So I was reading the list of Things I Am Not Allowed To Do At The PPC on the wiki, and I noted that number 330 states, and I quote, "I will swap Grand Admiral Thrawn with Major General Stanley." I would think that switching around canon characters would be something that is forbidden. Perhaps someone with the power to do so may wish to add in a 'not'? It's in Part V.
-
I don't think this is right. by
on 2011-05-11 00:59:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Re: I don't think this is right. by
on 2011-05-11 11:49:00 UTC
Link to this
Anyone can edit the wiki, broseph. This is your big chance! :D
-
But it says that it should not be edited on the wiki. (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 18:29:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Re: But it says that it should not be edited on the wiki. by
on 2011-05-12 18:22:00 UTC
Link to this
I think that means "don't add stuff and don't delete stuff". This would be typo removal. Go ahead and edit it and put "typo removal" in the explanation box.
- Survey time again! by on 2011-05-11 07:21:00 UTC Link to this
-
Incredibly late... by
on 2011-05-14 17:15:00 UTC
Link to this
...but I finished it. Very quickly, too.
It's kind of a shame I had to fill it out a few days after life-changing eye surgery, but hey, what can a man do? -
Finished! by
on 2011-05-12 22:53:00 UTC
Link to this
I feel sort of guilty for not filling in the LO section xD. (Although if I did there would probably be a scroll bar...my tastes are many and varied.)
-
I feel so old by
on 2011-05-12 06:57:00 UTC
Link to this
My second PPC annual survey. Well, you certainly know how to make a guy feel old July....
-
Re: I feel so old by
on 2011-05-12 07:04:00 UTC
Link to this
I now feel even worse. I just noticed I was the oldest person on last years survey...... Oy vey.
-
Actually, that honor goes to IndeMaat. by
on 2011-05-12 07:37:00 UTC
Link to this
Sorry.
-
Re: Actually, that honor goes to IndeMaat. by
on 2011-05-12 17:49:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, that's not quite so bad then. Although IndeMaat didn't put an actual age on the results for me to double check.
-
And another thing by
on 2011-05-12 19:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Miah is older than you, too.
-
You got to click your age by
on 2011-05-12 19:29:00 UTC
Link to this
I got the "old enough to not be a specific age", i.e. my age wasn't even listed.
It was listed this year. So you can double check when this year's results are published. -
Re: You got to click your age by
on 2011-05-12 21:41:00 UTC
Link to this
To be fair, just knowing I'm not the oldest makes me feel better.
-
I "don't have much bite to me"? What is it you want from me? by
on 2011-05-12 05:44:00 UTC
Link to this
Did I volunteer for some sort of Force Everyone To Participate duty that I don't remember?
-
See, the problem is.. by
on 2011-05-12 05:58:00 UTC
Link to this
You're too nice to use as a viable threat.
...Then again, the same applies to Makari.
Hm.
...I'm not very good at choosing suitably threatening people. -
I am not sure to be :D or D: at these implications. by
on 2011-05-12 06:40:00 UTC
Link to this
I think there are probably people who disagree but I can't for the life of me tell you who.
Maybe employ... uh... hmmm. Who is threatening enough? I'm not sure anyone I know here is suitably threatening. Perhaps I just haven't had to be threatened. -
Caddy by
on 2011-05-12 07:42:00 UTC
Link to this
Definitely the most threatening boarder we have. Or at least the most psychopathic.
-
Well, maybe it's because I don't know Caddy that well... by
on 2011-05-12 21:26:00 UTC
Link to this
...But I feel obliged to disagree. To me, Caddy isn't all that threatening. See, the thing about psychopaths is that they're not really all that threatening until they flip out and go ax-crazy on you, and once your head has been bashed in threats become basically irrelevant.
So, not Caddy. Um...Well, speaking frankly, I would have to say July. No offense, but intentionally or not you have refined scaring people to a high art. Well, me anyway.
But, on the other hand, since it's July needs someone else to scare people, this doesn't really help anybody at all...
And now, having sucessfully wasted everybody's time for, oh, the third time this week, I'm leaving to go somewhere important. I don't actually know where this place is, but apparently it's extremely important. Oh well... -
I'll do it. by
on 2011-05-13 17:53:00 UTC
Link to this
I may not be the scariest boarder, but I might be the most argumentative one.
Except for maybe July.
But that brings us back to the original point! :U -
My favorate department was missing. by
on 2011-05-12 00:25:00 UTC
Link to this
All purpose isn't there.
-
I am not a starfish. by
on 2011-05-12 00:08:00 UTC
Link to this
Despite my strong desire to claim starfishdom, I feel it would be wrong for me to lie and make people think there are more starfish inhabiting the board than previously suspected.
But it was oh so tempting... -
Uhm... by
on 2011-05-12 00:07:00 UTC
Link to this
Lurker/newbie who did do this is also hoping that it's okay to do so. (It was pretty fun to answer though. ;])
-
What?! by
on 2011-05-12 00:09:00 UTC
Link to this
...Of course it's okay! If you hang around the 'Board, you're a PPCer. No other qualifications to give. ^^
-
Well, I dunno... by
on 2011-05-12 02:15:00 UTC
Link to this
That could be debated. In my book, if you hang around the Board, you're a Boarder. When you get Permission, you're a PPCer. We do other things on the Board besides PPC-related stuff, so I don't think the two need to be mutually inclusive per se.
That's just my opinion, of course. Since it's a Boarder survey as well as a PPC survey, Ms. Muse here is fine either way. Really, it's just a question of semantics, but I feel the need to give my two cents... -
Are you aware... by
on 2011-05-13 17:12:00 UTC
Link to this
... that a lot of the big names from the old days of the Board never had Permission? BeautyID (y'know, the one who wrote the poem at the top of the Constitution) never wrote anything at all PPC-related, to the best of my knowledge, but she was a PPCer, no doubt.
hS -
Nah. by
on 2011-05-12 02:46:00 UTC
Link to this
If you hang around the PPC 'Board, you're a PPCer. When you get Permission, you're... still a PPCer. When you write a spin-off, you're... still a PPCer.
-
Done! by
on 2011-05-11 23:54:00 UTC
Link to this
You know, I'm kinda laconic. No I've got the proof.
-
'No' is supposed to be 'now' (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 23:58:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Hurrah! I have done it! by
on 2011-05-11 22:51:00 UTC
Link to this
Although I wish there was an exclamation point after the "Hurrah" in the "I am single" answer. Not the one with the "successfully reproduced," just the normal one. I am proud of my singleness. *lets the world know*
-
Done! by
on 2011-05-11 22:06:00 UTC
Link to this
And done! Frankly, anything to avoid sporking another chapter of StarKis Prophecy. Yes, really.
- Last year's survey, pie-graphed by on 2011-05-11 21:33:00 UTC Link to this
-
Oooh! Graphs! by
on 2011-05-11 23:52:00 UTC
Link to this
That was very nice. Graphs instantly add some cool to any data.
-
Very slick. (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 23:03:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Yay, survey by
on 2011-05-11 20:50:00 UTC
Link to this
Finished.
I have Excel and could work up some demographic charts. Would that be cool? -
Whoops, that was the wrong nickname by
on 2011-05-11 20:55:00 UTC
Link to this
I use "Danielle" on the Net sometimes. But this would be Calista offering to do the spreadsheet-wrangling.
-
Survey time. by
on 2011-05-11 19:56:00 UTC
Link to this
I finished mine. Beware moderate amounts of snark.
-
Done! by
on 2011-05-11 19:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Even if I felt like an idiot, most answers were exaclty the same of the previous year XD
-
Wheee, survey! by
on 2011-05-11 19:28:00 UTC
Link to this
I bet some of my answers have changed from last year. I'm awesome like that. >.>
~Neshomeh -
Do I get to play? by
on 2011-05-11 18:31:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm still in my month of Lurking. Can I still do the survey?
-
Yes. (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 19:03:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Posted! by
on 2011-05-11 17:54:00 UTC
Link to this
Though some of the answers might be kinda vauge...
Hopefully it'll help you folks get to know me a bit better... -
Submitted! (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 16:30:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Heh. I really wasn't hinting... by
on 2011-05-11 14:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Submitted though!
(Also the results from last year are amusing.) -
How so amusing? (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 17:26:00 UTC
Link to this
-
...Um. by
on 2011-05-11 21:54:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, getting to certain questions and going "...How did I answer this last time, anyway?" and then reading the answer from last time and laughing.
(Ie: Lust Object? "...Yup.") -
Very Nice. Also, who else here likes Kitty Norville? (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 10:57:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*wave* (nm) by
on 2011-05-12 05:59:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Awesome. by
on 2011-05-12 07:22:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm excited for the next book. Luckily, I haven't found any fics worth missions, but I keep an eye out, just in case.
-
Some issues with the answers by
on 2011-05-11 08:42:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't want to use "straight" as the slang term for heterosexual. It's like saying heterosexuals are more "right" about their sexual orientation than others.
The UK is in Europe too. British people sometimes forget that, or they actively try to misremember.
And yay for having my own named button. -
After Much Thought by
on 2011-05-13 16:51:00 UTC
Link to this
I have come to the conclusion that my previous comments were asinine, and pointless. I apologize for inflicting them on the members of the board.
I would, however, like to say what I truly meant in regards to your first comment. With all due respect, I must disagree with your fundamental assumption. This is why: http://lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng
I admire that you are willing to stand up in defense of what you believe is right, but on this subject our respective views of 'right' are fundamentally opposed. And just as you must stand up for what you believe, so too must I. -
Strange, that. by
on 2011-05-11 17:35:00 UTC
Link to this
While I can't say it's the same for everyone, since it is certainly not, I spent roughly a year in the LGBT activist group on campus before I left school entirely, and at no point did we ever use heterosexual or homosexual strictly; we used gay, straight, etc.
There's nothing I consider derogatory about the word 'straight', and suggesting it is is rather confusing, when the vast majority of LGBTQIetc people will use more casual and friendly words, including gay, to refer to themselves.
I'll admit that as far as my way of experience goes, I don't have very much, but the thought that I should have 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' up there instead, on what is supposed to be a casual survey, and on a question that isn't even required to be answered, no less, sends a slight chill up my spin because those terms are, for the most part, reserved and used in medical/psychological contexts, or by American conservatives for homophobic purposes.
The homosexual menace, can't let homosexuals near the children, etc.
The differentiation between Europe and the UK is purely one due to the fact that the UK is generally entirely English speaking, as compared to most of Europe, where, as I understand, if people know English and they're native Europeans, it's usually as a second- or third- language.
This constructs a language barrier, and historically, the PPC Board has had a large contingent of people from the British Isles.
Artell however did point out to me that the use of UK as compared to 'British Isles' does produce a quandary for the suddenly extinct Irish people, so I've changed it in case we have any Irish people or elsewise lurking up in Ireland. -
I've been made sensative by fanficrants by
on 2011-05-11 19:43:00 UTC
Link to this
Through numerous posts on how to write people with a different sexual orientation than heterosexual respectfully I've become more aware of how certain words can be interpreted. I did not at all mean to suggest you used straight in a derogatory way, or would support that position.
It just stuck out to me that for other orientations more 'posh sounding' words were used, so why not for heterosexual and homosexual? I see nothing wrong with these words. I don't even particularly associate them with medical contexts. I find them perfectly everyday.
On the other hand, it appears pansexual needs a casual nickname. -
Re: I've been made sensative by fanficrants by
on 2011-05-11 20:54:00 UTC
Link to this
The less common ones don't really have easily recognizable nicknames. I don't think too many people would understand what I'm saying if I call myself "ace"--they'd assume I was talking about flying in WWII. But if I said I was bi or gay, they'd know exactly what I meant (I'm actually platonic biromantic asexual feminine-genderqueer, but that's a frigging mouthful and I never use it except when I talk about how ridiculous these terms can get). So I have to say "asexual", however much it sounds like an amoeba. It's an annoyance, but I'm not going to get ranty about it. I'll save the rants for the "You Just Need The Right Guy" and "Lose Weight And I'm Sure The Boys Will Love You" people.
-
We should coin one. by
on 2011-05-11 19:46:00 UTC
Link to this
We can make it a play on Jack Harkness.
-
Yessss. by
on 2011-05-12 23:22:00 UTC
Link to this
That would be amazing. Jack would approve.
-
Sigh... by
on 2011-05-11 16:57:00 UTC
Link to this
So the only real problems are that one is technically unnecessary and the other fails to meet some arbitrary standard of Political Correctness?
Normally I wouldn't bother commenting; If there was only the comment about the UK being in Europe I'd have ignored this. Unfortunately, you opened your post with a call for Political Correctness.
I hate Political Correctness. I hate trying to tiptoe around every single minority, special interest group, and ethical dissonance in an attempt to keep people from being offended. I especially hate the extra effort involved, because seventy percent of the time the Politically Correct term is syllables longer than the one it replaces. Or involves a backslash.
Can we please stick with the simple, accepted, monosyllabic terms that we already have, for the sake of simplicity if nothing else?
[This has been an Adamantine Rant in a Nutshell. I will now step down fro my soapbox.] -
PC by
on 2011-05-11 19:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Did I mention Political Correctness? No, I did not.
I didn't mention equality or respect either, but that was what I was after. That all sexual orientations should be treated with equal respect, and thus that there should not be a word that suggests that one orientation is better than any other.
If you don't want to make the effort of being respectful, that's your problem. Don't try to bully me into giving up on respect for the sake of simplicity. Political Correctness, or basic good manners, became unfashionable around where I live quite some years ago, and it hasn't really become a nicer place to live. That's why I'm sticking up for respect. -
Apologies. by
on 2011-05-12 00:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Once again It seems that I have put my foot forward only to find out that it was the wrong foot. It was not my intention to come across as denigrating toward people on the basis of their sexual orientation. I would like to clarify my thinking, and hopefully convince you that I am not the total jerk that I seem to have come across as.
The definition of Political Correctness that I was working from is this: 'replacing a given word with a more socially acceptable term.' This is not, in and of itself a bad thing.
For example, in the 1960s during the Civil Rights movement, the common appellations for people of color - Black, Negro, etc - were pejorative, which is to say, they were intrinsically linked with negative stereotypes. There was no effective way to redeem the old appellations and so a new appellation was needed. Thus we end up with African American.
[I am now entering anecdote mode. The following is an entirely subjective account. If you don’t feel like reading my long-winded, biased perceptions, you may skip ahead to the next set of brackets. Otherwise, please keep your hands and feet inside the ride at all times, and enjoy the ride.]
On the other hand, when I was in high school, someone put forth the idea that the typical masculine default of essay writing was demeaning to women. That someone made a loud enough demand that for a while my teacher would make it a point that we should not use 'mankind' to refer to humanity, or 'he' to refer to generic individuals. The first is rather simple to work around, but how do you replace a pronoun if the gender neutral, 'it', carries the connotations of object status? The solution: instead of using a single pronoun you had to use both; instead of "when a man looks inside himself, this is what he sees," you had to write "when a person looks inside him or her self, this is what he/she sees." We had to write like that every. single. sentence. The replacement was not only longer, but didn't flow as well; There was no elegance in that solution.
Now here I was, and the default that I had been trained in, the format I was comfortable with, had just been thrown out the window because someone assumed that just because I was using the masculine form that I was automatically insulting women. This irritated me. It felt like some total stranger had walked up to me out of the blue and said "you think you're better than me, don't you? well you know what? I'm going to penalize you for it: from now on you have to...." Someone somewhere decided that the masculine default was so oppressive that it should be removed entirely, and worse, instead of simply switching to a feminine default they made us write in a ridiculous dual format, And they did this because masculinity itself was, apparently, an insult to women.
I would like to take a moment to make it clear that I have a great deal of respect for women; some of them are smarter than me, most of them multitask better than I'll ever be able to, and every single one of them is a darn sight prettier than I am. On the other hand, I am male, and I am perfectly comfortable being one, so when I project my thoughts out into the world they carry a masculine bias. I don't intend any insult to any party with that bias, it's just there. Then someone comes along and tells me "you can't think from a male perspective because men aren't better than women."
Wait, What? Why don’t you just introduce a feminine default? If you don’t want everyone making the assumption that readers are male then give the writer latitude to assume they’re all female. Why do you restrict my choices in the name of equality instead of simply giving others more freedom to act?
[Now leaving anecdote mode. We hope that you had fun, and that we’ll see you again in the future.]
Now, since rant mode has dragged me rather farther afield, I’d like to summarize My perception of the topic.
Political Correctness = I want a new word
In the current context there are two reasons for a new word
a) Your word for me is offensive
b) Your word makes you sound better than me
If you are offended by the appellation I use to refer to you or your group, and ask me to use a different term in the future, I will make an effort to do so. In fact, if you do so politely, I will respect you as an individual for your levelheadedness in regards to my ignorance. If, however, you come to me and tell me that some group over there should be called a different name because the one they have makes them sound better than your group , I will make two comments: a) that the connotative definition of a word is the product of society, and b) I will ask why you aren’t confident enough in your own group to prove that your group is just as good as the other group without my help.
Society has its own perceptions, and you can’t change them by demanding that they change. If you replace a positive appellation from something that society considers truly positive, then whatever replacement you chose will eventually take on the same positive connotations. If society thinks something is better or more useful or more ‘normal’ or more common, then that same thought will carry over, no matter what you call it. Words sometimes can change perception, but perception more often changes words.
Finally, and this is the real point of my whole discussion, I don’t believe in top-down equality. Tearing down a skyscraper doesn’t add any extra stories to your house, and cutting off a taller man’s head doesn’t make the short man any less short. Progress is what you get when you pull yourself to a higher level; pulling someone down to yours only gives you the illusion of progress.
Thank you for your time. If you have any comments or criticism I welcome them, and will try to give them the same consideration that you have given me. -
...Well, actually. by
on 2011-05-12 01:29:00 UTC
Link to this
On the other hand, when I was in high school, someone put forth the idea that the typical masculine default of essay writing was demeaning to women.
Not demeaning, necessarily-- marginalising is more accurate.
Also, there is a movement now for gender-neutral pronouns of xie, zir, xieself, etc. I am not as familiar with it as I would like, but it's the accepted standard for referring to someone whose gender is unspecified or unknown on the Slacktiverse. On the other hand, this xkcd strip puts forward the idea of 'them' instead of any singular pronoun in the case of gender-neutrality.
Wait, What? Why don’t you just introduce a feminine default?
People have done this. It generally does not go well, and is met with a huge outcry of "But what about the MEN?!"
Society has its own perceptions, and you can’t change them by demanding that they change.Ye gods, for the first time in a long time I feel restricted by the 'Board and our PG-13 code.
Horse excrement. You can ONLY change society's perceptions by working to change them. You can ONLY show people the hurt inherent in their language by pointing it out to them, and you can ONLY end that hurt by demanding it be changed.
I have gotten to the point where I truly dislike the term "Political Correctness," because it has come to mean "whining about non-specific language regardless of context," and I don't like that. I am all for changing society's perception, I am all for standing up for minority rights, and I am very much against the privileged majority deciding that their convenience is more important than the harm it may be causing.
This may seem like a vitriolic post, and I apologize if I have dragged the tone farther towards the angry end of the spectrum. This topic is something I feel rather passionately about, as a writer and an activist. -
Yeah, the PC movement doesn't really exist. by
on 2011-05-13 07:25:00 UTC
Link to this
Because 'politically correct' is a pejorative term used by people who are uncomfortable when they face social consequences for their offensive language. The actual philosophy could probably be better described as the 'don't be a jerk movement'.
Adamantine, it's great that you don't believe in top-down equality, or cutting off people's heads (well done there). But what you don't see, as a privileged person, is the fact that some terms and some modes of speech are actively digging holes under people's feet. When a man writes something in the masculine generic, it completely ignores and invalidates the existence of women, who are already pushing against centuries of being regarded as less than human. You won't see the harm, since you're not a woman, but the harm exists. I'm sure you don't think that you see women as 'less than', but neither did all of the men who stopped them voting, divorcing, owning property . . . of course the masculine generic is a lesser evil. But anything which implies that the only significant portions of humanity are male is the same evil, just a bit paler.
Words do shape thoughts. We're writers here, we know they have power. And asking people not to use harmful words isn't being 'politically correct'; it's just not being a jerk. -
Thank you by
on 2011-05-12 04:02:00 UTC
Link to this
for at least giving me the chance to get off of the toes that I've stepped on. I tend to be blunt on subjects that I feel strongly about, so I appreciate your equally blunt criticism.
a) "...marginalizing is more accurate."
I don't really have a counterargument for this. It seemed a lot clearer back then when all I could see was me, as a man, being punished for writing in the masculine rather than the obvious (to me) solution of giving women the option of writing in the feminine. I have never had a problem with following a neutral (someone, person) with a feminine pronoun. It feels a bit odd to read at first, but I understand that it was written with the whole of humanity in mind.
"...a movement for gender-neutral pronouns..."
And if they ever make it into formal writing I will give a solemn cheer. Followed by silent cursing for using awkward-to-reach letters. I actually think that 'they' and 'them will formally make the transition to singular before the new pronouns are in, thought. And there will be much rejoicing.
b) "...introduce a feminine default?"
Yes, this has been done, probably with varying levels of success. The example that comes to mind is White Wolf publishing, which has used a feminine default in several of their WoD source books. The fan game Genius is also in the feminine.
c) "... change them by demanding that they change"
"...working to change them"
I didn't mean that society's perceptions couldn't change, although I think my point would have been clearer had I included a 'simply' in my statement. There is a difference between demanding something and working for something, although in certain contexts demanding may be a portion of working. but you cannot simply demand something and reasonably expect it to happen.
It falls back to the concept of "show, don't tell." To change society you have to make them want to change, you have to give them something that resonates in their soul so much that they have no choice but to help the change occur. Saying the same thing in the same way with different words isn't the way to go about it.
In the end, it is every person's moral obligation to do everything they can to fix what they perceive as wrong in their society. The problem is that everyone these days seems to draw the line between right and wrong in a different place. The issue you see as the greatest detriment to progress is the same issue that another person is convinced will lead to the destruction of society. There are argumentative lines drawn with Ethos, lines with Logos, and lines with Pathos, and every line is absolutely convinced that it is the only one that matters. You only have to convince people to redraw their lines so that they're standing on your side of the field. -
First of all, I echo all of VM's sentiments. by
on 2011-05-12 05:36:00 UTC
Link to this
...but you cannot simply demand something and reasonably expect it to happen.
The 'working' part of causing change is getting enough people to also demand that society changes. When enough of society agrees with the change, society changes.
Demand does equal change.
I can sympathize with your his/her plight, but that's more of an argument for bad change. It's heart was in the right place, but it didn't execute it well. It's certainly not an argument for trying to remove generations old prejudiced artifacts of our culture. -
^ This. (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 21:52:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Political Correctness by
on 2011-05-11 18:00:00 UTC
Link to this
I went through a phase of 'hating political correctness' - then I got over it.
We are too privileged a group to get all self righteous about people trying to retake language that was used for long periods of time to oppress them. -
....No. by
on 2011-05-11 17:40:00 UTC
Link to this
The point of political correctness isn't tiptoeing around people, it's the effort of trying to respect other people was being people.
Don't try and pull the white middle class male 'oh woe I'm being oppressed because of political correctness' card.
It's an attempt to remove privilege and oppression, not further oppression.
Thanks for letting us all know your opinion, though. -
Agreed by
on 2011-05-11 17:57:00 UTC
Link to this
Coincidentally I was just talking with some people on IRC about this topic last night, and I agree that 'straight' is most definitely a not-neutral word.
-
Re: Agreed by
on 2011-05-11 18:58:00 UTC
Link to this
What would be a neutral word? I don't think that's achievable here. Just so we're not using non-neutral as a pejorative. Being aware of bias and acting against it is much more important than sanitizing vocabulary (which is certainly important too).
-
Heterosexual is a neutral word. by
on 2011-05-11 19:42:00 UTC
Link to this
You can use 'het' in casual conversation. Some people do.
-
Re: Heterosexual is a neutral word. by
on 2011-05-11 20:58:00 UTC
Link to this
July already laid out how 'heterosexual' isn't really neutral either.
-
Howso? by
on 2011-05-11 22:59:00 UTC
Link to this
She mentioned that it's not casual, and I addressed that by saying that 'het' is a perfectly fine casual rendition.
And casualness has nothing to do with a word's neutrality. -
Honestly, I think what she said applies more to homosexual. by
on 2011-05-11 21:53:00 UTC
Link to this
And if you don't want to get too formal with "heterosexual" typed out in full, I do agree that "het" is a decent informal way to go.
-
Re: Some issues with the answers by
on 2011-05-11 11:35:00 UTC
Link to this
There. I answered.
I AM ALSO A STARFISH GUYS
-
Hello! by
on 2011-05-11 16:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Hi! ^^
As you've probably guessed, I'm new around here. I found the PPC via TVTropes last week, and have spent the past few days reading just about all of the material.
Given that I have a love of (good) writing, sarcastic humour and a strong aversion to badfic, 'Sues and butchery of the English Language, this seemed like the perfect place for me!
As far as fandoms go, it would be easier for me to list things that I don't like than the things I do. Suffice to say that my main areas are sci-fi, anime and horror. Other people may find it odd to go from playing Silent Hill to watching Haruhi Suzumiya, but not me. You can probably guess from my pen-name that I have a love of Doctor Who (and yes, I have actually tried fish custard, it's very nice, thank you!).
I also think I've become desensitised to squick and other things thanks to my previous reading/watching (you've heard of the SCP Foundation, yes?). I know I should probably go for counseling or something but, meh, I can deal with being insane! ^~ -
Hello! by
on 2011-05-17 11:38:00 UTC
Link to this
Have some exotic food and water!
-
'Sup? by
on 2011-05-14 17:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Welcome! Fun times will be had here, especially with a kickass username like that.
Here, have some Honegger for the road:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfysyex_DAk -
Hello! by
on 2011-05-13 16:53:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm a bit late, but Welcome!
Here, Have a star for steering tall ships by. -
Thanks! by
on 2011-05-13 14:21:00 UTC
Link to this
Thanks for the warm welcome and the plethora of dubiously useful objects, now I just need to find somewhere to put them.... :P
PS: If I replied to all your messages individually I'd flood the board and probably get portalled into Celebrian or something as punishment, hence the 'global reply'. -
Re: Hello! by
on 2011-05-13 00:21:00 UTC
Link to this
Hello! Hi! Aloha! And lots of other greetings of varying levels of sanity!
-
I'm digging that penname. by
on 2011-05-12 19:51:00 UTC
Link to this
Welcome to the board! Have a sonic shell- it looks like a sonic screwdriver, but it has no circuitry inside, so therefore, it's completely nonfunctional. Enjoy!
-
Hi by
on 2011-05-12 19:32:00 UTC
Link to this
Welcome to the PPC! Have a bottle of Bleepka. You'll need it soon.
-
Greetings! by
on 2011-05-12 14:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Well met, rookie! Please enjoy these steel-toed stompin' boots as a welcoming present.
-
First plover! (nm) by
on 2011-05-12 03:26:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Have a Peregrine Falcon! by
on 2011-05-12 01:02:00 UTC
Link to this
Don't feed it Sueish fish.
-
Greetings! by
on 2011-05-12 01:01:00 UTC
Link to this
Here, have a Dramatic Longcoat. It will flutter dramatically when you need it to, regardless of whether the wind is blowing or not.
-
Welcome! by
on 2011-05-12 00:18:00 UTC
Link to this
Here you have a horse hoof. It gives +1 intelligence.
-
Greetings! by
on 2011-05-12 00:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Don't forget your towel! *hands Fish Custard a towel*
-
Welcome! by
on 2011-05-12 00:02:00 UTC
Link to this
I found the PPC from TV-Tropes, too. Have a generic sharp object for killing 'Sues!
-
Welcome, here's a tall ship. by
on 2011-05-11 21:58:00 UTC
Link to this
Fair winds!
Now you can throw BBQ parties! -
Welcome! Have an SOS Brigade band! (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 19:45:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Good to have you a-Board! by
on 2011-05-11 18:14:00 UTC
Link to this
Welcome, new friend! The internet thanks you for your previous work in securing, containing and protecting. Have a vial of fish liver oil! If you ever need a dramatic underwater getaway, just rub this on your neck, and you'll be sporting gills in no time!
-
Hello newbie! by
on 2011-05-11 17:56:00 UTC
Link to this
Welcome to the Board! Here, have some chocolate, and enjoy your stay here!
-
Re: Hello! by
on 2011-05-11 16:59:00 UTC
Link to this
Hi! Have some fudge!
-
Welcome. by
on 2011-05-11 16:54:00 UTC
Link to this
Already insane? Too bad, I just wanted to advise you to put your sanity into the bucket over there.
Anyways, welcome to the board, have an awesome-laced cookie. -
Ahoi Thar! by
on 2011-05-11 16:52:00 UTC
Link to this
Welcome! Have a conical hat and a cheese tea biscuit.
The conical hat is made of duct tape and tin foil, and is useful for keeping conspiracy theorists out!
The cheese tea biscuit is a cheese tea biscuit. -
Aah you ninja'd me! (nm) by
on 2011-05-11 16:56:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Mission plug/new web hoster. by
on 2011-05-12 22:53:00 UTC
Link to this
I finally finished my first mission. Big thanks go to the IRC channel people for giving some hints and especially for Caddy for betaing.
Also, I have a new web hoster: http://rc7331.freezoka.net
Link to the mission: http://rc7331.freezoka.net/mission1.html
Typos are free for all.
Also, I have found the two Wrath Cadets Keal'thas and Vasj and the mini-dwarf Magni. He's a reverse mini.
You may adopt them, but I warn you, the cadets like to poke agents with pointy things and Magni... he's a dwarf. No further comments.
~EF -
Sorry, I'm late. by
on 2011-05-17 17:17:00 UTC
Link to this
Overall I liked your mission. There were a few places I had some trouble following along with the canon, because I know nothing at all about Warcraft. Other than a bit of vagueness that wouldn't have bothered me had I known canon, I didn't notice any nitpicks.
Oh wait! One. I prefer reading online materials that have a space between each paragraph for ease on my eyes. That's not really a nitpick, though, more a personal preference. -
I like it! by
on 2011-05-13 17:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Nice one, I enjoyed reading that!
However, you might want to put the 'change colour scheme' option at the top, as it took a while for me to find it, and white on black is hard to read for some people.
Oh, and I think there might be an error in the last line: "...ignore that Forks, WA wasn't that far from Los Angeles away". Shouldn't that be "...wasn't that far away from Los Angeles"?
Sorry for the nitpicks! -
Hey, I like nitpicks. by
on 2011-05-13 19:32:00 UTC
Link to this
They help me correct things.
Also, I'm not sure where I could put the but- oh wait I do have an idea right now. -
Re: Hey, I like nitpicks. by
on 2011-05-13 21:06:00 UTC
Link to this
Much better with the links at the top, but they, er... don't appear to work correctly. They send you to the webhost's main page as opposed to reloading the mission page.
-
Really good mission! by
on 2011-05-12 23:07:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm just going to point out an error in the first paragraph...Unless I'm totally wrong, shouldn't "What do you think where badfic comes from?" be "WHERE do you think..."? I'm also pretty sure that there's a few missing commas in various places.
Anyway, just saying.
Again, nice job otherwise! I especially liked the carp-slapping. Heh.
-
Permission Request by
on 2011-05-12 23:48:00 UTC
Link to this
I would like to put a couple agents to work for the PPC. I would also like to request Response Center 8345 for them.
Agent Arthur Briggs, DMS-Freelance.
Agent Briggs was recruited from a (fictional) Third Doctor badfic. He was a member of UNIT, only in the story to die covering the Sue's escape. Instead, he was recruited to the PPC.
Intern Lynn Gillies
Intern Gillies is a World One recruit, who learned of the PPC when a CPS team paid a visit to her D&D game. Some of the other players had been working on a crossover fic; their player-characters and the crew of the Enterprise.
Full agent bios are here: http://gamingkitty.livejournal.com/15805.html#cutid1
The intro/permission piece is here: http://gamingkitty.livejournal.com/16085.html#cutid1
Their first mission: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2839210/1/Chantel (Hogan's Heroes) -
Permission granted! by
on 2011-05-21 04:00:00 UTC
Link to this
Sorry about the wait. Consider yourself Permissioned, official, and etcetera, quod erat demonstrandum.
One quick note, though. The PPC really isn't allowed to operate against authors - they have Rights which their characters don't, and out-of-verse, there's miles and miles of difference between killing someone's fictional character and threatening them in person. So, yeah. It'd be easy enough to justify (They were OFU students who should have known better, and the visit was a "please don't" rather than anything more formal, perhaps), but please don't make a habit of going after authors instead of Sues. (It just causes problems.) -
No problem by
on 2011-05-21 13:17:00 UTC
Link to this
Schedules get busy, especially this time of year.
I'll clean up Gillies' background. I was going for CPS having a "please don't make this much extra work for us" chat, obviously it didn't come across that way. Sorry. -
Critique by
on 2011-05-20 18:38:00 UTC
Link to this
Disclaimer: I'm not a PG but here's my two cents anyway.
Start off with the bad first (there's not much of it):
1) Gillies' entrance into the PPC is unlikely. The PPC's jurisdiction doesn't stretch into World One, nor would they be likely to interrupt a DnD game. The PPC is more concerned with published works.
2) The intro is informative, concise and well written, but it's not funny. Not even situationally funny.
If you amend Gillie's character/backstory to have a bit more likely and maybe make some other tweaks so that humor creeps in more, this would be perfect.
-
Wiki seems to be down... by
on 2011-05-13 02:42:00 UTC
Link to this
Is anyone else having everything come up blank?
-
Speaking of the wiki (ATTENTION FOLKS WITH NEW AGENTS) by
on 2011-05-13 20:30:00 UTC
Link to this
I have one thing to say: One sentence and an infobox does not a character page make.
Aster and I recently spent months working to clear out a gazillion stub character pages in order to improve the overall appearance and coherence of the wiki, and we'd like it if you didn't undo the effort. You don't have to follow this exactly if you don't want to, but please use this as a guide for content your character page should have in it so as to be an actual article and not a stub: http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/Help:How_to_Make_a_Character_Page
Please, if you're not ready to post actual content in your article, wait until you are.
~Neshomeh -
A question by
on 2011-05-14 14:59:00 UTC
Link to this
Is it just current Agents who get a character page? Or do posthumous characters have to have their information as a blurb on a related character's page?
-
Depends. by
on 2011-05-14 17:50:00 UTC
Link to this
If you've got more than a few lines of basic statistics to say about them, then a page is probably fine, but in cases of "X was Y's former partner until Z happened to them" or similar, just a mention on Y's page is probably sufficient--especially if they never appear in any stories.
~Neshomeh -
Okay... by
on 2011-05-15 08:03:00 UTC
Link to this
But what about Agents you plan to write about? I mean, just because I haven't written an introduction yet... I still have the ten-page bio, complete with every background character, I can just redlink them for now, right?
Kidding! Don't kill me!GAH! Don't kill me!! -
There's directions for that. by
on 2011-05-15 16:10:00 UTC
Link to this
Go to the Glossary of PPC Characters. There are directions for all kinds of material for your characters. There are bit characters with only one appearance that are linked. There are characters that have a homepage, but no spin-off yet.
You don't have to link to your spin-off, but if you have other material posted online (and you have Permission) you can post a link to 'home' instead of 'spin off' while your characters are being written.
You don't have to redlink. Just be sure to change the link to the actual spin offs when you do manage to make a spin off for them.
Don't worry guys-- we (and by we, I mean the amazing Neshomeh) already thought of this stuff! Just read the directions and it will serve all of your character-linking needs. -
I was kidding. by
on 2011-05-15 19:06:00 UTC
Link to this
I am not going to actually add my not-yet-written characters to the Glossary.
Besides, the Wiki is still a strange ans frightening territory of which VM was not meant to wot. -
Wiki is back up if it was down at all. (nm) by
on 2011-05-13 03:36:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Magic Teacher? by
on 2011-05-13 22:41:00 UTC
Link to this
So I recruited a boatload of OCs from my first badfic (the sporking of which is still in beta-ing ) and I am keeping two of them, one of whom is very emotional. And her magic is tied to her emotions, and she keeps blowing stuff up. But I can't find any NPCs on the wiki who could teach her how to control it. Will I have to make someone up, or did I just not look hard enough?
-
If you want someone to teach her magic, by
on 2011-05-14 05:44:00 UTC
Link to this
then I wouldn't mind lending out Lee. She's a trained Elemental Mage, so if it's control you want, she's probably a good choice to start out with.
-
Hmm. by
on 2011-05-14 03:36:00 UTC
Link to this
Emotion control, huh? I don't know of any specific NPCs (besides FicPsych as a whole,) but I'd be willing to lend you Agent Xericka (http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/Xericka) to help with that regard. She's only good at controlling her emotions because she can't actually feel any, of course, but she understands the mechanics of how emotions in general work. Plus, she's magical in a very limited fashion.
-
Well, I don't know about magic, but... by
on 2011-05-14 02:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Presumably the Department of Fictional Psychology has people who know about emotions and stuff. {; )
http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/FicPsych_Personnel
Actually, I'll offer Nurse Mirrad, who is a Minbari of the Religious Caste, which means his level of emotional control is only one or two degrees shy of Vulcan. He's not a magic-user, so if someone else has somebody who is, that might be better, but he CAN instruct in the ways of keeping a lid on one's passions.
~Neshomeh -
Thanks ^^ by
on 2011-05-14 02:43:00 UTC
Link to this
He looks hard to write, though o.O I don't want to screw him up. Although I can imagine some very fun scenarios with him and Dawn.
-
Nah, not that hard. by
on 2011-05-14 05:10:00 UTC
Link to this
I guess a bit harder if you've never watched Babylon 5, but he's not terribly complicated to write. Still, I'm up for co-writing some stuff if you like. I see you've got an offer from PoorCynic, too, so it's totally up to you. {= )
~Neshomeh -
o.O.o by
on 2011-05-14 15:30:00 UTC
Link to this
Um xD
*brainstorms* Maybe she could have lessons with Mirrad for emotional control and then lessons with Lee for actual magic? -
Just contact me when you want to collaborate on something. by
on 2011-05-14 20:40:00 UTC
Link to this
My contact info is on the beta readers page on the wiki.
-
Ooh, I forgot Lee was a mage. by
on 2011-05-14 17:42:00 UTC
Link to this
Lee's probably a good bet to start with--best of both, sort of thing. If she really needs the extra training in mental discipline, though (note: may include such exercises as standing naked under a waterfall and ridiculous amounts of meditation), Mirrad's always around FicPsych. {= )
~Neshomeh -
Those learning methods are sure strange. by
on 2011-05-14 20:25:00 UTC
Link to this
Naked under a waterfall? That looks more like something that Lux would enjoy, rather than training.
Well, all depends on the size of the waterfall. -
Just imagine... by
on 2011-05-14 21:58:00 UTC
Link to this
... the mental and emotional discipline it would take to stand naked under a large waterfall with Lux. *eg*
(Mirrad wouldn't suggest that, though. {X D )
~Neshomeh -
That Would Not Be A Problem xD by
on 2011-05-14 22:58:00 UTC
Link to this
Given that Dawn is about eleven years old. Ish. (Thank you, badfic author, for not telling us her actual age.)
Also, how does this co-writing thing work? Do you do it on AIM or something? -
That's one way. by
on 2011-05-15 05:23:00 UTC
Link to this
I usually use GoogleDocs, though. It's a lot easier, and neater, too.
-
Seconding GDocs. by
on 2011-05-17 16:26:00 UTC
Link to this
It's great for this sort of thing, when it behaves.
My contact info is also on my wiki page, by the way.
~Neshomeh
-
OT: Another parody song for the songbook! by
on 2011-05-14 05:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Hopefully it's better than my last attempts!
This one is called Good Fanfic, sung to the tune of 'Still Alive'. Oh, yeah. I went there. Portal~!
Download Link: http://www.sendspace.com/file/rhxup9
Youtube Vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyMus79qp9g
Lyrics:
This was a nightmare
Spelling mistakes and grammar fails
There're no words to describe my irritation
You need a beta
The characters are so O.O.C.
Here's a list of all the things
That really have to change
There're a hundred thousand twenty-four mistakes
Could you please use spellcheck for all of our sakes?
Research the characters some more
Then the people will adore
Something close to a good fanfic
Why are you angry?
I'm giving you some good concrit
I'm not trying to flame you or the story
I am not trolling
Or trying to pick a fight with you
You should try out my advice
Because I'm trying to help
There're no periods at the end of each line
If you think that's great, then you're out of your mind
Please be mindful of the plot
Folks'll be thanking you a lot
For writing a good fanfic
You can ignore me
Or block me from writing a review
There'll be no one left who wants to help you
The rest will be writing 'Update, update, update, update'
Pretty soon all you will get is a load of 'lulz'
If you want reviews you'll have to kick it up a notch
You will have to write like you are not drunk on scotch
Please don't ignore my advice, or people won't look twice
At something that is not good fanfic
So punctuate for a good fanfic
Use a spellcheck for a good fanfic
Let a beta correct your fanfic
A hundred reviews for your fanfic
Many favourites for your fanfic
Good fanfic?
Great fanfic! -
You sound a little like Felicia Day :P by
on 2011-05-20 18:04:00 UTC
Link to this
Great song!
-
Ooh~ by
on 2011-05-16 03:15:00 UTC
Link to this
I really like this! You did very well with it. :] And I was humming it too. XD
-
Re: OT: Another parody song for the songbook! by
on 2011-05-16 01:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Awesome!
-
You did indeed "go there". And I liked it! (nm) by
on 2011-05-15 23:13:00 UTC
Link to this
-
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! by
on 2011-05-14 22:14:00 UTC
Link to this
And I just fell in love with Portal, too! AWESOME! *posts cover as video response* My microphone is horrible, but I do my best. Now with harmony! :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BryFhnnbYO0
-
Thinking the same as Keily. It's very good! by
on 2011-05-15 09:46:00 UTC
Link to this
If I ever get around to do a PPC game with RPGMaker (quite impossible, as I already abandoned three other projects), I want it at the endgame credits tune.
-
That is awesome! by
on 2011-05-14 22:22:00 UTC
Link to this
You have such a sweet voice! =D
-
Aw, thanks. *blush* (nm) by
on 2011-05-14 22:30:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Incredibly catchy... by
on 2011-05-14 21:37:00 UTC
Link to this
...
Wait, there's a songbook?
Why wasn't I told? I'm trying to get a completion of this cobbled together:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXiU6kiq_Ms
But yeah, this tune is catchy, and the words are just ingenious. Kudos to you. -
Wonderful! :D by
on 2011-05-14 19:41:00 UTC
Link to this
Tackling Still Alive is no easy task, but I'd say you've done it!
-
Cool! by
on 2011-05-14 18:48:00 UTC
Link to this
This is an awesome idea. In the spirit of concrit, I think the scansion could be better and the actual recording doesn't quite seem to know what the notes are (especially the first few--ow), but it's about 20-30 minutes of work from being the most kick-ass filk ever. {= D
~Neshomeh -
How I didn't notice that? by
on 2011-05-14 20:22:00 UTC
Link to this
But again, my friends say that I ignore notes too when singing, so...
However, again good job! That sure is a funny parody of an already funny song!
(And, for the ones who are wondering if they need glopsnerch, I gave up singing, so don't worry.) -
Thanks. by
on 2011-05-14 19:10:00 UTC
Link to this
I know it could be better. XD I wish it could, but being as it was passed midnight when I made the final recording I just wanted to share. One day I'll get it right. Although it's a lot better than some of the past ones I've made. :3
-
Nice one! (nm) by
on 2011-05-14 16:04:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Brilliant! by
on 2011-05-14 09:56:00 UTC
Link to this
I'll probably have this in my head for the rest of the day now, and won't mind a bit (makes a change from 'Want You Gone' going round and round up there ^_^).
-
Ah, 'Want You Gone' by
on 2011-05-14 15:50:00 UTC
Link to this
I'll have to parody that one eventually as well. But for now, I'm happy with 'Good Fanfic'. I tried singing 'Want You Gone' and it was difficult.
Happy you enjoyed the song~! -
Would this help? by
on 2011-05-14 21:53:00 UTC
Link to this
http://sebastianwolff.info/news/2011/04/portal-2-want-you-gone/
He fan-arranges stuff. He's awesome. -
You are amazing. by
on 2011-05-14 08:21:00 UTC
Link to this
I was singing this out loud and my parents were giving me funny looks. Good job!
-
This is a song that needs to be sung out loud... by
on 2011-05-14 15:49:00 UTC
Link to this
....no matter the funny looks you get. I wrote the lyrics at work, so people would look at me funny whenever I burst out into song to try out the lyrics. XD
Happy you like it~!
-
Badfic, yay! by
on 2011-05-15 12:52:00 UTC
Link to this
Just a notice that I've added three 'Haruhi Suzumiya' badfics to the 'Unclaimed' page on the wiki. Hope that's OK, if I should have brought them here first, sorry! ^^'
Link: <a href="http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/UnclaimedBadfic#HaruhiSuzumiya">http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/UnclaimedBadfic#Haruhi_Suzumiya
-
I come bearing Harmonian horror. by
on 2011-05-15 18:33:00 UTC
Link to this
This is already being sporked over at Why, God Why (here's the thread, though you need to be registered to see it: http://www.whygodwhy.org/t2683-robot-harmonian-attack ) but since this is such a godawful piece of tripe, I wanted to see if any of the PPCers were interested in murdering it. I'm sorely tempted to take it on myself, but I already have four other missions on my plate, so here you go:
Fic title: The Last War
Found at: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5997438/1/The_Last_War
Pairing: Harry/Hermione
Offenses against canon: Turning Ron into a violent, drunken abuser who literally murders a baby bird in front of his son; making Hermione a spineless doormat who seems to forget she even has magic; equating Beauty with Goodness; getting Ginny out of the way by making her turn into a fat, ugly Magical Racist; giving Hermione no qualms whatsoever about murdering Ron (no matter how abusive, she's way too chill about it) and destroying his body IN FRONT OF HER KIDS; and a godawful pile of urple prose and navel-gazing.
I'd swear it was a troll or a stealth parody, but the author seems deadly serious. Has anyone encountered this cluster... before? Anyone interested in killing it? -
As a Harmonian... by
on 2011-05-31 01:55:00 UTC
Link to this
I hate these kind of fics.
For gods sake, just keep Ron Likable, Ignore the epilogue and explain Ginny's veer into arrogance with her being Harry's Long Lost Sister!
*Looks around* What?
Anyway, I think RHr could have been doable if, after GOF, Ron begins to try to familiarize himself with muggle thingies to impress Hermione, while Harry almost goes Magiphobic after Cedrics death, only to be cheered by Luna, who shows him that weirdness (even by wizarding standards) need not be bad.
Look... the only reason I went Ronin after Book 7 instead of committing honorable Shipping Seppuku was because the epilogue reportedly (and I have vowed never to sully my brain with it) sucked and blew at the same time.
I figure this is the one thing I can afford to be petulant about in life. -
*Eye Twitches* by
on 2011-05-17 14:12:00 UTC
Link to this
...Alright, I'm putting this on my "To Kill List."
-
If you're interested in killing it . . . by
on 2011-05-17 18:59:00 UTC
Link to this
. . . I forgot to add a charge. Implausible Crossover: the boat crew in chapter five is a magical version of the A-Team.
Yes, really. Same characterizations and everything. -
...Yep, that might do it. (nm) by
on 2011-05-19 16:43:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*Brandishes flamethrower* by
on 2011-05-16 23:51:00 UTC
Link to this
WHAT DID THEY DO TO YOU BLARGH
-
What is this nundu manure? by
on 2011-05-16 00:40:00 UTC
Link to this
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot. +++
-
*snarl* It's OOC by
on 2011-05-15 23:11:00 UTC
Link to this
-to the point of being an entirely different story, with HP names substituted in.
-
Eurgh... by
on 2011-05-15 20:03:00 UTC
Link to this
Even though I'm not a big HP fan (I know enough), this is just objectively awful. Good find, and good luck to the one who gets the dubious honour of killing it.
-
Ye gods... by
on 2011-05-15 19:44:00 UTC
Link to this
KILL IT. I don't care who, someone KILL it.
-
Question about crash dummies by
on 2011-05-15 19:32:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't fully understand crash dummies yet, but I've gotten the idea that when a canon character is narrating in first person, the dummy merges with the character. The question then is: how do we get the dummy back? It's not like I get to kill this character.
Also, when the first-person point of view switches between two characters, do I need two crash dummies, or does one automatically switch characters? -
My impression is... by
on 2011-05-15 19:55:00 UTC
Link to this
...that the first-person narrative is a spirit that possesses the dummy and causes it to take the place and appearance and whatnot of the character who is narrating. As such, it's not really the canon character narrating. I think a recent mission had the agent slitting the dummy!character's throat to make it turn back into a dummy.
My guess on the second question (and it *is* only a guess) is that yes, you would need two dummies. Either that or the dummy would switch and the real canon characters would pop in and out of existence. I could be wrong, though. -
But... by
on 2011-05-15 22:32:00 UTC
Link to this
That won't hurt the character? And will I be able to deal with the character directly if it's during a first-person section? Maybe killing the dummy makes it split away from the character so the dummy deflates and the character appears.
I think two dummies makes sense, but I've decided to deal with one of the characters before the fic turns first-person, so I won't need two this time. -
Re: But... by
on 2011-05-15 23:06:00 UTC
Link to this
I believe all the while the dummy is in place the canon is locked safely in a plot hole, so you can do anything you wish to the dummy.
-
Re: My impression is... by
on 2011-05-15 21:07:00 UTC
Link to this
I've seen it happen in at least one mission where the narrator switched. It was one of Indemaat's and the dummy switched characters briefly.
-
This fic Miah refered to by
on 2011-05-16 09:44:00 UTC
Link to this
is Miley's story, and the agents argue that they should need two dummies when there are two first person narrators.
-
Re: My impression is... by
on 2011-05-15 22:17:00 UTC
Link to this
On the rare occasion that you have a fic that alternates between a first and second person perspective then two separate dummies are needed. I think the You and I dummies are in some ways different.
-
Re: My impression is... by
on 2011-05-16 06:43:00 UTC
Link to this
Agreed.
The case I was referring to was a fic where almost all of it was one first person narrator. It had a very brief appearance of a second first person narrator, then switched back to the original narrator.
In the case where there are more than one first or second person narrators or one of each, in the scenes for most of the time, you'd need more than one dummy.
-
Things I Am Not Allowed to Do at the PPC Part XVIII by
on 2011-05-16 00:47:00 UTC
Link to this
- Under no circumstances is any mind-altering creature to be exported from its native continuum.
1221. I will not portal the Bahro Nekisahl anywhere outside Mystverse.
1222. I will not base a stage play off any Bleepfic/Legendary Badfic.
-Nor will I put one on.
1223. I will not make a Horcrux.
- Under no circumstances is any mind-altering creature to be exported from its native continuum.
-
Re: Things I Am Not Allowed to Do at the PPC Part XVIII by
on 2011-05-19 12:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Number Lots: I will not travel to AU versions of my canon of origin and bring back my AU copies to flood HQ with an army of clones.
--even if we make the best rock band ever.
Number Lots+1: I will not feature Agent July and Agent JulyFlame on the cover of Sexy Twins Magazine. -
Things I Am Not Allowed to Do at the PPC...now with sound! by
on 2011-05-19 01:46:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, more like the first original 50 or so. I'll eventually do them all...eventually...one...by one...
Just go and listen to them. XD Because rules read with a robotic voice sound ten times as awesome.
Fair warning: the file is 10 MB-ish. It's pretty large. D=
http://duty-of-a-fangirl.webs.com/Sound%20Clips/tianatdatppc1.mp3 -
Re: Things I Am Not Allowed to Do at the PPC Part XVIII by
on 2011-05-18 01:54:00 UTC
Link to this
xxxx. I will stop making "Orkin Maaaaaaan" jokes in front of Agent Orkin. Seriously, that gets old after a while.
-
Re: Things I Am Not Allowed to Do at the PPC Part XVIII by
on 2011-05-17 16:25:00 UTC
Link to this
xxxx. I am not to persuade nonhuman agents to perform painful and/or embarrassing actions under the guise of Real World "rites of passage".
xxxx. Even if nonhuman characters are either adorable or hideous by human standards, I am not to tell them this to their faces.
xxxx. SCP objects do not belong in HQ.
- Nor do HQ dwellers belong in the SCP buildings. -
Re: Things I Am Not Allowed to Do at the PPC Part XVIII by
on 2011-05-17 16:56:00 UTC
Link to this
- Attempting to bring SCP items into HQ could result in [DATA EXPUNGED], including a violent [REDACTED] of urple and bleen flavoured jelly.
-
more Things by
on 2011-05-17 02:25:00 UTC
Link to this
- I will not cast Petrificus Totalus on Mary Sues and use them as blunt weapons.
-Unless I really, really need to.
1244. I will not visit Medical in the hopes of convincing characters from 80s sitcoms to say their catchphrases for me.
-Or characters from any sitcom
-I generally won’t pester characters to repeat catchphrases while they’re healing.
1245. I will not sneak up behind Agent Orken and hold an open jar to his ear. It’s just not polite.
1246. I will not disguise myself as Slenderman and stand just off-camera whenever any characters are trying to record something.
-Nor will I ask to be in their film.
-Nor will I ask for twenty dollars.
- I will not cast Petrificus Totalus on Mary Sues and use them as blunt weapons.
-
addendum by
on 2011-05-17 04:39:00 UTC
Link to this
1246
-Nor will I lurk anywhere near Agent Cadmar. -
Re: Things I Am Not Allowed to Do at the PPC Part XVIII by
on 2011-05-17 00:00:00 UTC
Link to this
1239 - Mini-Tribbles and Klingon agents should not be in the same room together.
1240 - the song 'Friday' is not to be used against Stus or Sues. We have standards.
1241 - I will not call the Sunflower Offical a Sunflora.
1242 - I will not introduce the Flowers to Poison Ivy. -
Sorry, I forgot the author (nm) by
on 2011-05-17 00:01:00 UTC
Link to this
-
1238 (I think?) by
on 2011-05-16 23:08:00 UTC
Link to this
-I will not attack a canon character who canonically harms my Lust Object
--especially if my Lust Object is technically on the "bad" side, here defined as "the side that is trying to kill the protagonist and friends"
(This was brought on by a re-read of the Black Company series. Poor Stormbringer ;_; ) -
In honor of the more recent films . . . by
on 2011-05-16 17:09:00 UTC
Link to this
- I will not take Mjolnir from the Thorverse. No, not even to slay a Sue. I do not want to find out what might happen if the hammer judged me unworthy, and the Flowers don't want to find out what would happen if the hammer judged me worthy.
1238. I will not steal any of Tony Stark's spare suits of Iron Man armor, no matter how shiny they are. Remember, you can't spell "superpowerful maniacal villain" without "PPC." (Yes, we're stretching. Bear with us here.)
1239. I will not wear anything strappy and black, or shiny and purple, around Agent Ithalond. The meltdowns are just getting too embarrassing, and FicPsych has enough work as it is.
1240. I will not tell either Nurse Jenni or (should she come back from the dead/exile) Agent Cameo where Nume is currently hiding. It would be hilarious, but Nume would sulk.
1241. I will not ask Deadpool, even in jest, about what he thought of his appearance in "Wolverine: Origins." Considering how genre-savvy he is, he might actually have an answer. Then he'd kill me.
- I will not take Mjolnir from the Thorverse. No, not even to slay a Sue. I do not want to find out what might happen if the hammer judged me unworthy, and the Flowers don't want to find out what would happen if the hammer judged me worthy.
-
Re. 1240 by
on 2011-05-18 05:44:00 UTC
Link to this
- Even if Jenni will find out eventually anyway.
- Wait, who is this "Agent Cameo"? I don't remember her.
1XXX. Under no circumstances should Nurse Jenni be allowed in the Doctor Who continuum. We would never get her back out again and it would ruin the franchise forever.
1XXX. I will not put Agents Orken and Ilraen in the same room just to see what—wait—oh, never mind.
- Even if Jenni will find out eventually anyway.
-
Re: Things I Am Not Allowed To Do at the PPC by
on 2011-05-16 13:21:00 UTC
Link to this
1231: I will not feed the interns to trolls.
-- Claiming that you are 'training' the interns is not an excuse.
-- This also includes internet trolls.
1232: Mini-nuke launchers are not the answer to everything.
1233: I am not the deadliest SOB in space and will not claim such to other agents.
1234: I am not vengeance.
-- I am not the night.
-- I am not Batman.
-- I am also not Superman.
1235: I will not ask Agent Xericka to 'have a heart.'
-- Or if she has 'heartburn.'
-- Or any manner of heart-related jibes. -
1236 by
on 2011-05-16 15:26:00 UTC
Link to this
- If I am in a canon where spontaneous and synchronized song and dance is a regular occurrence, I may not change the canon music to something I like better.
-No, not even if it my partner agrees.
-It doesn't matter how funny their faces would be.
-Should I disregard this, I am not required to be reminded that the following are a shooting offense, Numa Numa, Nyan Cat, anything to do with Vuvuzelas, Caramelldansen.
-If I should Rick Roll them, I will accept any punishment given.
-If I should put the canons up to the daunting task of trying to recreate Thriller or Smooth Crimincal, I had better hope they do it well.
- If I am in a canon where spontaneous and synchronized song and dance is a regular occurrence, I may not change the canon music to something I like better.
-
What about "Friday?" (nm) by
on 2011-05-16 18:33:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Only in Glee. At least they'll make it sound good. (nm) by
on 2011-05-16 19:54:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*Criminal >.> (nm) by
on 2011-05-16 15:26:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Oooh...more of these? by
on 2011-05-16 05:10:00 UTC
Link to this
- I will not take the Portal gun out of the Portalverse.
-Nor will I use it to play pranks on my fellow Agents.
-Especially if said pranks involve infinite Portal loops.
- I will not take the Portal gun out of the Portalverse.
-
Re: Oooh...more of these? by
on 2011-05-16 12:36:00 UTC
Link to this
- I will not invite GLaDOS in HQ. While her cakes are probably better than the Cafeteria's, she will kill all of us before we even see them. For Science.
-
Speaking of which by
on 2011-05-18 22:55:00 UTC
Link to this
- GLaDOS and SHODAN should never meet. Ever. Should I break this rule I'm responsible for dealing with the inevitable killbots they make.
-
Forgot to add name. That was mine. (nm) by
on 2011-05-17 09:20:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I laughed waaay too hard at this one. (nm) by
on 2011-05-17 03:02:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Re: Oooh...more of these? by
on 2011-05-16 07:17:00 UTC
Link to this
- I will not flood the halls of PPC HQ with Tang.
-Nor will I play 'Komm, Susser Tod' over the HQ speaker system.
RE: 1224. Not even if you promise them cake if they jump through the portal?
- I will not flood the halls of PPC HQ with Tang.
-
Addendum to 1225 by
on 2011-05-16 16:17:00 UTC
Link to this
- I am also expressly forbidden from removing any LCL from the Evangelion universe
- Even for experimentation.
- Especially if said experimentation involves the Cafeteria.
- I am also expressly forbidden from removing any LCL from the Evangelion universe
-
Yay! by
on 2011-05-16 08:08:00 UTC
Link to this
- I will not knock the bronies, for they are far more numerous than I might think.
-On that subject, making "Twilight Sparkle" jokes in front of Agent Caleb does not make me witty or clever, nor is it beneficial to my health. If I'm going to rib him about that, I will at least make an attempt to be original.
1227. I will not give coffee to Agent Jack.
-This has never been done before, but I'm sure that Agent Caleb will never forgive me for it.
1228. I will not give ...slayer to Noodle.
-Even if that would be incredibly awesome.
1229. I will not read the fanfic known as "Cupcakes" to Molly Wednesday Rath. Ever.
-It will, most definitely, give her ideas, and then Skyfire and Stormsong will kill me.
1230. I will not attempt to charge Alex Mercer of being a Stu.
-Even if he is one.
-Besides, he'd just kill me and absorb my body and my memories, and then Alex Mercer would know about the PPC.
- I will not knock the bronies, for they are far more numerous than I might think.
-
re: 1226 by
on 2011-05-16 22:19:00 UTC
Link to this
I have a MLP:FiM mission on the docket relatively soon. It's definitely...special. I'm having trouble figuring out Ian and Lee's cutie marks though.
-
I look forward to reading that one. by
on 2011-05-18 01:00:00 UTC
Link to this
I've considered MSTing Cupcakes, not because it's a badfic, but because torturing canon riffers would be fun.
-
I approve. by
on 2011-05-16 02:43:00 UTC
Link to this
Especially of 1223. Please, just let there be no Horcruxes for Sues/Stus, or they'll just KEEP COMING BACK. Which would be BAD.
-
Actually... by
on 2011-05-17 05:38:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm pretty sure it would be impossible for a Sue or Stu to make a Horcrux in the first place, since they don't have enough characterization to generate a soul. :P
-
Permission Request by
on 2011-05-16 20:25:00 UTC
Link to this
So here it is, after returning to the drawing board and coming up with a completely new idea for a spin-off, the introductory permission piece is ready.
The concept:
Training Center 2147 will feature long time PPC Agent Monty Biggins training up the next generation of recruits. To start with the recruits will feature a combination of characters that have either grown up in the PPC nursery and now wish to train as agents, or brand new recruits who have only just entered the world of the PPC and need to know what they are getting into. If I’m writing the series for long enough then I may eventually have the junior agents graduate and run missions themselves, but for the time being they will be ‘in training’.
In this introduction we meet the first four recruits, Steve Fontwell, Sasha Lipson, Shawn Cooper Wright and Wallis.
I hope you enjoy the piece and if you have any questions about the concept or characters feel free to ask.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o5Rq7RmU3gCRkCxTk1h-MCfrEoCHTzCt_yrEE7Wuvfo/edit?hl=en -
Permission granted! by
on 2011-05-20 00:39:00 UTC
Link to this
I nearly typed "Premission" there. Fairly apt, as typos go. *g*
Just a couple of things: I recommend reading up on the rules of ending punctuation in dialogue; there were quite a few periods that should have been commas.
Second, you made a reference to the fact that there have been full agents as young as eleven, if my memory serves, so while portraying kids as kids is a good and wise thing, it's a little weird if they seem too young and helpless compared to their peers. Kids are almost always smarter than adults give them credit for, anyway.
I am amused by the three Ss, Steve, Sasha, Shawn... and then Wallis.
Also, for posterity, the original "agent training" story.
~Neshomeh -
Re: Permission granted! by
on 2011-05-20 06:44:00 UTC
Link to this
Woop! *Does the victory dance*
Thanks very much, and thanks for the link too. Does anyone know of any other training stories around? I want to keep as close to PPC canon as I can. -
Not that I'm a permission giver... by
on 2011-05-17 19:40:00 UTC
Link to this
I like it. It's a great idea for a spin-off. I've been wondering how recruited agents are trained (or not trained, as it seems to be most of the time), so I'd really want to read this.
-
Thanks by
on 2011-05-17 19:42:00 UTC
Link to this
I was really hoping to go for something completely different and the idea of training up raw recruits really appealed. It'll probably be a while before I send them out into live missions though.
-
Badfic Alert! by
on 2011-05-17 02:06:00 UTC
Link to this
I found this really ridiculous Star Wars/Pirates of Penzance Crossover: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6271629/1/The_Star_Wars_of_Penzance_A_Space_Operetta
-
From the point of view of a musician... by
on 2011-05-17 14:43:00 UTC
Link to this
...I wouldn't necessarily call this a badfic. Yeah, it's in script format, but it's honestly not terrible enough to be a badfic, in my opinion.
Gilbert and Sullivan operettas are silly and utterly ridiculous by their very nature as lampooning British society in the late 19th Century. Thus, they rely on all sorts of ridiculous plot devices; think up of any contrivance in fiction, and G&S probably used it for laughs in at least one of their operettas, if not more than that. Really, things adhering to some sense of logic is a big no-no in a G&S operetta, as Anna Russel hilariously shows off in her parody videos on how to write a G&S operetta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yif-5xBbxd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x59vFkATXR4&feature=related
The crossover itself being utterly ridiculous comes with the territory, really.
And really, when we take into account the G&S aesthetic, this guy mostly gets it right. Some of the rhythm can get a little awkward at times and the stresses in some of the lines of the patter song tend to fall on the wrong beats, but the rhymes are extremely inventive and the content of the libretto falls perfectly into that over the top W.S. Gilbert manner that they need to.
So honestly, it's not that bad, and I probably wouldn't spork it. -
Seconding--not badfic. by
on 2011-05-17 16:22:00 UTC
Link to this
I'd even go so far as to call it goodfic. I enjoyed it, at any rate. It would be fun to see it performed. ^_^
~Neshomeh
-
All Points Bulletin for Filkers! Help Please? by
on 2011-05-17 02:25:00 UTC
Link to this
Okay. I'm working on my final project for graduation from college with a BA in Ethnomusicology. For this project, I am interviewing Filkers, and having them fill out a short-ish Questionnaire.
If you're interested in helping me out, please go Here and fill that out, with whatever handle you want to use to tag your answers, so that I can credit you appropriately.
Thank you, in advance, to anyone who so chooses to help with this.
~~ Your Rosie. -
Here, Have a Better Form! by
on 2011-05-17 19:25:00 UTC
Link to this
Okay. Going off of a Very Good Suggestion, I've made that questionnaire into a Proper Survey, which can be found Here! Please?
-
Done! (nm) by
on 2011-05-17 22:03:00 UTC
Link to this
-
So, just answer right in the doc? by
on 2011-05-17 15:48:00 UTC
Link to this
I don't know how many people will respond, but I imagine that could get messy, and we could be influenced by each other's answers. Maybe July could tell you how to set up a survey like she did for the census?
~Neshomeh -
Hrm... by
on 2011-05-17 18:26:00 UTC
Link to this
Good idea. For now I'm thinking that I'll be going through and clearing out what's been said before once I know someone's responded...
-
Mission--DMS--Miah & Cali--Sanctuary by
on 2011-05-17 04:34:00 UTC
Link to this
Cali and Miah stop a history rewriting Rebellious!Sue in K is for Cabal.
Note: There are a few jokes and words that are less work safe than my Miah and Cali missions usually are. This is still under PG-13, but I thought I'd warn you.
K is for Cabal -
Re: Mission--DMS--Miah & Cali--Sanctuary by
on 2011-05-20 17:59:00 UTC
Link to this
Nice timing there, stepping in to charge and kill right when the fic had a gun pointed at the Sue :) .
This isn't a series I've seen, but it looks interesting. -
The timing was just too good to resist. (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 18:27:00 UTC
Link to this
-
neuralyzation by
on 2011-05-17 19:55:00 UTC
Link to this
That was THE funniest neuralyzation sequence I have ever read. I thought for sure you were going to just kill the thugs, so brainwashing them into functioning members of society was hilarious.
-
Great Mission by
on 2011-05-17 19:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Another great mission, just what we've come to expect from Cali and Miah. Keep them coming.
-
Cool stuff there by
on 2011-05-17 17:25:00 UTC
Link to this
Yeah, I also don't know the fandom, but I thought you did a pretty good job. That deer thing (whose name I forget how to spell) was pretty funny and frankly I thought you did overall quite well. :]
-
I don't know Sanctuary . . . by
on 2011-05-17 06:02:00 UTC
Link to this
. . . but I have to say, reading this mission made me want to look it up. It sounds fantastic. And frankly, that sentiment made me even happier to see the Sue die.
Tae-Quon-Doe. Just . . . the Tae-Quon-Doe. That has to be one of the most amazing, legendary Misspelled Monsters that I've ever seen come out of the PPC. I would love to adopt her, but I suspect she'd kill me, my agents, and my agents' minis. Better to let her roam free and possibly slay anybody foolish enough to wander into her pastures. :D -
Agreed by
on 2011-05-17 16:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Same here, I'll definitely be putting it on my (very long!) 'list of things to watch'.
Even not knowing a thing about the canon, the mission was fantastic, great job! ^_^ -
Forgot to mention minis and critters. by
on 2011-05-17 05:55:00 UTC
Link to this
From this mission there is a Tae-Quon-Doe, which is a Korean Water Deer (they have fangs) wearing a do-bok with a bleen belt. This belt color is apparently higher than the average Agent's fighting skills. If you want it, it has been released to live with Alice.
There is also a large Husky/English Mastiff mix dog named Amy Lee, who looks suspiciously reminiscent of her name-sake.
And a mini-Stenopelhabbilis. That is mini-Steno for short. It's name is abnormals. It likes to eat cheeseburgers, bamboo, and chocolate. It has has large floppy ears, large tusks, furless skin, long tail, bony ridges along its back, and large claws. It has the personality of a particularly cute puppy, and loves to lick people. It is about the size of an average dog.
There is still a mini-Questing Beast named Merin's up for adoption, and two mini-generic marines named N.C.I.S. and probationary N.C.I.S. agent from the NCIS continuum. -
Can I get the Husky/English Mastiff? by
on 2011-05-17 16:53:00 UTC
Link to this
And tell me if there is some kind of description of it apart from looking like Amy Lee.
-
Sure by
on 2011-05-17 17:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Only that it was rather hyperactive, and extremely friendly. I suspect that the hyper might be remedied with proper walking/exercising, though. The Sue never walked it or did anything with it other than occasionally petting it. It was locked in her bedroom all the time.
-
Heck! by
on 2011-05-18 04:12:00 UTC
Link to this
She couldn't keep a dog properly even in fiction!
-
Didn't I adopt the mini-Questing Beast? (nm) by
on 2011-05-17 16:18:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I apologize for forgetting. by
on 2011-05-17 16:47:00 UTC
Link to this
Could you add adopted by (your wiki name) or your agents' names to the wiki page?
-
No problem by
on 2011-05-17 22:08:00 UTC
Link to this
Which Wiki page in particular should I jot it down on?
-
Re: No problem by
on 2011-05-17 22:57:00 UTC
Link to this
The mini-Questing Beast page. Just add right next to merin's name adopted by you or your agents.
-
Well done, well done. by
on 2011-05-17 08:05:00 UTC
Link to this
I liked the mission. Also, the Tae-Quon-Doe is probably one of the most awesome animals ever. Not that I want it, it would just beat up my agents 'n' stuff... but it's awesome anyways.
-
*flails happily* by
on 2011-05-17 06:29:00 UTC
Link to this
Yay, Sanctuary mission! And now I want to go hug Cali.
-
Another question - minis by
on 2011-05-17 19:48:00 UTC
Link to this
I have a feeling I've asked this before but forgotten. What do agents do with minis that they find in a badfic? Do the agents take them to the corresponding fanfiction university or someplace in the PPC?
-
minis on the wiki by
on 2011-05-18 06:06:00 UTC
Link to this
This is something that I like to do. It is especially nice for smaller or newer fandoms that don't have an OFU or official adoption site. Many of the various mini types now have pages on the wiki that describe them--what they look like, personality, what they eat, etc. Then it lists all the names of minis that have been located and who adopted them.
Here are some of examples.
This is the new one for Sanctuary that I just finished
Stargate SG-1
A-Team has a little different format
Left 4 Dead demonstrates another possible format
Anyway, this is an easy way to keep track of who owns various minis, whether they've been discovered or not, etc. -
Re: Another question - minis by
on 2011-05-17 19:50:00 UTC
Link to this
It tends to vary. A lot of mini's are kept by the agents who found them as pets [Just take a look at Cali and Miah's Response Center for extreme mini care.] while others are put up for adoption for other agents to adopt for thier own stories.
-
Well, I found another one. Hoo boy... by
on 2011-05-17 21:01:00 UTC
Link to this
You remember the movie Hostel by Quentin Tarentino? The fic I found is like that but with My Little Pony. Here's a short summary:
Cupcakes (NC-17 for extreme violence and character derailment)
Link: http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/02/story-cupcakes.html
Fandom: My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic
Summary: Pinkie Pie horribly mutilates Rainbow Dash, eventually killing her. What.
This also has the dubious honor of being so disturbing, even the denizens of 4chan thought it was sickening. That should probably say a lot about it. I suggest sending someone from DAVD, and fast. -
Wow. by
on 2011-05-18 14:19:00 UTC
Link to this
I can't believe that I found a fic that messed up this series in the most horrific way possible....
-
I'm not gonna lie; I liked this fic. by
on 2011-05-18 03:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Even though it was horrifying, and it kind of ruined red velvet cupcakes for me forever. Some of the fan-made alternate endings are awesome, though. My favorite one is the one where it turns out the whole thing takes place on the set of a movie directed by a ponified version of Alfred Hitchcock.
This fic is famous enough to have a TV Tropes page, too: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fanfic/Cupcakes
What I find cool about this fic is that Pinkie Pie... doesn't really break character, really. You know, aside from the whole mutilating Rainbow Dash to death thing. She keeps that upbeat, bubbly personality the whole time, treats it like a party, and refers to Rainbow Dash as her friend. And that's what makes it scary. It basically does to Pinkie Pie what The Sacred and the Profane did to Aziraphale.
I hear that in certain civilizations this fanfic is worshipped by bronies as a vengeful pagan deity, and every full moon they sacrifice cupcakes made of ponyflesh to it. -
I have to agree with you by
on 2011-05-18 15:07:00 UTC
Link to this
While I've only skimmed the fic itself (it's not something I like) and read the TV Tropes page, I've come to the conclusion that the fic is more like an exploration of what would happen if Pinkie Pie just... completely lost touch with reality. I mean, in Party of One, she definitely lost it, and honestly, were it not a kids' show and she went even more overboard, it's not hard to see this happening.
It's indubitably very dark, and not everyone's cup of tea, but it's not a badfic. Just incredibly, and I mean INCREDIBLY, dark. Also, the fan alternate endings are great. -
Re: I'm not gonna lie; I liked this fic. by
on 2011-05-18 06:29:00 UTC
Link to this
Every thing you said is terrible and I think I love you (In a non-creepy totally platonic way) for it.
-
What. by
on 2011-05-17 21:45:00 UTC
Link to this
Not the worst I've had the misfortune to 'read' (I skimmed it to dampen the squick), but still pretty damn disturbed.
I wonder whether there's actually any value in sporking it. Some things are so bad they can't be made bearable and/or enjoyable even with the PPC's wacky hijinks. -
Re: What. by
on 2011-05-17 22:20:00 UTC
Link to this
I can only assume that my standards regarding what I'm looking for are too low; maybe I should focus on fics that are just plain bad rather than the worst of the worst.
-
Re: What. by
on 2011-05-17 22:45:00 UTC
Link to this
I wouldn't say that particularly, and this is of course, only my opinion (I don't pretend to be an expert at all, I'm new around here).
I think that it's more that a sporkable fic is bad (and can be truly, truly awful), but bad in a way that you can't stop reading, rather than in a way that would make most people go 'eww...' and just stop.
-
I need a beta for a Stargate Atlantis Bad Slash Mission by
on 2011-05-18 08:52:00 UTC
Link to this
The fic being missioned is NSFW, and probably NSFB, but the mission itself is NSFW, due mainly to excerpts from the fic. If anyone would like to help, that would be most appreciated.
-
Re: I need a beta for a Stargate Atlantis Bad Slash Mission by
on 2011-05-19 01:37:00 UTC
Link to this
I can beta for you for grammar/spelling, can't really do anything for you as far as plot because I'm wholly unfamiliar with the Stargate universe.
-
I'm up for it by
on 2011-05-19 07:43:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm familiar with both the SGA and SG:SG1 serie
-
Shiny. by
on 2011-05-19 08:20:00 UTC
Link to this
Here's the GoogleDoc address: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YTIH_nvmJG6CqMjBAKCNzD9Ie-mXu3g3cOYOAti4YmY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CN3V8LMH
-
Sorry for the long wait... by
on 2011-06-08 08:57:00 UTC
Link to this
been busy with my final exams, so haven't had much time. However, I have read it through a few times, and I haven't found anything wrong with the story, neither plot, gramma nor canon. It was defiently an enjoyable read :)
Keep it up ;)
-
Question/request/possibly something else entirely... by
on 2011-05-18 21:57:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, it's like this.
I have a pair of Floaters working a 'Sue in the Redwall continuum. It's this real crackfic; it was originally written in Russian, then sent through some cheap-as-free translation software into English.
So, due to circumstances that are ENTIRELY their own faults and NOTHING to do with my desire to torture my characters at every possible opportunity, they have to sink a cruise ship roughly the size of the Titanic with a sword, a bow, and a dozen arrows. Oh, yes, and said cruise ship is occupied by upwards of three dozen canonical rats that they are allowed to kill under no circumstances. Oh, and one of them is possesed by the Author-Wraith of the fic, merged with Cluny the Scourge, horribly mutated (beyond being merged with Cluny), and therefore only sporadically helpful, if at all, so this all has to be accomplished by only one Agent. Oh, and said Agent has a completely unmedicatd case of ADHD, an leather armchair he's lugging around and totally unwilling to give up, and a mini-Deepgloomer (named George) currently living in a Nalgene bottle.
...
I appear to be up a tree without a creek, paddled into a hole, dug into a corner, painted to a point where I can't do something else humorous, et cetera, et alii, ad nauseam.
Ahem. And so, dear friends, I beseech you. Please, help a brother out, so he does not have to rewrite ten damn pages and can post this freakin' mission already. Thank you. God bless.
L'Homme Arbre
P.S. Oh, and before someone suggests it, just letting this slide under 'Acceptable margin of error' isn't going to happen. Namely because the 'Sue they're trying to kill has already died in the fic. Twice. And is still walking around. Well, crawling around, since her legs have detached from her body and are moving independantly. Oh, and despite her legless condition, she's desperately trying to make out with the mutated Cluny/Agent thing in a way that will make it look like she's being raped.
Yeah. Any acceptable margin of error that ever existed has been exceeded (with style) a long, long time ago. -
Maybe evacuate the ship, then sink it? by
on 2011-05-19 17:15:00 UTC
Link to this
Would that ship have any lifeboats? Get all of the rats onto the lifeboats, either through portals or by making a fire scare (fire on ship = very bad), then sink it. The sinking it bit might be tricky, though. Is it possible to use portals to telefrag away part of the hull? Or he could actually set the ship on fire.
The Sue will have to die in an overkill manner in order to stop her from just rising again. Hm... portal her into an active volcano? It's kinda hard to make ash get up and start walking. -
Now I'm thinking with Portals by
on 2011-05-19 13:49:00 UTC
Link to this
Put a portal under the possedssed agent drop him into the medical bay, put one under the armchair and drop it into the RC, put one in the sea and one in the ship, shout abandon ship. Then you may feel free to quote Portal 2.
-
You forgot a portal. by
on 2011-05-19 17:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Portal under canons to the beach or any other safe place.
May involve canons ending up in water or head first in sand.
For the ship, if you've got a radio or a phone you can call the PPC Fighter Wing. Special offer for first customer: you pay seven Bleepka bottles instead of ten, and get a free 1/100 scale model of the official PPCFW F-22A Raptor!
(Do not go looking for the PPCFW on the Wiki - the Fighter Wing doesn't officially exist, and never will be: it's composed of two Agents of mine who managed to get their hands on a couple of F-22s. Besides, the mission in which they get the planes is still in the works.) -
Hmm, interesting... by
on 2011-05-19 21:38:00 UTC
Link to this
I was thinking before of calling the DGA, but they deal in landscapes, not cruise ships. Anyway I'm fairly all the Boarders who used to write DGA missions aren't around anymore. So...Not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all.
Well, actually, from both logistical and canon-preservation standpoints, it's a terrible idea, but from a posting-this-goddamn-mission-within-the-next-decade standpoint...yeah. Not too bad.
Shoot, why not. I'll do it. I've never co-written anything before, but new writing experiences is the reason I joined the PPC, so...yeah. It's currently in GoogleDocs, the link is under Pretzel's comment. We can talk more there. -
I'll have to get a Google account, but it can be done. (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 08:53:00 UTC
Link to this
-
When did I become Not Around? (nm) by
on 2011-05-19 21:46:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I'm sorry, I phrased that wrong... by
on 2011-05-19 22:04:00 UTC
Link to this
You're still around, of course, but to my knowledge you're no longer writing missions for DOGA, yes? I mean, Dafydd is married, Narto is missing, Selene is insane, and Louise may or may not actually exist. That covers everyone, yes?
-
True. by
on 2011-05-20 17:09:00 UTC
Link to this
Technically I still have one mission to write for Narto and Lou, but that's set in 2006, so it doesn't invalidate your point.
hS -
I don't suppose... by
on 2011-05-18 22:16:00 UTC
Link to this
... that the fic is so far gone that they could simply pull out the ship's plug, Looney Tunes-style? Of course, crashing it into an iceberg would always work.
In other words: ye gods, and good luck.
~Neshomeh -
Woof. by
on 2011-05-18 22:05:00 UTC
Link to this
Um, could you post what you have up on GoogleDocs for us? It might help if we could see what's going on.
-
Oh, how thoughtless of me... by
on 2011-05-18 22:59:00 UTC
Link to this
Right here.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Sy3f7PnRZRHbD5CZ61rWute3t6ygNEH4kXNqmUTl3k/edit?pli=1&authkey=CIig04UO#
Feel free to add comments as the mood strikes you, I have several versions saved. (Although I would prefer that you do it in a different color, makes them much easier to notice and to understand who's saying what). -
Will do. (nm) by
on 2011-05-19 05:16:00 UTC
Link to this
-
DCPS Questions! by
on 2011-05-18 22:38:00 UTC
Link to this
Hey, folks. So I've been poking around the wiki, particularly the DCPS-related sections, and because I was involved when it first got off the ground, Nesh has asked me to help expand the information there.
Well, the DCPS that I remember is quite different from the DCPS featured in surviving missions. That's fine and all, but I was hoping to pursue something more similar to the original idea. That is, agents/workers working more closely with characters pulled so OOC that they need one-on-one but not severe enough to go to CharPsych. The difference, if you will, between a counselor and a psychologist. The department was formatted to a large room full of semi-spacious, heavily customized cubicles (there was only an LotR-focused presence at the time, presumably large fandoms would have their own rooms full of cubicles and tiny fandoms would share space and potentially workers).
In the end, I have three(ish) questions:
- Is anyone still active who has/is work(ed/ing) with DCPS, and if so what can you tell me about its current form, and about its Flower?
- Would it be considered Officially Cool by the PTB for me to go ahead and redevelop the old school DCPS and write missions for that format of a department?
- If the answer to that is yes, then my instinct is to develop it as a separate division within the department. Are we Cool with that too? -
Well, I'm not one of the PTB by any means... by
on 2011-05-19 00:51:00 UTC
Link to this
...Nor am I very familiar with the DCPS. However, I can tell you that making new divisions is generally frowned upon, especially when an older division would only require the slightest of tweaks to serve just as well. That may explain why your memories of the DCPS are different from what's currently the case; someone tweaks it a little, someone else tweaks that a little, suddenly everything's changed. It happens.
That said, there's really not much preventing you from tweaking back in the other direction, towards what you remember. That would probably be easier (and more PTB-friendly, from what I can gather) than making a whole new division. -
That makes a lot of sense... by
on 2011-05-19 01:39:00 UTC
Link to this
...and I would quite happily do it that way. It certainly makes it easier for me. The only reason that I am inclined to make a distinction of divisions is that the two concepts are almost wholly different from each other. The original DCPS had practically nothing to do with a traditional mission format, whereas the stories still in existence are very much set up that way.
-
Departments and Divisions by
on 2011-05-19 02:12:00 UTC
Link to this
As I understand it, making a new Department is generally frowned upon. Divisions are created to fill in the gaps of a Department, which I think is what you are trying to do here. There is nothing stopping you from making a new Division.
I, for one, think this Division would be a good idea.
-Phobos (Who is not one of the Powers That Be, but who may be a Force Of Nature) -
*FicPsych (nm) by
on 2011-05-18 22:41:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Stop a bill that will ban transgender marriage in Texas by
on 2011-05-19 03:20:00 UTC
Link to this
Petition is at http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6535/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6811
It's Texas Senate Bill 723.
I took a look at the bill and specifically what it’s doing is it’s removing the Court Ordered Gender Change document as a document that can be used to get a marriage license, meaning that Trans individuals would have to use other forms of identification which may cause more problems that I will leave to people much better vetted in law to explain.
If there is any doubt about what this bill is trying to accomplish, all one has to do is visit the website of one of it’s supporters: http://texaslegislativeupdate.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/support-sb-723-support-traditional-marriage-make-your-call-today/ -
**Is summoned back by Jacer's reply to the OP** by
on 2011-05-25 09:13:00 UTC
Link to this
**Looks down, sees a massive discussion centering on trying to convince Jacer**
**Sees Jacer's reply**
**Realizes he has nothing to add >.>** -
Oh wait! by
on 2011-05-25 09:24:00 UTC
Link to this
I do have something to add!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhl9MLno424 -
People, I'm done. by
on 2011-05-23 04:43:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm not going to change your minds, and you're not going to change mine.
-
I really did want to discuss history with you, though. (nm) by
on 2011-05-23 04:44:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Throwing the opposite side by
on 2011-05-21 04:12:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm not signing it.
-
Any particular reason? by
on 2011-05-21 05:16:00 UTC
Link to this
Seeing as the rest of the thread has mostly given explanations as to their position, can you debate us on a level plane, given reasons and valid arguments?
Because around most places, dropping into a thread to say "I disagree with all of you" for no particular reason is generally Not On. -
Well, since you asked... by
on 2011-05-22 02:56:00 UTC
Link to this
To put it simply, I'm Catholic. I firmly believe that male is male and female is female, and what we are born is what we're meant to be. I'm also a staunch supporter of traditional marriage. I don't believe gender identity or homosexuality is something we're born with, I believe they're disorders. And I find sex change operations disgusting.
I'm well aware that people on here probably won't consider my religious beliefs as a valid argument, and might even say it's offensive to state them. But you did ask. -
Reply to everyone. If they see this. by
on 2011-05-23 03:40:00 UTC
Link to this
*I* consider my beliefs to affect my political choices, and religion *should* affect the laws. Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around. And this country was founded by Christians.
I'm going to follow the Catechism and Pope on what they teach about homosexuality etc.
Marriage is not a right. It never has been. And it is between one man and one woman.
Also, don't kill me, please. -
Not attacking your beliefs, but your historical points. by
on 2011-05-23 13:27:00 UTC
Link to this
Where is your source that separation of church and state was meant to keep State out of Church. BESIDES opinion pieces on the matter on conservative websites. Give me historical basis. The politics of the 1770s hardly suggest that protecting ANYTHING from the church in America was any sort of concern of the time. And if you don't believe me, I have textual proof. Check out the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
If you don't believe this, have a link to an image of the document
And the British American colonies were primarily protestants fleeing Catholic-controlled Britain. You know? the ones who REJECT the Pope? This country was not founded by 'Christians' as you claim. Most of the founding fathers were Freemasons and followers of deism.
I'm not trying to change your opinion, make you question your faith, or attack you. I just want to... make you aware that some of what you are saying is factually wrong. That's not subjective, faith-based, or a matter of opinion. That's very dangerous. You are not preserving the true history of the United States of America. You are being as uncanon as a slash-fic writer who thinks that men can become pregnant and deliver a baby to term in two weeks time is.
It's ok to like slash, a pairing, or some other fandom subset. Nobody should stone you to death for what you believe.
Just please. Do NOT mess up US historical canon.
DO NOT DO IT. You look as bad as somebody who thinks that Superman and Lex Luthor are canonical butt buddies when you do it. You are being fundamentally incorrect.
So don't get mad when other people jump down your throat. Here at the PPC we get mad at people who think fundamentally wrong things about canons.
Why shouldn't other people be allowed get mad at those who believe wrong things about other canons... specifically the canon of the real world?
Your religious beliefs and opinions aren't wrong or worthy of attack. But the facts you put up to back them up are. In the same way somebody who claims the moon landing never happened, they're just... wrong. :| -
Throwing my tricorn hat into the ring, wall-of-text style. by
on 2011-05-23 05:14:00 UTC
Link to this
Thomas Jefferson spoke of a "wall of separation" between church and state. There is no such thing as a one-way wall. (Well, okay, in HQ there might be, but I'm talking Euclidean geometry here. ;P) Religion's chocolate is meant to stay out of the state's peanut butter and the state must in turn keep its peanut butter out of religion's chocolate.
Also, the Founding Fathers were mainly deists.
The United States has absolutely no language in its founding documents that explicitly states that it is a Christian nation. Ergo, any faith-based argument for laws in the United States is inherently unconstitutional, as stated in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis mine.]
The words "an establishment of religion" do not just mean "am institution of faith", they mean "establishing a state religion". To quote Barry Goldwater (four words I thought I would never type, by the by), "You can't legislate morality."
While I am not QUILTBAG myself, I'm certainly QUILTBAG-friendly, and I feel that I must defend the honor of Messrs. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams et al. wherever possible.
Speaking of whom, a little food for thought:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov't. land for churches
Oh, oh, and my personal favorite:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
The same thing could apply to QUILTBAG rights. Unless you are in the affected group, the existence or lack thereof of marriage rights for people who aren't "insert-tab-A-into-slot-B" neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
One more thing as well - the Treaty of Tripoli, submitted to the Senate by John Adams and ratified in 1797, contains this interesting clause:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - right there in writing.
As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But if you are going to construct an argument on why you believe that your beliefs should be injected into the political discourse of the United States, kindly refrain from building your arguments on a foundation of false data.
Also, genuinely curious - what passages are you using to justify homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of God, and why do you believe religion ought to affect the laws? Would you feel the same way if the Founders were, say, Druids? -
Hi there... by
on 2011-05-23 04:36:00 UTC
Link to this
Speaking as someone who was bullied into silence by people who used the same reasoning as you, because I admitted feelings to my best friend (who happened to be female like myself), I have to honestly say it hurts.
It hurts to know that it wasn't just some group of overzealous teenagers, telling me I wasn't right in the head or not human or any number of names that I won't list here, but to know it's someone within a community I frequent and have ties to?
Why should marriage between two happy people who wish to be together be exclusive? Why should it be okay for people like say, Newt Gingrich or Britney Spears be allowed to have shotgun marriages and divorces, but Joe and Steve who have been faithful to each other for 20+ years, and have been living together can't. As such, they are denied rights married couples have, such as hospital visitation, and so on.
Call me a socialist, but to deny equal rights to everyone just because some of the population happens to love someone with the same junk in their pants (or to just not care if the junk is similar or not, or so on), seems messed up to me.
And, if you try and argue that homosexuality doesn't happen in other species, I ask you to please google 'Whiptail Lizards'- They're a species of lizard which only has female lizards, as they are asexual. Even though the female lizards have the ability to self fertilize their eggs, they must still have 'intercourse' to do so. Heck, I suggest you look up damn near any species, and lo and behold, you'll find homosexuality. -
You know... by
on 2011-05-23 04:38:00 UTC
Link to this
...celebrities' stupidity doesn't change the value of marriage.
-
Re: You know... by
on 2011-05-23 04:43:00 UTC
Link to this
So love doesn't factor in?
-
I just...really don't like you right now. by
on 2011-05-23 04:22:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm going to marry who I want to marry. I'm going to not marry if I don't want to. I will marry or live with as many people as I love. I will have whatever operations that I decide will make me happy, and my sex change is not something you can police, and not some reason for you to look down on me. You don't get to cite a book and say that I, as a human being, am wrong, and therefore don't need rights. Marriage is my /right/, to do or not do.
None of this is something /you/ actually get to tell me I can't have. Thanks. -
Fine. Dislike me. by
on 2011-05-23 04:31:00 UTC
Link to this
But marriage isn't a right, and I have every right to say you're wrong. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant.
And I never said I looked down on the *people*. Just the acts. -
You're still wrong. by
on 2011-05-23 04:34:00 UTC
Link to this
I have the right to say that too, imagine.
It is not an act, it is part of who I am. I am gay, I am trans*, if you look down on those aspects of me, you are looking down on me as a person.
I hope some day you change, and you remember what you've said before, and you feel terrible for how you have treated people. Because what you're insisting is love and compassion is just hate pretending to be something else. -
Let me explain. by
on 2011-05-23 04:17:00 UTC
Link to this
It's time to explain why you're wrong. Ready? Ok, here we go!
First, if religion should affect laws, you're not the one to say that yours is the right one. Why shouldn't it follow Jewish law? Or Muslim? Those people exist in America, too. What a shock!
And Separation of Church and State was done to keep them out of each other, not really one moreso than the other.
Also, the country was founded on the right to freely worship, and by forcing your doctrine on everyone, you're wrong again!
And if two people, whether they be man or woman, or man or man, or woman or woman, or Pre-op trans and man, or whatever combination you can think of, are truly happy together and want to forge a relationship that lasts a lifetime build on mutual love and respect, why shouldn't they?
Also, in regard to your last post, saying that being gay is a disorder, well, that just wrong to say. It's really not a choice, and telling someone "You are not a proper person, your brain is defunct and you're not as good" because they like a certain gender is absolutely terrible. -
...not. by
on 2011-05-23 04:22:00 UTC
Link to this
"Those people exist in America, too."
Yes. They immigrated.
"why shouldn't they?"
Because it's intrinsically disordered.
"It's really not a choice"
You'd be surprised. -
Awesome, I get to explain more! by
on 2011-05-23 04:32:00 UTC
Link to this
If you'll remember, the people who moved to America to gain religious freedom? Immigrants. You point is now invalid there.
And being gay isn't intrinsically disordered. You might think it is, because it clashes with what you think is right, but your opinion isn't fact. You're wrong again.
And lastly, I never picked to go "I'm only gonna go with ladies." I didn't just decide to be straight. I'm straight because women appeal to me and men don't. You're not gonna tell people who like a different flavor of person than you that they're bad, sick, twisted people, are you? If you are, then you're certainly not loving your neighbor. And that's why everything you have said, are saying, and will continue to say is amazing, astoundingly wrong. Your incorrectness burns like the very Fires of Sinai themselves.
As a Christian, I don't want people like you, who treat people who are different like scum, in my religion. You make us look like intolerant, cruel people who lash out at anything we don't deem right or good. -
I think I'll stick with the Catechism and Pope, thanks. (nm) by
on 2011-05-23 04:34:00 UTC
Link to this
-
So, you're Ojibwa, then? by
on 2011-05-23 04:32:00 UTC
Link to this
Cheyenne? Cayuse? Salish? No?
We're all immigrants. One generation ago or ten, we came to the new world looking for the freedom to be ourselves, and have fought for that freedom repeatedly. -
Oh really? by
on 2011-05-23 04:24:00 UTC
Link to this
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
-
You've just made an assumption. Don't. (nm) by
on 2011-05-23 04:36:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Re: You've just made an assumption. Don't. by
on 2011-05-23 04:41:00 UTC
Link to this
So if you're a homosexual, bisexual, or what have you, do you believe you "chose" to be that way?
-
Re: You've just made an assumption. Don't. by
on 2011-05-23 05:41:00 UTC
Link to this
Usually, speaking only for myself and from personal experience, attraction to the opposite sex is dealt with the same way you'd deal with a constant urge to kill someone. By burying it, trying to ignore or stamp it out, and refusing to give in to the feelings because you believe they're sinful. It's incredibly painful.
And it comes down to another sin/sinner thing. You didn't choose to have the feelings, but you would be choosing to fulfill them, so you "choose" to remain "innocent." Or sinless. Or whatever synonym you can think of. My issue with that is that it results in unhappiness, and pain, and trauma. Why would a loving God give people feelings of romantic love only to deal punishment for acting on them? It's the act of a sadist, not the act of any God I believe in. And so, the choices come down to this for me: did God create QUILTBAG people only to force them into either lives of unhappiness and shame or Hell? Or have we just been mistaken about the nature of God for a long time?
As a Christian, I believe it's far more likely that humanity has erred than that God has. -
Re: You've just made an assumption. Don't. by
on 2011-05-23 05:57:00 UTC
Link to this
*facepalm* And by "attraction to the opposite sex," I mean "attraction to the same sex." Don't mind me, just getting the crux of the entire argument backwards...
The only reason I didn't add trans nature is because that's out of my own personal experience-- but I think the point in the latter part of the post stands. -
Well... by
on 2011-05-23 04:38:00 UTC
Link to this
If you get to make the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, then we get to make the assumption that heterosexuality must also therefore be a choice.
It's the only logical conclusion we can draw from such assumptions. -
That's not the assumption I meant. (nm) by
on 2011-05-23 04:41:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Then what assumption did you mean? by
on 2011-05-23 04:49:00 UTC
Link to this
The assumption that you chose to be heterosexual? See above.
The assumption that homosexuality isn't actually a choice? See above as well.
What assumption are you talking about? Because I can see no other assumption. -
If this is your Church, keep it the hell away from my State. by
on 2011-05-23 04:10:00 UTC
Link to this
"Also, don't kill me, please."
Don't try to play the victim card. As odious as your stance is, you have the right to hold it. And many, many people in the US are actively exercising this right, and doing their part in regressing the country back to the dark ages.
Take, for instance, the Texas school board's decision to excise Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum, instead adding Thomas Aquinas. Jefferson was merely the author of the Declaration of Independence, the third President of the United States, and one of its foremost statesmen. Of course, he also authored the Jefferson Bible - a Bible keeping the messages of benevolence and mercy intact, but removing the supernatural elements of the Logos, in an effort to salvage the heart of Christian compassion from the justified critiques of reason.
My friend, an educated theologian with a Master's in Divinity, put it best: besides all other commandments and rules, the most important one is the Golden Rule. But a disturbing number of Christians, especially in the US, are doing their best ignoring it. I'm an atheist, but I appreciate the teachings of Jesus, and it pains me to see them ignored so flagrantly: attacking instead of defending the disadvantaged, the poor, the ostracized; hoarding wealth, when in the New Testament, the one offence that would get you struck right down into Hell was not helping your fellow man. -
So it's fine for you to call mine odious, then. by
on 2011-05-23 04:14:00 UTC
Link to this
And frankly, anyone who tries to remove the supernatural elements from the Bible misses the whole point of it.
So treat everyone the same, even if what some do is wrong. Sorry, I can't do that. -
How ironic. by
on 2011-05-23 04:20:00 UTC
Link to this
But I shouldn't be surprised - I can't find the link but people who are not religious seem to have a better grasp of the Bible than Christians.
Are you saying the point of the Bible is not showing compassion and love to your fellow man, but parlour tricks with wine, fish and bread?
You seem to have also misread the Golden Rule. It's not "treaty everyone the same" - it's "treat others like you'd want them to treat yourself". I mean it's only in the Sermon on the Mount - another part of the Bible that many Christians seem to ignore, even though it's supposed to be the basis of His teachings.
And what of "render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's"? -
Re: How ironic. by
on 2011-05-23 20:47:00 UTC
Link to this
"Are you saying the point of the Bible is not showing compassion and love to your fellow man, but parlour tricks with wine, fish and bread?"
Actually, and not speaking for Jacer, yes, compassion and love to our fellow men is secondary. The entirety of the Holy Word lead up to one event, and that was the redemption of man through Christ's death and resurrection. He didn't come to bring peace, harmony, and zen to your inner chakra or those around you; he came to save you from yourself. That's it. If, through your salvation, you are a better person for it, great! As it should be. But it's not a giant Holy Book of daily etiquitte. Never mistake it for that, regardless of what you believe about its veracity.
On a side note, everything in scripture has its meaning, including those 'parlour tricks', all point back to Christ and his salvation. If they didn't, they (and through association, scripture in itself) would be meaningless. -
As if it made sense in the first place... by
on 2011-05-23 21:12:00 UTC
Link to this
That should read:
"On a side note, everything in scripture, including those 'parlour tricks', all point back to Christ and his salvation. If they didn't, they (and through association, scripture in itself) would be meaningless."
Apologies. -
No. by
on 2011-05-23 04:27:00 UTC
Link to this
My gosh. YES, the miracles are important.
The message IS love and compassion. Homosexual acts are morally wrong, and give a risk of going to Hell. (notice how I said *risk*, not "they will go to Hell") So if I want them to stop sinning so they *don't* go to Hell, how is that not love and compassion?
It's not the people I dislike, you know. It's the sin. -
*angry sigh* by
on 2011-05-23 04:43:00 UTC
Link to this
You see, THIS is why I haven't willingly gone to a mass in YEARS.
Thanks to whatever warped definition of the word of God we've got here, we've get miscreants like Jacer here who twist the word of God to whatever they want it to mean.
The miracles are important, how exactly? All they did was prove that Jesus was the son of God. How exactly is that important to his teachings, other than to make sure he couldn't possibly be discredited and to give him followers?
"So if I want them to stop sinning so they *don't* go to Hell, how is that not love and compassion?"
Because using words and acts of hatred to try to get them to stop sinning is not love.
Don't get me wrong. I'm no hater of Christianity. I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and I played at a Methodist Church Orchestra for YEARS.
But it's people like you that piss me off and reaffirm my stance of not wanting to have ANYTHING to do with ignorant religious nuts like you. -
Last message. by
on 2011-05-23 04:46:00 UTC
Link to this
Show me where in the Bible God approves of homosexual acts.
-
No. by
on 2011-05-23 05:05:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm not going to pander to someone who gets hung up on a tiny little detail from Deuteronomy and uses a small handful of verses to justify legislating hatred against something he can't understand because he doesn't want to understand it while also missing the larger message of 'love' by trying to force a way of living onto them with the consideration of a brute.
No. YOU will do the following:
-Show me the passages in the Bible where Jesus got sinners to repent their sins by saying they were beyond forgiveness and deserved to be punished by the law of the land for their sins.
-Show me the passages in the Bible where Jesus actively tried to punish those who sinned against him with words of hatred and anger.
Oh wait.
As closing, I will give you this passage from the Bible about hypocrisy, which is the sin you are guilty of in this case for clearly ignoring the love part of the bible:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Luke: Chapter 6, Verses 41-42)
This ain't the Old Testament anymore, boy. This is the New Testament. -
Re: No. by
on 2011-05-23 22:41:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm a Christian, but I disagree with the way Jacer's handled this.
I personally do not support the proposed Texas bill (pertaining as it does to marriage as a civil institution rather than a religious institution. There's a whole lot of heterosexual couples who don't meet the definition of a "Christian" marriage with their divorcin' and sleeping around. Hence there's a distinction between the "civil" definition marriage and the "Christian" definition, and I see no problem with the "civil" definition being open for gay, trans, whoever being married. As VM has said, America is an officially secular country, not a theocracy. I only wish they didn't share the same word, to avoid confusion, but that's a whole different discussion.
That said, just putting it out there: the New Testament also speaks on the subject of homosexuality (amidst a myriad of other sins), so it's not just an Old Testament thing. As a non-exhaustive list:
Romans 1:27
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
But... Christianity and the Bible teach that everyone is sinful and has fallen short of God's standard. Gay, straight, trans, you, me, the Pope; you name it. So it's not a matter of singling out any particular group or person or sin from hatred. I think the church gets hung up on issues of sexuality perhaps a bit much, seeing as Jesus preached on love of money and selfishness more than He preached on sexual sin. But neither does He condone it when he comes across it - John 8:7-11 is a good example of "love the sinner, hate the sin":
"“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Jesus does not condemn her, he acts out of love, but He does call for her to leave her life of sin.
I guess my point is that loving someone doesn't have to mean approving or condoning their actions, but equally that you don't have to abandon your sense of right and wrong to be loving as Jesus commanded, and nor should you.
Elcalion -
I was actually... by
on 2011-05-24 02:45:00 UTC
Link to this
About halfway through a heavy-duty analysis of those three passages last night. I'll post it when I've got it done, but it basically boiled down to "context, context, context." Romans was talking about the consequences of being an idolator or false prophet - in which your life will basically fall apart in a hurry. Corinthians was Corinthians - written to the Vegas of the ancient world, it was a "Hey! You're supposed to be living differently!", and the original text was condemning things to the tune of mass orgies, frequenting child prostitues, and so on. Timothy was similarly advice to a young man, basically a reminder that he couldn't let anything distract him from his mission.
It's all about the context. Seriously. Never, in the New Testament, that I've been able to find, does it straight-up say that homosexuality, actualized or hypothetical, is a sin. -
That which God hath made clean, call not thou unclean. (nm) by
on 2011-05-23 04:50:00 UTC
Link to this
-
...sure, regarding Jewish food laws. (nm) by
on 2011-05-23 04:51:00 UTC
Link to this
-
It's a metaphor. Universally agreed that it means Gentiles. by
on 2011-05-23 04:52:00 UTC
Link to this
And, by extension, the rest of that passage of Leviticus.
-
Nonsense. by
on 2011-05-23 04:36:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm sure Matthew Shepard's family finds this argument consoling.
Even if you're such a virtuous angel that you can separate your mind so that you can avoid all prejudice and discrimination towards people based on an integral component of their personal identity, scores of others are not. If mainstream Christian churches (esp. in the US) truly only disliked the sin, they'd be doing everything in their power to help LGBT people since that's where the help is needed.
And by help I mean support, love and charity, not re-education camps and torture disguised as 'therapy'. -
If by "help" you mean... by
on 2011-05-23 04:40:00 UTC
Link to this
..."acceptance of lifestyle," then no, they shouldn't be "helping."
-
I respect your opinion... by
on 2011-05-23 04:03:00 UTC
Link to this
However, I hope that you respect my wish for your opinion to eventually change and that you acknowledge the complex intricacies and differences of the various Founding Fathers' faiths, such as Quaker, Protestant, and especially Unitarian.
I don't want to kill you. I'm just curious. -
... Well then by
on 2011-05-23 04:01:00 UTC
Link to this
"Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around."
Speaking as an atheist, I take issue with this. This country is a secular nation, regardless of who "founded" it. Many of the founding fathers were actually deists, having no religious affiliation whatsoever. Only three were Roman Catholic.
Religious affiliations aside, I would like to draw your attention to Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This article was signed into action by John Adams and ratified unanimously by the US Senate. Pay particular attention to the very first sentence.
This is not a Christian nation. It is not a Muslim nation. It is not an atheist nation. It is a secular nation. The State must take a neutral stance on all matters of religion.
"I'm going to follow the Catechism and Pope on what they teach about homosexuality etc."
Then you may by all means do that. If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one. However, that does not allow you to dictate the rights of those around you.
"Marriage is not a right. It never has been. And it is between one man and one woman."
Then why is there a legal definition of it?
"Also, don't kill me, please."
Don't worry. I only eat babies. -
Of course we'll all see it. by
on 2011-05-23 03:59:00 UTC
Link to this
No one here is the type to post on a controversial topic and then run away with our hands over our ears. That said--
It disturbs me greatly that you believe that everyone in the United States of America should abide by the rules of your personal religion. Are you sure you've thought your position through? -
Yes. (nm) by
on 2011-05-23 04:05:00 UTC
Link to this
-
...I see. by
on 2011-05-23 04:17:00 UTC
Link to this
So. Let me see if I'm getting this right.
You are a Christian.
The majority of America is Christian, of one kind or another.
Therefore, your religion's rules should be enforced on everyone else.
Tell me, exactly how does this equal that fabled "Freedom of Religion" guaranteed by our Bill of Rights and boasted of so oft abroad? -
Tell me... by
on 2011-05-23 04:32:00 UTC
Link to this
...why everyone is perfectly happy to accommodate minorities all the freaking time, but the Christians always get bashed?
And I'm not saying "my religion's rules" should be enforced on everyone. I'm saying *the right thing* should be enforced. Whether you agree with me on it, now that's different. -
Actually... by
on 2011-05-23 17:12:00 UTC
Link to this
You are saying that your religion's rules should be enforced. You are saying that the 'right thing' should be enforced, but from your previous statements, I can only come to the conclusion that this 'right thing' is determined by your religion's rules, and so, you are stating that we should enforce your religion's rules. As an agnostic, this sort of statement really gets on my nerves. I don't want to be forced to live by the rules of some religion I don't follow.
-
Really? by
on 2011-05-23 12:43:00 UTC
Link to this
Christians are the ones that get bashed? I suppose you've had death threats due to your religion or sexual orientation, then? Or maybe as a child you had friends whose parents told you that you couldn't play with their children because your religion was wrong? Oh, or maybe you've been beat up repeatedly because you worshiped a different god from the other kids, while the teacher just watched? No? Then it's pretty hard for me to have any kind of sympathy for you, when this shit has happened to me just because I happen to like people of any gender, and because I'm not Christian. Apparently following the goddess of luck and fate is enough reason for some people to hate you.
-
I'm a Christian. I don't feel oppressed. We're not. by
on 2011-05-23 04:43:00 UTC
Link to this
I use the "Syncretistic Abomination" label in jest, because of beliefs I hold similar to my ancestors and those of C. S. Lewis. I was raised Fundamental Baptist, Southern in everything but geographical region. Up until I was about fifteen, I believed exactly as you appear to in this thread. Even when I got a crush on one of my best [female] friends, it was "Love the sinner, hate the sin," except it's really easy to hate the sinner when the sinner is yourself.
Your beliefs-- your version of what's right-- is causing kids all over the world to hate themselves. That? Is not right.
*the right thing* Is only the right thing if you're in a specific subsect of Christianity. The rest of the world has different opinions.
Again: this. is. not. a. theocracy. -
Round three of explaining. by
on 2011-05-23 04:40:00 UTC
Link to this
Your religion doesn't pick what the right thing is.
YOU don't decide what the right thing is.
Someone like you has no right to claim what the right thing is, or should be.
Also, you're not the only Christian here. You're the only hateful, spite filled one here, but not the only Christian. Don't try playing the victim.
And it's pretty amusing how you thing "The right thing" and "What I believe from my religion's rules" seem to line up for you so much.
All in all, you're wrong. You're like the Pillar of Wrong Smoke and Wrong Fire taking the Iswrongilites into the Promised Wrong. -
Very convenient, how those two line up. (nm) by
on 2011-05-23 04:40:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Re: Tell me... by
on 2011-05-23 04:39:00 UTC
Link to this
"...why everyone is perfectly happy to accommodate minorities all the freaking time, but the Christians always get bashed?"
You.
Are.
Kidding me.
Christians are the ones getting bashed?
Recently in Bastrop, Louisiana, a teenage boy in the Senior class called out his high school for organizing a school lead prayer. Legally, he is in the right. A school cannot organize a prayer for any religion as that violates the Separation of Church and State.
Guess what happened? He got death threats. His parents disowned him and threw him out of the house.
On billboard signs I see 'atheists' pointing guns at cameras with the words "If God doesn't matter to him, why would you?" On other billboards I see "Don't believe in God? You're not alone!"
Take a wild guess at which billboards get vandalized.
Do not play the victim card. It does not work. Your beliefs do not dictate what is right. -
Yes, poor Christians! by
on 2011-05-23 04:38:00 UTC
Link to this
I mean it's not like Western society has been built for over 1500 years around the belief and cultural systems borne out of the Christian faith. It's not like state churches still exist. It's not like churches receive enormous tax credits. It's not like being anything but Christian is a roadblock for anyone seeking elected office in the US.
-
Actually... by
on 2011-05-22 17:49:00 UTC
Link to this
Well, July stole everything I was going to say, and said it better than I would've. (Also she's actually Catholic, which makes it better.)
I would, however, like to add that there's a difference between stating your opinion and stating your opinion in such a manner that makes this forum an unsafe/uncomfortable place for our QUILTBAG* members, and I don't appreciate that. Being cisgendered myself, it can be easy to forget how our words effect someone who is discriminated against and marginalized every day-- I'd appreciate choosing your words with a little more care. Telling someone their operation is disgusting, their identity is a disorder-- not cool. To say the least.
Also-- your points on religion don't address the fact that this is not a theocracy. The United States is entirely unaffiliated with Catholicism, Lutheranism, Baptism, Satanism, Paganism, Islam, Episcopalianism, and/or any other religions you care to name. The laws that say who can and cannot get married, have operations, or whatever else-- they don't have anything to do with your religious beliefs, or mine. They have only to do with the rights of their citizens. "Not being offended" is not on the same level, as a human right, as "Being allowed to get married."
*term picked up from various folks on Slacktivist, a liberal evangelical blog: Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay. -
Religion doesn't have anything to do with this bill, though. by
on 2011-05-22 17:45:00 UTC
Link to this
As an American, you're supposed to be free to believe what pleases you and live your life according to your beliefs. This bill is attempting to strip that right from the people of Texas. Whether you personally believe that being transgender is okay or not, if you value your own right to live the life that's right for you regardless of whether other people agree, then opposing this bill is the right thing to do. That's really all there is to it.
~Neshomeh -
Funny, that. by
on 2011-05-22 07:59:00 UTC
Link to this
I'm Catholic too. And I don't agree in the least.
Let's begin with what you've listed here.
"I firmly believe that male is male and female is female, and what we are born is what we're meant to be."
Gender and sex are different items; gender refers to one's mental state, and sex refers to one's physical and genetic standpoint. It's been proven scientifically that gender is entirely an item of the brain, and that in people who are transgendered, their brains match that of their claimed gender.
"I'm also a staunch supporter of traditional marriage."
I am too. A traditional marriage is comprised of two people who are in love with each other and, according to our religion, undertaking a covenant under God to be together and that they love each other and that this is important enough to them that they want to spend their lives together and be bonded together as one.
What makes a marriage strong, healthy, and long lasting? Love, or the fact that it's a man and a woman? What is more pleasing to God? Two people who love each other deeply, forever, or Britney Spears's 55-hour marriage?
"I don't believe gender identity or homosexuality is something we're born with, I believe they're disorders."
Funny. Left handedness is actually linked to many disorders, but we don't call them sinful or unnatural.
Oh wait, we did.
Left handed people used to be beaten or hurt and generally victimized if they showed themselves to favor their left hand. Godless, sinful, unnatural, and all that.
"And I find sex change operations disgusting."
That is completely a personal matter of opinion and has nothing to do with your statement as it involves religion or people's rights. I too find operations and surgery disgusting in general, but they're a part of life, and that is important for many people and ensure they are able to have the quality of life they deserve as fellow human beings.
"I'm well aware that people on here probably won't consider my religious beliefs as a valid argument, and might even say it's offensive to state them. But you did ask."
No, you did not use your religious beliefs as a valid argument or as a good reason at all; all your reasons had NOTHING to do with being Roman Catholic or any sort of Christian at all. An atheist or agnostic could have easily stated the same reasons as you.
If you're going to claim the religion card, particularly Catholicism or any branch of Christianity, remember first and foremost that we're part of a religion where we chose to follow someone who STATED to us, who TOLD us that we should give to the needy, feed the poor, tend to the ill, and that we should treat everyone well, no matter what, and that everyone is loved, no matter what.
Look at the tale of the Good Samaritan. Or failing that, go read your Bible again. New Testament, to be precise. Failing that, go talk to your priest and ask him the importance of loving everyone no matter what and being good to others.
Because? We're all sinners, regardless of what we do or who we are, and we're all equal in the eyes of God, theologically. He who has not sinned should toss the first stone, and all that. Trying to tell someone that they're unnatural and doomed to go to hell because they're trying to be who they are falls against that, and is denying our basic nature.
Closemindedness is not following our faith, and is actively turning away from the guiding principles that are the basis of our faith.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." -Matthew 7.1-3 -
*sigh* by
on 2011-05-19 13:44:00 UTC
Link to this
America, for the love of God, can we please, PLEASE, stop taking the Bible so seriously in matters where the Bible has absolutely no say in human life? It's a freakin' book!
Seriously, it's when idiots in places like this do something incredibly close-minded and bigoted like this that keeps on distancing me from the church: I haven't willingly gone to a mass in YEARS. And what's more, is that people pull stunts like this, and then we as a nation wonder how we're falling behind everybody else so damn quickly.
I'm almost tempted to burn all the Bibles in America. Almost.
Anyway, that's enough ranting from me. I signed the petition, so... -
Well... by
on 2011-05-19 14:20:00 UTC
Link to this
First off, for the record, the Bible has nothing to say about transgender people. (Er. I'm 98% sure.) So any bigotry and "It's against God!" crying here is entirely the thoughts of mankind.
Second off, the problem lies not with the religion itself (in my opinion) - and even if it did, bigots are entitled to their opinions, and churches who will not sanction transgender marriages are entitled to that right. The problem comes when people try to force their religion into law - this is not a theocracy. The cry generally goes "Secularism!" in about the same tone as you'd shout "Baby-eating!" But honestly, if this is not a secular country, the only other option is a country of one particular religion, because I doubt that the answer to keeping the "Secularism!"-criers happy is to adopt Wicca as the national religion, or Islam. And I mean, Heaven forbid we actually have FREEDOM of religion...
*cough*
Anyway, my point is that the entire religion isn't to blame, just those voices who appear to think that the Founders put the 'freedom of religion' thing into the Bill of Rights because theywere complete idiots whothought that the entire world and all immigrants would always believe exactly as they didwhich actually isn't even the same sect as most of Christianity - even the Constitutional 'literalists' - for the record. I prefer to think that our Founders were not stupid, and put the 'freedom of religion' thing in because... they believed in freedom of, and necessarily therefore, freedom from religion.
...*climbs off the soapbox*
Anyway! Thanks for the link, DS! -
Yep. Got nothing to do with the Bible. by
on 2011-05-20 04:13:00 UTC
Link to this
The long and short of it is, people are using the Bible to say things they want it to say, when it doesn't actually say anything of the sort. I can only assume they do this because they think that claiming the Bible says something makes their argument immune to logic or something...
I have a history with Christian fundamentalism myself, and I saw the way they treated anybody who didn't act the way they wanted them to. I nearly lost my faith over that. But they made one mistake... they forced me to read the Bible. All the way through, and multiple times. And I realized something: They weren't actually preaching the Bible at all. They were preaching their own subculture. They were making claims that had little to do with the Bible at all.
So yeah. When you see this stuff--it's not representative of Christianity, any more than suicide bombers are representative of Islam or the Soviet prison camps were representative of atheism. People will take an ideology and pervert it, take little bits out of context, then claim that it says whatever they want it to say. Don't believe them--check it out for yourself. -
No Problem! by
on 2011-05-19 17:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Even if an internet petition signed by people out of state winds up having no legal effect, it's worth it just to raise awareness.
-
New Mission! by
on 2011-05-19 22:13:00 UTC
Link to this
So, this is the first mission for Agents Drew and Lucius: http://rc43042.webs.com/missions.htm
The badfic is a Zombieland fic called New Kid, and can be found here: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6650342/1/New_Kid
Thanks to DML, GuvnorOfSpace, Vixenmage, and Ellipsis Flood for betaing!
...I think I got everyone. -
Thank you for killing that >. by
on 2011-05-21 01:25:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Re: New Mission! by
on 2011-05-20 17:51:00 UTC
Link to this
I've been told I should watch Zombieland, and haven't yet, but even I can tell that Suethor doesn't know survival situations. Good kill.
-
Congrats! by
on 2011-05-20 07:25:00 UTC
Link to this
On emerging sane from your first mission! ^_^
I have seen Zombieland, and agree 100%; that fic was... bleurgh.
One small nitpick, when Lucius is charging the 'Sue, there's the line "improbable imagry with the Words". Shouldn't that be "improbable imagEry"? -
Good job! by
on 2011-05-20 07:24:00 UTC
Link to this
Oh. My. Gosh. Thank you for killing that... thing. I only read part of the first chapter and really wanted to beat my head against the wall.
I found Drew quite amusing as well. (I haven't read World War Z though, so I don't know about his background that much.) Quite a good first mission! :] -
Pretty good, but... by
on 2011-05-20 04:33:00 UTC
Link to this
I found it a little hard to tell when paragraphs were starting and ending. It might have been weird computer formatting stuff, but next time could you please put a space after each paragraph?
Also, World War Z character. That is the most awesome thing ever! -
Seconding. by
on 2011-05-20 21:13:00 UTC
Link to this
Maybe others don't mind, but the random paragraphing makes it really hard for me to read (I only got through the introduction). It's distracting to the eye, and it makes it hard to tell who's speaking unless you specifically identify them. I recommend doing away with the indents (unless you can figure out how to standardize them) and using a double line-break after each paragraph.
~Neshomeh -
That paragraphing thing by
on 2011-05-20 07:35:00 UTC
Link to this
Don't know whether Tranum's gone back and made edits, but to me the paragraphs look very weird. First I thought the indentation of paragraphs was random. Then I noticed that only paragraphs that start with dialogue are indented and paragraphs that start with description aren't. All paragraphs should be treated the same when it comes to indenting, and all indentations should the same size. (or just go for no indentations, but a blank line between paragraphs, like on FFnet.)
The mission didn't really pull me in, but that could just be me. Lately, I seem to find only cookbooks and books on writing engaging. -
Fun mission! by
on 2011-05-20 03:31:00 UTC
Link to this
Hey, you made a random Pulp Fiction reference! That's really, really awesome! Drew feels a little hyper and more than a little prone to falling asleep, but I'm sure that character quirks are all right.
But this episode was actually very funny aside from that, and I love anybody that actually comes from the World War Z continuum. (I'm currently reading that book, so that's one reason why I'm spazzing out. I'm only at "Turning the Tide" right now, but so far I LOVE it. It's incredibly fascinating stuff.)
So yeah. Fun times abound for all. -
Horray for surviving your fist mission! by
on 2011-05-20 03:28:00 UTC
Link to this
That fic looked awful, and I've never seen Zombieland. Still, good sporking.
-
I seem to remember... by
on 2011-05-19 23:22:00 UTC
Link to this
You talking about having agents that only go after zombies.
... Sounds like cool ESAS material to me.
(if I misremember, then shame on me.) -
You remember correctly! (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 00:56:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I still think you should go with Division of BRAINS! (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 20:23:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Would anyone be interested in a Stagate 'Verse OFU? by
on 2011-05-20 07:49:00 UTC
Link to this
I've been kicking around the idea of making an OFU for the three Stargate 'Verses, but wasn't sure if anyone would be interested in sending fanbrats to it and/or being a joint admin with me. So, would anyone be interested?
-
I would love to help! by
on 2011-05-25 19:58:00 UTC
Link to this
When I first got out of 'Yay! After school cartoons!' I went straight to 'Yay! After school Stargate!'. I know both SG-1 and Atlantis very well, and I still watch them from time to time. I also would like to finally get to see an OFU inn action.
-
Let's see... by
on 2011-05-25 20:37:00 UTC
Link to this
Miah and I are taking on the roles of the Course Coordinators, but we could definitely use some more help in general. We haven't got much beyond the character sheet for people to fill out at the moment, but any help you're willing to give would be awesome.
-
Hmmm... by
on 2011-05-25 19:54:00 UTC
Link to this
I think there are technically four Stargate verses, at least mini wise. (There being a separate mini for the movie.)
Other than that, I think O'Neil would love to get away from his frustrating human caretaker and vent his anger on some fan brats... -
Hmm, you're right. by
on 2011-05-25 20:31:00 UTC
Link to this
I'll have to make a note of that. And O'Neil is more than welcome at SOFU.
-
Head mini, perhaps? by
on 2011-05-25 21:02:00 UTC
Link to this
In the past, O'Neil has coordinated a group of minis. Perhaps he could be in charge of the minis?
-
That would work. (nm) by
on 2011-05-25 21:02:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I don't know what Stargate is at all... by
on 2011-05-23 19:25:00 UTC
Link to this
but I hope it all goes well for you!
-
Me! Me! Me! Oh! Oh! Pick me! (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 16:47:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*grin* I figured you might be interested. (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 19:18:00 UTC
Link to this
-
:D (nm) by
on 2011-05-21 00:26:00 UTC
Link to this
-
So, would you want to co-mod it with me? (nm) by
on 2011-05-21 04:36:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Sure (nm) by
on 2011-05-22 07:11:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Awesome. by
on 2011-05-22 07:17:00 UTC
Link to this
I've got the student form written up, but I want to figure out where to host it. I'm thinking maybe LJ, since I've got experience with that. What do you think?
-
Re: Awesome. by
on 2011-05-22 18:23:00 UTC
Link to this
It's the only place I am familiar with, too. Email me?
-
Re: Awesome. by
on 2011-05-22 21:30:00 UTC
Link to this
Will do. I'll put the character sheet in googledocs and send that along as well.
-
My derp. It's supposed to be "Stargate." (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 07:49:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Deletion of Advertising Messages by
on 2011-05-20 17:20:00 UTC
Link to this
It has come to my attention that the administrator(s) of this website have been deleting the advertising messages left by agents of Star Advertising. I am asking you to stop, before I am forced to take further action.
The Web is a PUBLIC FORUM and therefore CENSORSHIP is not allowed in any shape or form. Deletion of legal advertisements constitutes censorship, and is therefore ILLEGAL.
Star Advertising, WA -
Spam, spam, spam, spam... (nm) by
on 2011-05-22 16:22:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Bring it. by
on 2011-05-21 02:08:00 UTC
Link to this
I am the administrator of this forum. You can reach me via E-mail at techno.dann@gmail.com, if you wish to "take further action".
I direct your attention to the Board Constitution, in which it is clearly stated that there are, in fact, things which we happily declare unacceptable in this space. Furthermore, you will find a similar (if more carefully enumerated list) at the yourwebapps.com Terms of Service. We can, and will, quite happily delete what we please. Are you really this clueless about the usual operating procedures of websites, or are you just trying to scare a group of people who don't look (at first glance) to be legally savvy?
Speaking of which, I suggest (strongly) that you read, carefully, the findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in Valentine v. Chrestensen, in which it was clearly found that advertising is not protected as Free Speech. In short, the right to free speech is not and never was intended to be the right to an audience.
Your message (and this entire thread) will be deleted at approximately 6 PM PST on Monday, the 23rd of May, or whenever I get around to it. Any other advertisements your agents leave will be deleted as soon as they are noticed. Rot in hell, spammer. -
Damn skippy. *applauds* (nm) by
on 2011-05-22 04:09:00 UTC
Link to this
-
*sings the Spam song* by
on 2011-05-21 01:24:00 UTC
Link to this
Avaunt, foul Spam! *beats about the head with a ladle*
-
Re: Deletion of Advertising Messages by
on 2011-05-20 23:28:00 UTC
Link to this
Am I going to have to burst into songs from Spamalot again?
-
Fft. Does anyone remember... by
on 2011-05-20 21:42:00 UTC
Link to this
Does anyone remember the random word-salad spliced into the message? I thought it sounded interesting and wanted to use it for something.
Then I forgot to write it down. Rarg. -
One of them was "I want to tell you adios." (nm) by
on 2011-05-21 03:24:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Re: Fft. Does anyone remember... by
on 2011-05-20 22:00:00 UTC
Link to this
I think the first bit was something like 'that he which takes the word', and there was something about 'she winds the up the nice singing'. Oh, and the middle line had 'acrimonious spaces' in it somewhere.
Sorry I can't be of more use. -
Riiight. by
on 2011-05-20 17:53:00 UTC
Link to this
First, does Star have an advertising contract, either with the provider of this board or the admins thereof? I doubt it: legitimate ads are posted here are in image form and in the space allotted. The only ad deleted recently was a nigh-incomprehensible spam ad for Viagra, which can hardly be considered effective or targeted advertising. If one of your people posted that, I suggest you fire them immediately.
If your firm does not have a contract with the provider or the admins, then your advertising is considered unsolicited. The principle behind selling ad space is simple: money is exchanged in order to provide further access to a potential customer base. Space and access are valuable and worth being paid for. If someone attempts to use a dedicated forum for advertising purposes without properly paying for the privilege (thus anticipating possible compensation from advertising revenues) they are attempting to hijack something and not pay for it. That would be theft.
In addition, any incomprehensible word-salad ad for Viagra that a board full of trained writers and linguists couldn't figure out is likely not Legal Advertising. Pfizer Inc., which makes the drug in question, has millions of dollars to spend on real targeted ads--and they are the ultimate authority when it comes to selling Viagra. That would mean your company is either selling a drug without having the right to do so (since someone selling it legally would put at least two seconds of thought into their ad), or selling a knockoff and calling it the real thing. Both are not allowed.
Furthermore, where have you been? Censorship is rampant on the Internet. It does not, however, constitute censorship to remove an incomprehensible, annoying, unpaid-for and questionably legal ad from a public space where it wasn't supposed to be in the first place. Questions? -
Oh, I've missed you, WM. (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 23:56:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Hear, hear! {= D (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 21:06:00 UTC
Link to this
-
Nice answer. :D (nm) by
on 2011-05-20 20:40:00 UTC
Link to this
-
I think we're still talking to a robot by
on 2011-05-20 18:13:00 UTC
Link to this
I get the feeling this is an automated (poor) attempt at a 'scare' message. I've seen this kind of thing before, a spammer has several auto-post bots (the likes of which posted the word salad), and then a monitor that will wait until the spam is deleted and then post this.
In most cases the 'advertising agency' doesn't even exist. The poster's handle gives a clue to this, it seems like another computer-generated username, using a slightly different algorithm.
(PS. I feel I should mention that about three other spammy messages were posted and subsequently nuked earlier today) -
Yeah, most likely. by
on 2011-05-20 19:24:00 UTC
Link to this
But I've had to learn a lot about proper use of advertising (for my job) in the last few months, and I was working out some issues. Don't mind me. XD
-
Re: Yeah, most likely. by
on 2011-05-20 19:55:00 UTC
Link to this
Oh, don't worry, I was just speaking my mind too. ^_~