[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:52 pm

That's the tag line of the web page site.

To suggest that a subject must be classified as "politics" simply because it is sourced from a site that has "politics" in its name is so anal as to be ignore worthy.

Welcome to my list.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:13 am

This is absolutely the weirdest top secret nazi project I will ever hear about. The SS Sex Doll, Borghild. Apparently Himmler was concerned that they were losing to many men to french whores, and so commissioned a sex doll to be transported with the men in an antiseptic case.

Nazi Sex Dolls. Who the fuck would have thought?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:30 am

Solving a lack of physical and emotional connection to other human beings by shipping out robots seems like the kind of mechanical and inept solution the Nazis would have for a problem like this. Doesn't surprise me that much.

Does make for a solid Master Passion: Loneliness character, though. "I was created for the sole purpose of providing comfort and warmth to other people, but I am incapable of providing anything but a hollow imitation of true affection that would only fool a soldier who could hardly remember the real thing. I will now resolve my feelings of inadequacy and isolation by going on a downtown killing spree."

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:58 am

yep. Plus it'd be fun to play the typical strong nazi domme character as a golem.

edit: oh god, i just realized that her recharge ritual would be sitting in her anti-septic case...

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:16 am

*cue joke about plugging in*

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:54 am

Holy shit, that is for sure the iconic Sundown Android.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:31 am

yeah, I kinda see it as a golem*, more, but yeah, pretty much fucking iconic.

*technically, it was created to be a tool, not a lover, though I may be excessively splitting hairs.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:27 pm

facepalm.jpg.

They're working on a third D&D movie. Dungeons and Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness, seemingly focuses on a quest for the titular book. The director seems to have done cinematography on a number of horror movies (Hellraiser 3 and Bloodlines, Waxwork and sequels, DNA, one of those low budget "wth" movies you only know of because you see it on the shelf of Blockbuster, etc.) and Friday, whatever that's worth. His directorial credits are not many, but he was the director of the prior D&D movie, Wrath of the Dragon God, which he apparently has a writing credit for. The writer similarly was the writer of that movie with Lively and a third person, Robert Kimmel, who I'm almost disappointed is not returning to write this one, as his other credits are assistant director/miscellaneous crew on a couple of "Sex Files" movies, and something called Passion and Romance (again, misc. crew).

So... well, the second D&D movie, while shit, was better than the first, more like D&D than the first, and did not have an annoying Waynes brother in it. This one seems to have a decent concept behind the story (as far as I can tell, some bbeg is searching for the BoVD, and the heroes have to stop him). This could be awesome (I'm not holding out any hope). It could be subtle and nuanced, and have a powerful scene with the good guys being tempted to read and use the book themselves. It could tap into the various demons and devils and the rich related backstory. Hell, if they'd kept Kimmel, and told Kimmel and Lively "make Hellraiser in a fantasy setting where the protagonists are empowered to actually fight the cenobites" it would be awesome.

It most likely won't be, however. Fuck, I'll bet that I could write a better story by the time this comes out this year.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:45 pm

If they use the sex features of the BOVD, then this could be one helluva alt-porn fanfic.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:01 pm

So, I'm working on this idea. I have a basic PC party and the BBEG and ideal casting figured out:

Tiefling True Fiend3/Paladin5/Celestial Beacon4: Delphine Cheneac (Dren, from Splice)-The Hero/Leader
Human Monk6/Tiger Monk5/Gentle Monk1: Jason Statham The Smart Guy
Human Wizard6/Seeker of the Lost Wizard Traditions6:currently a toss up between Bruce Willis, Nic Cage, or Robert Downey Jr. The Lancer[/u]
- Raven Familiar: Tom Felton (Draco from Harry Potter) The Team Pet
Half Elf Bard Gerard Way (Vocals from My Chemical Romance, D&D player) The Heart
Vampire Vampire Paragon1/Warlock1, levels fast: Summer Glau[/b] The Big Guy/The Chick/The Action Girl/The Dark Magician Girl/Expo-speak target
Human Lich Necromancer Ralph Fiennes or Bill Nighy The BBEG

Strangely, I can justify to myself putting Statham in a D&D movie, but not Brad Pit.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:56 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:So, I'm working on this idea. I have a basic PC party and the BBEG and ideal casting figured out:

Tiefling True Fiend3/Paladin5/Celestial Beacon4: Delphine Cheneac (Dren, from Splice)-The Hero/Leader

Wow that pretty much tells us that you've got some pretty messed up sexual cravings that you've put a french actress you can only possibly know as her role as a sexualized overgrown genetically mutated toddler as your lead.

I'll at least take the middle ground as a retort and go with Chloe Grace Moretz from kick ass as a cannibalistic halfling barbarian a la Dark Sun setting.

Of course looking at the cast for #3 ideal cast of them having anyone known for anything if fucking hilarious.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:40 pm

Um, actually, I thought "Who's pretty enough for Hollywood to take seriously, acts well, and doesn't mind a bunch of creature makeup? That chick from Splice."

And I really am leaning toward Robert Downey Jr. for the wizard...

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:57 pm

Birds are teaching each other to swear

I think we can all agree that Koumei and PL should teach the birds to say "suck a barrel of cocks."

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:Birds are teaching each other to swear

I think we can all agree that Koumei and PL should teach the birds to say "suck a barrel of cocks."

That would be even more awesome if chickens could talk.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:57 pm

Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then … WND

This is an interesting and yet stupid article. (But it's WND, what can one expect?) So to give the executive summary, in a parade in Mechanicsburg, PA, two guys dress up as Zombie Muhammad and Zombie Pope. Why? Because they are athiests? (Let's skip the why for now, because lot of people do things for the lamest of reasons. I mean zombie Pope, WTF? Which one?) (Hidden in the article is the fact that the reverse of their sign said ‘Only Muhammad can rape America!’ If that isn't in your face offensive, I can't think of what the definition should be for in your face offensive.)

Eventually there follows an encounter with a muslim in the crowd. Reports differ from "he choked me" (no really if you can say in a calm voice "he is choking me" then you aren't really being choked that hard are you) to "I pulled his beard and sign" (the admission he gave to the cops) and "I didn't touch him" the argumet at court. So right off the bat this is a he said he said argument.

I just love these "first admendment" arguments. ("You can't touch me, I have my first amendment rights to mock you.") They forget that the amendment applies to the state, not to the people. The same people who wrote the Bil of Rights also would duel to the death for any statement that went against their honor.

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’

Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. (Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, ‘Only Muhammad can rape America!’) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

The judge later added, “Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge.”

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:05 pm

And some more information that won't surprise anyone, Tzor is still a retarded shithead.

tzor wrote:two guys dress up as Zombie Muhammad and Zombie Pope. Why? Because they are athiests? (Let's skip the why for now, because lot of people do things for the lamest of reasons

Two guys blow up an abortion clinic. Why? Because they are Catholic?

A better reason to actually skip the why, instead of ask a purposefully misleading question that posits a stupid theory, and then move on so you can attempt to trick people into believing that is the reason, is because generally speaking people don't do things because of a lack of belief in a specific imaginary thing. More likely, they had some affirmative reason for their actions, like that they were in a parade, where you are supposed to dress up, and they had a brainstorming session to come up with the funniest costumes related to the reason they were in the parade, and because funny costumes are hard, that was the best they could come up with.

tzor wrote:(Hidden in the article is the fact that the reverse of their sign said ‘Only Muhammad can rape America!’ If that isn't in your face offensive, I can't think of what the definition should be for in your face offensive.)

Indeed, how dare they hide the content of the article in the article where no one could be expected to find it.

But yes, I bet that is "in your face offensive" but of course, as you yourself demonstrate, five Supreme Court justices where in your face offensive in Roe V Wade. That offends you more than anything. In the mean time, people passing laws that coerce women to accept vaginal penetration for no medical purpose when they have no consented is pretty offensive to me. Lots of things are offensive, what is the relevance of the offensiveness of the sign here? Do you believe that offensive signs justify physical violence?

tzor wrote:Eventually there follows an encounter with a muslim in the crowd. Reports differ from "he choked me" (no really if you can say in a calm voice "he is choking me" then you aren't really being choked that hard are you) to "I pulled his beard and sign" (the admission he gave to the cops) and "I didn't touch him" the argumet at court. So right off the bat this is a he said he said argument.

Well no, it's actually not that, because there are reports from other people besides the victim and assailant. But even if it was, most assault convictions have little to no evidence of the crime outside the testimony of the victim. So again, what is the relevance of the fact that the assailant denies assaulting the victim?

tzor wrote:I just love these "first admendment" arguments. ("You can't touch me, I have my first amendment rights to mock you.") They forget that the amendment applies to the state, not to the people. The same people who wrote the Bil of Rights also would duel to the death for any statement that went against their honor.

?? I think you are confused. This isn't a first amendment case, despite the weird attempt by the judge to argue that the government could have prohibited the speech. The government didn't prohibit the speech. It does prohibit assault however. No part of the crime of assault supports the justification or excuse that you were offended, or that the victim looked like a doofus. If I took everything in the article at face value, the judges argument basically boils down to "If you offend someone's essence, then you deserve to be punched in the face." Now, the judge probably has a separate actually relevant part of his statements that addresses the quality of the evidence of the crime, and recognizes that Muslims don't have the right to lightly choke or grab the beard of people who offend them.

But in no way, when charges where pressed by a prosecutor against the Muslim defendant did the prosecutor argue that the Muslim defendant abridged the victims freedom of speech. He argued that he harassed him. A crime that has nothing at all to do with the first amendment.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:58 pm

Please note, I have Kaelik on ignore for a reason; he is an arrogant shithead. If he would decide to argue the message and not the messinger I might even give the dignity of a proper response.

And what the fuck has Roe v Wade got to do with this? Really, you are a fucking retard if you want to counter argue with such stupid points. By the way the Roe v wade doesn't "offend" me. I just think it is wrong.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:04 pm

tzor wrote:Please note, I have Kaelik on ignore for a reason; he is an arrogant shithead. If he would decide to argue the message and not the messinger I might even give the dignity of a proper response.

Learn to read. I did address the message. The message was, "Some guy either did or did not violently assault someone who offended him. But we think that if he was offended, that justifies criminal assault."

The message is stupid. Being offended does not justify criminal assault.

tzor wrote:And what the fuck has Roe v Wade got to do with this? Really, you are a fucking retard if you want to counter argue with such stupid points.

Lots of things offend lots of people. Why do you think that is in any way relevant to criminal assault?

K · Post by K » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:44 am

Rich people are less moral.

Shocking, right?

Vnonymous · Post by **Vnonymous** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:40 am

n an interesting twist, about one-third of Prius drivers broke crosswalk laws, putting the hybrid among the highest "unethical driving" car brands. "This is a good demonstration of the 'moral licensing' phenomenon, in which hybrid-car drivers who believe they're saving the Earth may feel entitled to behave unethically in other ways," Piff says. (The Prius results were observed but not analyzed for statistical significance in the study.)

Does this remind you of anyone?

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:57 am

Heh, I have 3 friends who each drive a Prius. Hrmmmmmmmm. I must run in a bad crowd.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:07 pm

D&D designers at risk again!

HASBRO lays-off 170
http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/22337.html

Dept of Justice suing e-books (Apple) for antitrust (price fixing)
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22365.html

wonder how this will affect HASBRO and their ideas that a PDF copy of a book should be the same price as a print copy? maybe it could make a new standard and force people to learn that you can NOT charge equal or more for digital since there is no tangible product, delivery cost, or shelf-space required that are often the majority of a books final markup (44%) as well the initial cost of the dead-tree stock and ink no longer exists for the material to make the book in the first place.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:32 pm

Shooting at my school.

http://wcbi.com/article.php?subaction=s ... ucat=1,2,4&

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:36 pm

I'm sorry.

Hell, it's a little irrationally worrying to me. I have a sister at Southern Miss.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:23 pm

Xbox 360 violates Motorola patents
http://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-360-v ... ge-6373198

The commission has the authority to issue an import ban on products that infringe patents, which would prevent Microsoft from bringing new Xbox 360s into the country.