another, so there's no real point in doing so. For a quick example, albeit high-level once again, learning to pick locks in your spare time is all well and fine. Using this talent to help a friend into their own house is good.
Using it instead to break into city hall and pull a prank is generally a bad idea. Then again, there's hacks, like the ones MIT students get into. I can get behind those.
See, you're looking at it wrong. You're looking at it from a perspective of "which rules are going to benefit society the most if I break them." You're trying to make rules for breaking rules. That's boring.ReplyDelete
- MilkshakeFebruary 25, 2010 at 4:47 PM
Looking at it from the perspective of "What rules benefit me the most" is psychopathic.ReplyDelete
Looking at it from that perspective and combining it with "while at the same time not letting me get caught" is sociopathic.
And before you try, no, these aren't simply labels created by society to pin down problematic individuals who don't follow the rules. These are diagnoses created by psychologists to help them understand the individuals who cause problems repeatedly in society.
These are the kinds of people for whom criminal behavior is very common, and who are often a menace to society. There's a reason we'd prefer to get rid of them. As "un-boring" as sociopaths might be, they're still monsters that should be put in their place.
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 4:49 PM
Rob just admit it already you're a dirty communist aren't you?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Let's be fair, you have to admit psychopaths are the best when it comes to not giving a fuck about the rules.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM
Rob can't be a communist, he's clearly Ayn Rand.ReplyDelete
- ScottMcTonyFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:06 PM
Hardly. Ayn Rand is pretty dogmatic bro.ReplyDelete
Unless you've only read The Fountainhead. Howard Roark is crazy existential.
I love when people try to dogmatically argue with my completely non-dogmatic philosophy. It's pretty entertaining, especially when they start calling you a psychopath. Keep fucking that chicken, Milkshake!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Rob for a guy who supposedly doesn't fuck animals you sure to talk about it a whole lot.ReplyDelete
who says I don't fuck animals?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:18 PM
AHAH! a confession!ReplyDelete
I am especially fond of goatsReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Well now that you've admitted to THAT I guess we can regard everything else you say as projecting as well.ReplyDelete
- MilkshakeFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:22 PM
Not sure how this comes out as a dogma. You're increasingly disappointing, Rob. You ought to go back to doing reviews, it's a lot more amusing. This? This is just sad. Besides, I never called you a psychopath, I merely pointed out that your arguments seem to lead in that direction. Meanwhile you're quoting /b/, which isn't exactly helping your case.ReplyDelete
If you look at how people make decisions, they make rules in their heads. Sometimes those rules are as simple as "Do what will benefit me now." Sometimes they're as complex as the laws on patents, which are an ugly mess written by a collection of madmen. Nonetheless they are rules.
If you don't create rules in your head for how to follow or break rules of society, you're essentially doing things just for the hell of it.
You already said you can't do that, didn't you? Doing things for the hell of it is just as boring as doing things based on rules, you say. Therefore all options lead to being boring.
Doesn't hold water for me, but you're boring me. So maybe it holds water for you.
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:26 PM
It's like a party in my mouth and everyone's vomiting!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:27 PM
Except Rob. He couldn't come.ReplyDelete
By which I mean he couldn't fit through the door.
Because he's fat.
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Also a pedophile.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM
After all, what kind of boring person cares about those dumb old age of consent laws anyway?ReplyDelete
"Besides, I never called you a psychopath, I merely pointed out that your arguments seem to lead in that direction." ahahaha. Sure thing, Glenn Beck! (and "keep fucking that chicken" is not from /b/, you cultureless fuck.)ReplyDelete
See, the thing is you are arguing with positions I don't actually hold. I don't like correcting people, but you're either arguing bullshit semantics, which makes you an idiot, or you're making up positions that I hold, which makes you an idiot. I'm not sure what exactly your point is, I just know that it has absolute fuck-all to do with anything I have ever said or believed. But it's pretty comical to watch you "not" call me a psychopath, and pull out the traditional middle school "lol I am not following the rules of communication because I don't understand what you just said!" bullshit.
It comes out as a dogma because it's pretty clear your objection--and this is assuming you actually did understand it at all and are just making really terrible leaps of logic, instead of just not understanding at all--is based purely on "I don't like that someone is arguing this" rather than logic. You aren't objecting to what I say; you object to some really, really terrible misconstrued slippery slope version of my beliefs.
Which, hey, at least you're being amusing. But if you're expecting me to actually engage with you like you're a real person you could probably start by exercising some basic reading comprehension skills.
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Rob: Now, granted, I haven't actually read what you've said, but I'm *pretty sure* it's retarded, so I don't have to! I win!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 6:10 PM
fucking hell rob could you just stop being a furry for like five seconds and start acting like a normal personReplyDelete
I am not a furry I'm a goat-fucker.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 25, 2010 at 6:12 PM
you say po-tay-to, I say fur-fagReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 26, 2010 at 3:43 AM
in my opinion randall drew morgan freeman reeeally well.ReplyDelete
i mean you may not recognize him instantly if you don`t know it`s him, but if you know then you find lot`s of similarities.
with a few guesses you maybe would be able to tell its him anyways.
it`s the best you can do with a stick figure, if you ask me.
oh and zombie feynman is just the same btw...
PS: carl still didn`t get enough attention during his childhood, even if you delete my posts...


text:
CME Group Monday announced it will transition open outcry trading of Kansas City Board of Trade hard red winter wheat futures and options to its Chicago trading floor beginning Monday, July 1, 2013, pending CFTC review.
CME says this transition will accelerate efficiencies and trading opportunities for customers trading both the HRW wheat and CBOT Soft Red Winter wheat varieties. KCBT wheat futures and options will continue to trade on CME Globex and be listed by and subject to the rules of KCBT.
The last day of open outcry trading on the KCBT floor will be June 28. CME Group will operate an electronic trading center in the former KCBT floor space until the end of September, providing a place for Kansas City-based traders to execute trades on CME Globex.
"Throughout the integration process, we've remained focused on our customers who manage global price risk associated with these two classes of wheat," said CME Group COO Bryan Durkin. "By moving Kansas City wheat to the Chicago floor later this year, we will make it as efficient as possible for our customers to trade both products and the spread between the two."
In addition, beginning April 15, subject to CFTC approval, customers will benefit from the integration of KCBT clearing services into CME Clearing, which will provide cross-margining and other capital efficiencies for market participants.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Vintage Two-Tone Hawaiian Shirt
Think of it like a mashup. We took two hand picked vintage shirts and combined them to make these rad new one of a kind styles. Rock em at your next festival and put out the good vibes. Get one for yourself or buy both to match your friend.
Option One: Item is pictured on model
Option Two: Item is opposite fabrics.
Give these vintage pieces one last round to party! We search the market for second hand goodies and re-purpose our finds into unique, sustainable, and one-of-a-kind designs. All pieces are handmade with love in sunny Southern California and no two pieces are alike!
*All bands tees are vintage, not screen printed or replicated*
- Color and fit will vary as each piece is handmade and one-of-a-kind
-Please note that we carry a variety of different brands and sizing will vary slightly for each brand. This chart is a based off of the brands we carry and for the most part very accurate, however ff you would like specific sizing for a certain product you can contact us at email@example.com or (619) 241-0027.
|Waist Size
|23, 24
|25, 26
|27, 28
|29, 30
|31, 32
Returns and Exchanges:
Trendy and Tipsy accepts returns and exchanges within 21 days of receiving the product(s). All Last Call Vintage items must be returned within 7 days of receiving the product(s), due to the items being one-of-a-kind. All returned items must be unworn and unwashed merchandise with the original tags attached. Failure to meet these criteria deems purchases non-refundable and will be denied.
Final Sale Items:
-SALE ITEMS, PROMOTIONAL SALE ITEMS (DISCOUNT CODES USED THAT ARE 20% OFF OR MORE), ACCESSORIES, AND SPECIAL ORDER ITEMS ARE MARKED FINAL SALE, in which case they are not eligible for refund, exchange, or store credit.
Refunds (if applicable):
-Upon the failure of meeting our Return/Exchange Policy we will email you and there will be no refunds available.
-If you are approved, choose a return for store credit or for a refund.
- We do not provide pre-paid return labels. Shipping back merchandise is responsible for the buyer.
-Please note that original shipping charges are non-refundable.
The buyer is responsible for all shipping fees. Original and return shipping fees are non-refundable. When sending back merchandise, consider delivery confirmation/shipping insurance for returns/exchanges, as Trendy and Tipsy is not responsible for lost return packages without tracking information.
Return Instructions:
-Please fill out the Return/Exchange form that was included in your original package and include it in with the merchandise. If you have misplaced the form email us at email@example.com.
-Address your Return/Exchange Package to:
Trendy and Tipsy ATTN: Returns
4150 Mission Blvd. Suite 115
San Diego, CA 92109
- We will email you once everything is processed and completed
Exchange Instructions:
- Place a new order online for the item you want to exchange for.
- Contact Customer Care by emailing email@example.com.
- Note your new exchange order on our Returns and Exchanges Form and include it in your package along with the item(s) you are returning.
- Address your Return/Exchange Package to:
Trendy and Tipsy ATTN: Exchanges
4150 Mission Blvd. Suite 115
San Diego, CA 92109
- We will email you once everything is processed and completed.
Late or missing refunds (if applicable):
-If you haven't received a refund yet, first check your bank account again.
-Then contact your credit card company, it may take some time before your refund is officially posted.
-Next contact your bank. There is often some processing time before a refund is posted.
-If you've done all of this and you still have not received your refund yet, please contact us at
-If the item was marked as a gift when purchased and shipped directly to you, you'll receive a gift credit for the value of your return. Once the returned item is received, a gift certificate credit code will be emailed to you.
-If the item wasn't marked as a gift when purchased, or the gift giver had the order shipped to themselves to give to you later, we will send a refund to the gift giver and he/she will find out about your return.


text:
Photos Chris Wellhausen
TransWorld Snowboarding and Josh Dirksen traveled up to the Galena Lodge at Canadian Mountain Holiday to meet up with a collection of snowboarders from around the globe in search of 5 star heli-boarding and a plush backcountry lodge experience. CMH has been perfecting access to this British Columbia backcountry for the last 42 years. Snow conditions were all time and the CMH guides showed us the best terrain available.
Your dreams of endless untracked powder runs will come true here. In a typical week of heli-boarding you can expect to log 70,000-plus vertical feet. And with all that snowboarding done each day, you develop quite an appetite. But an elite crew of CMH chefs can handle satisfying the hungriest of giants.
Transworld Snowboarding and CMH have been working together for the last couple seasons with pro rider signature sessions at their Galena Lodge. Next season you can expect there to be another one and more chances to snowboard with your favorite pro. So save your money and see at Canadian Mountain Holiday next season!
2010 Dates:
Shred Session I
January 9–13, 2010 at Monashee Lodge (changed from Galena Lodge).
Price: $6,096 Twin / $6,484 Single (4 days)
Shred Session II
March 20–25, 2010 at Monashee Lodge.
Price: $7,620 Twin / $8,104 Single (5 days)
For more information check the CMH website click HERE


text:
Guest accounts for tool access
We could have some or all tools that run in a "guest" account with limited privileges. This would allow people to try them without having to register. Maybe instead, they tell us their first name and current occupation (grad student, professor, etc.). Their sessions would time out quickly after the connection is lost, since there would be no way to get back to them. And there would be no access for ssh/sftp on this account.
For: attract/engage new users


text:
Hello, this is Ravenzomg of Ravenzomg fame here to give a very special double review because we're all tired of hitting the "next page" button!
Title: Tradition. Tooltip: An 'American tradition' is anything that happened to a Baby Boomer twice.
Title: Potential. Tooltip: Who even cares, that's why I won't fix the html reference.
Rather than talk about how generally uninteresting these comics are, I'm just going to quote comments on a forum post advertising xkcd.
"fuck xkcd
i've no problem with people liking it, but randall munroe is a lazy, complacent asshole. and that is my opinion about things.
first 200 strips are good, though"
"XKCD is pretty hit-or-miss with me. I really like the strips where he kind of pokes fun at his own interests, but in some of the others I just feel like he's trying to show off things he knows or believes in. Too much reliance on the "smart/right" character revealing something to the more "common" person, who's then like "huh, guess I was dumb". "
"Well it can't be helped that the kid has only been alive for 12 years or so, and hasn't even had a regular education! I mean, he was practically raised by hippies. It's not his fault for his lack of knowledge!"
"the only thing xkcd is good for is getting you to google shit you don't care about"
"I used to utterly loathe the comic with a burning passion; it was so offensively mediocre that I could spend hours extolling the sins of individual strips and the comic as a whole; I could froth endlessly about exactly WHY putting a heart under a radical was such trite garbage and why any individual should feel bad about appreciating it; I would eagerly await new comics simply so that I could be angry at them and wax vitriolic. Now though, I simply can't muster the energy or the desire. It's been bad in exactly the same way for so long that there's no point in it anymore. All the punchlines are the same. All the strips are the same. There are three or four premises that Munroe has, and he's realized that people will eat them up forever and there's no reason for him to ever try new things. So he doesn't! I would have a difficult time deciding if "complacency" or "mediocrity" would be the one word I'd use to sum up the entire comic, but either one would fit."
And my personal favourite:
"Also, just because one can draw a comic in 5 minutes doesn't mean that should be the update rate. Otherwise all we'd get is random thoughts and forced jokes."
I really. really. really. love this.
And on that note, I wish you all a very merry christmas. Oh wait, something's different--
It's this:
As we all know, Randall Munroe makes his income without the use of ads, and so relies entirely on Merchandizing income. And as usual, he's relying on nostalgia [hey remember that bobcat comic guys? remember how you loved it 3 years ago?] to sell stuff.
I won't comment any more on this fact. That's why you guys are here <3 -Ravenzomg <3 <3 <3
[The hated raven also wanted me to point out that the poster went down in price from $150 to like $95. Raven says this is only $35 more than it should be; in my estimation it is actually $200 more than it should be. -Ed.]


text:
Want to contribute events? Sign up here
Already a member? Click here to add events
- This event has passed.
Cat Fight Ladies Night
November 8, 2017 @ 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm
|Recurring Event (See all)
Wednesday nights from 6-9 p.m.
Event Navigation
Ladies are given weekly special treatment on Wednesday nights from 6-9 p.m. with free Angie, Khloe, Nina, and Lady Love cocktails and Sweet & Tipsy cupcakes fused with alcohol.


text:
What's the value of
your home?
Use our tools
to find out
Neighborhood reports
Get a detailed report showing market trends in your neighborhood, including recent listings, sales prices and average time on market.Get a report
Find a Mover
Find a Mover
Mortgage rates
Powered by thefinancials.com
Mortgage calculator
Get a detailed report showing market trends in your neighborhood, including recent listings, sales prices and average time on market.Get a report
Rent vs buy
How big is an acre? What is an option?
Do I need hazard insurance?
Take a look at our real estate glossary to learn definitions of common words and phrases used in the industry.
National market update
December Existing-Home Sales Show Uptrend
Washington, DC, January 20, 2012 - Existing-home sales continued on an uptrend in December, rising for three consecutive months and remaining above a year ago, according to the National Association of Realtors®. More... Read more
Pending Home Sales Rise Again in November, Highest in a Year-and-a-Half
Washington, DC, December 29, 2011 - Pending home sales continued to gain in November and reached the highest level in 19 months...The last time the index was higher was in April 2010 when it reached 111.5 as buyers rushed to beat the deadline for the home buyer tax credit. The data reflects contracts but not closings. More...
Read more
National housing indicators
Existing home sales ()
4.61 million units*
Existing home median price ()
Housing Starts ()
657,000 units*
New home sales ()
307,000 units*
*Seasonally adjusted annual rate. Source: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®.
National economic indicators
Home ownership
3rd Qtr 11
2nd Qtr 11
The homeownership rate in the third quarter 2011 (66.3 percent) was lower than the third quarter 2010 rate (66.9 percent). The homeownership rates in the Midwest and South were lower than their corresponding third quarter 2010 rates.
New home sales
Nov 11
Oct 11
Sales of new single-family houses in November 2011 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 315,000. This is 1.6 percent (+/- 12.2%)* above the revised October 2011 estimate of 310,000.
Source: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
How much is your home worth? Get a real-time report on the value of your home. Start now
Regional market updates
View market statistics for your region.
Click on the links below to view data from two different industry sources. Choose information on local prices & state sales from any of 178 metropolitan housing markets prepared by the National Association of REALTORS® or information on sales & price activity from local area markets in 25 states prepared by Clarus MarketMetrics.
Local Prices & State Sales
Disclaimer: The views, opinions, statements and/or ideas expressed in this Message Section do not reflect the ideas, policy, position, views or opinion of Move,Inc.
Consumer tips & hot properties
2011 Energy Tax Credits: What You Need to Know to Collect
They're not as much as they used to be, but there are still energy tax credits to be had for upgrades made in 2011. More... Read more
8 Small Space Solutions for Shared Kids' Rooms
If your brood is growing but your house isn't, try these 8 ideas for shared kids' rooms that will give your wild bunch space for storage, sleeping, and playing. More... Read more
Top 3 Most Common Home Defects to Check For
Top three home defects that every buyer and seller should check for before making an offer, or putting a home on the market. More...
Read more
Home Security Cameras: Peace of Mind While You're Away
Easy-to-install security cameras let you keep an eye on your home from afar, ensuring safety and security for you and your family. More...
Read more
Winter Gardening: Plants that Provide Beauty All Year Round
Just because your garden is dormant for the winter doesn't mean you should snooze, too. Experienced gardeners do their dreaming — and planning — when the snow flies. So while you're thinking of blossoms and butterflies, be sure to add trees and shrubs that look great even in snow. More... Read more
Existing Home Statistics
View statistics based on national data, regional data and data gathered from 159 cities & metropolitan areas.
National Statistics
Statistics by City or Metropolitan Area
Regional Statistics
Source: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®.


text:
I arrived this morning at 9:30 in Frankfurt, Germany after eight days in the back woods of Minnesota. The photo I put up here is the view I saw for most of those eight days. Literally. The schedule included nine 40-minute periods of zazen per day, beginning at 5 AM and ending at 8:50 PM. And that board was what I looked at. See if you can spot the images of Johnny Ramone and the words "Brachiosaurus," "Pepper" and "Znorft" in the grain of the wood. I did!
Speaking of Brachiosaurus, the Chicago O'Hare Airport has a gigundous skeleton of one in Terminal 2 (I think it was 2). Who'd have thunk? That was pretty cool.
ANYWAY, this was my third Great Sky Sesshin and one of the most funnest. Minnesota hospitality is warm and bendy. The Great Sky was especially great this year with the Leonid Meteor Shower. I spotted a few big ones. Also lightning bugs, which they don't have in California. It's nice to see them again.
The experience of a sesshin is probably the exact opposite of the experience of looking at the Internet. When I opened up my computer for the first time in a week I saw there were something like 270-some comments on my last post! You guys have been busy.
I suppose I was busy too. But in a very different way. Dokai Georgeson, the resident monk and abbot of Hokyoji, where Great Sky is held, gave a talk about, among other things, that old saw horse Faith Mind Inscription by the Third Patriarch of Zen in China. That's the one that goes, "The Great Way is not difficult, just avoid picking and choosing." It's funny how you can hear something a few dozen times over the course of a few dozen years and just barely get it, but then someone says it just once more and it falls into place. Then it slips away again.
Rosan Yoshida gave a really good talk in which he came up with a really neat-o way of explaining Dogen's old adage that practice and enlightenment were one and the same. He talked about mountain climbing. It's hard work to climb a mountain. Lots of physical strain and sweat. If you just wanted to know what things looked like at the top you could rent a video. But it's not at all the same thing as climbing the mountain yourself. In a very real way climbing the mountain and reaching the top are not two distinct activities. And climbing back down is also a necessary part of the process.
I thought that was kind of nice.
We're going to Hamburg tomorrow. I'm gonna look for the Kaiserkeller and the Star Club.


text:
aarti gagan mai thaal rav chand deepak bane download mp3
Download mp3 aarti gagan mai thaal rav chand deepak bane to your phone, tablet or computer freely and without registration with the help of our music search engine firestarterapkdownload.com. Also for your convenience we did online listening to your favorite music with a convenient player. Just click the playlist and the entire playlist will play non-stop! Listen to tracks online and share them with friends on social networks.
Listen Now
New Music
firestarterapkdownload.com is a music search engine from where you can download your favourite songs from our Mp3 Database. We do not upload or host any files on our servers. If you are a valid owner of any content listed here & want to remove it then please send us a DMCA formatted takedown notice at dmca.


text:
Your trusted reporter, reporting today from a bagel shop in Brooklyn where he has just finished a pumpernickel bagel with butter and a too expensive cup of orange juice.
The place I slept last night was not fit for human habitation. That's not a judgment call, or even my personal opinion. I was actually OK with the place. But it was inside a disused factory and definitely not up to code. Someone had carved out a living place in what had probably once been a storage room or something on the top floor. You had to go in through the industrial doors at the back by the loading dock and walk up like seven flights of wrought iron industrial stairs probably constructed around the beginning of the 20th century. Once you got up to the top it opened up into a giant room that had been divided by all kinds of plywood structures and lofts. It was actually pretty cool. The guys who lived there took me to see some interesting bands and then put on Pee Wee's Big Adventure, which I slept through most of.
When I do these tours I take pretty much whatever I can get as far as living situations go. Mostly it works out well. On this trip to New York I spent the first few days in the swank Soho apartment of Jacopo Buora, the guy who set up the retreat I did last weekend at the Brooklyn Zen Center. Then my good friend Suicide Girl Bee Jellyfish offered me a spot on her couch in Brooklyn. Sweet! I got lots of pussy there! Yep. Cuz they had not one but two cute little kitty cats! What did you think I meant, pervert?
Problem was Bee forgot that one of her other roommates had promised the couch to someone else last night. So Bee very kindly put calls out to a bunch of her friends asking if anyone would be willing to lend a sleeping space to a wandering Zen monk and writer of bad books. The rest of the story is as described above.
The retreat in Brooklyn was very cool. But I mentioned that earlier. I also did an interesting gig at an animation studio called Asterisk in Manhattan. That was fun. I'd read about authors doing talks in unusual venues, like people's apartments and stuff. So I asked my friend Marc Catapano if he knew of any place I could do something like that in New York while I was there. He set up the thing at Asterisk and it was a lot of fun. Just a little room full of people interested in Zen. Nice. Anyone else who wants to suggest some kind of similar gigs, please feel free to get in touch.
There has been some talk in the comments section about Dogen Sangha. So I said: "I feel that Dogen Sangha should not be an institution of any kind. It should be a loose affiliation of like-minded people. Like an association of artists.
Maybe it could be like an association of painters who had the same art professor. These painters would not have to share the same style. Nor would they need to compare notes and align their techniques with each other. In fact, it would make them lesser artists if they did. They wouldn't necessarily have to even like each other or each others' work.
But they could acknowledge their common roots by being part of the association and benefit from the existence of that association. They could do gallery openings as a group or something.
It's not a perfect analogy. But it's a far better analogy than thinking of Dogen Sangha as a not very good (lazy) version of the Catholic church or the Soto-shu."
I think there are already far too many religious institutions in the world. If people want a Zen version of the Catholic church they can join Soto-shu. The existing associations in the US sort of scare me the way they seem to want to imitate the Soto-shu and foster standardization among the Buddhists of America.
It worries me to see them trying to set up standards of accreditation for Buddhist teachers. I understand the reason for this. It's too easy to just call yourself a Roshi without any real training, look at Zen Master Rama and a few others.
But trying to standardize what steps one must have completed before one calls oneself a Zen teacher would eliminate a lot of very good Zen teachers whose own teachers did not require them to jump through these hoops. And most of the hoops we're talking about here are pretty arbitrary and ridiculous institutional games that have nothing to do with anything. It may indicate a certain level of commitment if, for example, you've spent a whole truckload of money and time to go to Eiheiji and serve as abbot for a day -- paying the requisite hefty fees to Soto-shu, of course. But in the end, does stuff like that really make much difference in day-to-day practice?
I don't want Dogen Sangha to turn into an institution because institutions always have to justify their existence by being busybodies and getting up in people's faces about nonsense like this.
I've got some more thoughts on this that I'll eventually put together in some coherent form. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this blog is mainly just for off-the-cuff commentary from the road rather than well-reasoned position statements. So that is decidedly not what I'm offering here.
So, OK. Next stop is Baltimore on April 10, 2010 at 7-9 pm at the Baltimore Zen Center 913 Reece Road Severn, MD 21144 for info contact firstname.lastname@example.com. Then I got 2 gigs on the same day in Richmond, Virginia as follows:
• April 12, 2010 1 pm Barnes & Noble VCU store 1111 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23284
• April 12, 2010 7-9pm, Ekoji Buddhist Sangha 3411 Grove Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23221
Full info and links are at this link. So click it and be there!!!
After that I'll see all y'all in Europe!