Right, so having read an intriguing post regarding people looking for rp buddies, I messaged this person. They didn't seem insane within the first five minutes of the conversation. They seemed friendly, articulate, intelligent.
Then we started discussing chars and potential scenarios for rp and they interrupted me to ask if I had an image for the char. NOT a photo. They suggested I 'go to Deviant Art and select an image there are tons there.'
I was slightly bemused at the prospect of being requested to go and find an illustration of a pb on the spot. Right, so this person's a bit weird, I thought to myself. I cautiously suggested, 'Well, I have some stuff _I've_ drawn, I could send you a jpeg if you like.'
This, I was informed, 'might result in my char being rejected.'
Yes, rejected from an rp session via AIM. I figured what the hell, this person is obviously a twat, but I confess I've a bit of professional pride since I'm a freelance artist, so sent them a jpeg anyway.
I got this response: 'Your drawing style looks like Joe's. Suspiciously so.'
I have no idea who 'Joe' is, and so asked the other person to clarify just what the hell they were on about. I also mentioned that since I am an artist, the insinuations that I'm some sort of plagiarist are highly offensive to me.
Their response was, 'Oh no no I don't mean you're a plagarist. I have to ask Joe something.'
By now I was irritated and said I didn't think this was going to work out. Their response was, 'No wait, it's okay. Joe says it isn't him. Sorry for the misunderstanding but you can see why I have to be careful.'
So, after blocking and deleting this person, I am still left with the burning question...
Who the hell is 'Joe'!?
Then we started discussing chars and potential scenarios for rp and they interrupted me to ask if I had an image for the char. NOT a photo. They suggested I 'go to Deviant Art and select an image there are tons there.'
I was slightly bemused at the prospect of being requested to go and find an illustration of a pb on the spot. Right, so this person's a bit weird, I thought to myself. I cautiously suggested, 'Well, I have some stuff _I've_ drawn, I could send you a jpeg if you like.'
This, I was informed, 'might result in my char being rejected.'
Yes, rejected from an rp session via AIM. I figured what the hell, this person is obviously a twat, but I confess I've a bit of professional pride since I'm a freelance artist, so sent them a jpeg anyway.
I got this response: 'Your drawing style looks like Joe's. Suspiciously so.'
I have no idea who 'Joe' is, and so asked the other person to clarify just what the hell they were on about. I also mentioned that since I am an artist, the insinuations that I'm some sort of plagiarist are highly offensive to me.
Their response was, 'Oh no no I don't mean you're a plagarist. I have to ask Joe something.'
By now I was irritated and said I didn't think this was going to work out. Their response was, 'No wait, it's okay. Joe says it isn't him. Sorry for the misunderstanding but you can see why I have to be careful.'
So, after blocking and deleting this person, I am still left with the burning question...
Who the hell is 'Joe'!?
- Location:the new lair
- Mood:
curious
MPs urge '70m population cap' in party manifestos
A cross-party group of MPs and peers have called on the main parties to make a manifesto pledge not to allow the UK's population to exceed 70 million.
Former minister Frank Field is among those arguing current immigration rates, unless restricted, will impact on public services and quality of life.
The Balanced Migration Group said the BNP continued to exploit the issue.
Labour says its points-based migration system is working but the Tories want an annual cap on incoming workers.
All the main parties are sceptical about setting population targets which they believe is unrealistic and counter-productive.
Last year the Office for National Statistics said if current trends continued, the UK population would rise by 10 million to more than 71.6 million by 2003 - the fastest rise in a century.
Two-thirds of that increase would be caused, directly or indirectly, by migration to the UK, it suggested. ( Read more... )
[source]
- Mood:
Really, Really, Really, Really - Music:Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really,
Judge Rakoff Slaps Bank Of America Again - And Loves Ballroom Dancing (VIDEO)
Judge Jed S. Rakoff is at it again. In his latest salvo in Bank of America's civil trial with the SEC over the Merrill Lynch bonus scandal, Judge Rakoff blasted the bank's attempts to use news reports as evidence at trial.
To recap, the SEC is suing Bank of America for misleading investors about its intentions to pay out year-end bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees. While it was buying Merrill, the bank maintained in its regulatory filings that no bonuses would go to Merrill workers.
At issue in the most recent court proceedings is whether or not media reports of the bonuses could be used as evidence. According to this ruling, Bank of America is apparently arguing that, because of several prominent media outlets reported in that Merrill bonuses would be doled out, the bank was absolved of, um, having to tell the truth.
From Rakoff's ruling:
"In effect, the bank is arguing that, even though it expressly warned its shareholders to disregard the media, it can now defend itself by asserting that a reasonable shareholder would have disregard these warnings and, by consulting the media, perceived that the bank's alleged lies were immaterial. Even a zealous advocate might perceive that such an argument hints at hypocrisy. "
When he's not in full-blown acerbic mode, Rakoff apparently enjoys cutting a rug. At the Business Insider, Erin Geiger Smith passes along this video. (Rakoff appears at the 1:50 mark.)
( Read more )
⌈ Secret Post #545 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
( from a movie scene )
Notes:
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - personal attacks ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!RPsecrets ], [ IT'S A TOO BIG, TOO - PSAs ], [ 0 - repeats ], [ 1 - too bigs ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns are more than welcomed here. For frequently asked questions, please check them out here!
amusedImpromptu mod post time!
It seems ONTD_P has been subject to some, uh, interesting posts tonight! I caught the last one and![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
carbonmonoxide has been b&ed from the community and the entry deleted while marked as spam. I don't know who made the earlier ones since I missed them, but if it was a different user, PLEASE let me know.
And to carbonmonoxide, if this was a hacking, please comment on the open post at![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif)
ontdp_mods. Otherwise I guess you're just banned or whatever. PFitz will be watching you.
Although thinking gay porn was the best thing to spam ONTD_P with? Um...
Gurl please, most of us probably have more explicit shit on our hard drives.
CARRY ON.
It seems ONTD_P has been subject to some, uh, interesting posts tonight! I caught the last one and
carbonmonoxide has been b&ed from the community and the entry deleted while marked as spam. I don't know who made the earlier ones since I missed them, but if it was a different user, PLEASE let me know.And to carbonmonoxide, if this was a hacking, please comment on the open post at
ontdp_mods. Otherwise I guess you're just banned or whatever. PFitz will be watching you.Although thinking gay porn was the best thing to spam ONTD_P with? Um...
Gurl please, most of us probably have more explicit shit on our hard drives.
CARRY ON.
- Music:Sonic Youth - Winner's Blues | Powered by Last.fm
In what no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time, Slovak officials decided to test security at two airports in Slovakia on Saturday by concealing plastic explosives in eight suitcases and waiting to see what happened next.
Here’s what happened next: airport security intercepted seven of the suitcases but failed to detect 96 grams of the plastic explosive RDX loaded into one bag, which belonged to a Slovak electrician who lives in Ireland and had no idea his luggage had been tampered with. The man boarded his flight to Dublin, retrieved his bag and went home to his apartment.
...
Two days later, on Monday, it occurred to someone in Slovakia that one of the explosive-packed bags had gone missing and Slovakian police contacted their counterparts in Dublin to ask for help.
On Tuesday morning, the Irish Army’s bomb squad paid a visit to the apartment of the Slovak electrician in Dublin and secured the explosives.
According to a Canadian Press report, the man was detained for several hours by the Irish police who said they “initially were led to believe the man might be a terrorist.” The man was released after Slovak officials made it clear that they had been responsible for planting the explosives.
...
Irish authorities said that Slovakia’s interior minister had been in touch to convey “his government’s profound regret for this incident,” Reuters reported.(source)
Steele uses racial epithet to argue that the GOP doesn’t need to be more moderate: ‘Honest Injun on that.’
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has been out aggressively promoting his new book, “Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda,” which was just released yesterday. He went on Sean Hannity’s Fox News last night to discuss Republican principles and insisted that the Republican Party does not need to modernize. “Honest Injun on that,” he said to underscore his point:
HANNITY: There are those that are saying for the Republican Party to be successful, they’ve gotta quote be more moderate.
STEELE: No, no! But that’s what’s gotten us into trouble, when we walked away from principle. Our platform is one of the best political documents that’s been written in the last 25 years. Honest Injun on that. It speaks to some core conservative principles on the value of family, faith, life, economics. Those principles don’t change.
( Read more )
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has been out aggressively promoting his new book, “Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda,” which was just released yesterday. He went on Sean Hannity’s Fox News last night to discuss Republican principles and insisted that the Republican Party does not need to modernize. “Honest Injun on that,” he said to underscore his point:
HANNITY: There are those that are saying for the Republican Party to be successful, they’ve gotta quote be more moderate.
STEELE: No, no! But that’s what’s gotten us into trouble, when we walked away from principle. Our platform is one of the best political documents that’s been written in the last 25 years. Honest Injun on that. It speaks to some core conservative principles on the value of family, faith, life, economics. Those principles don’t change.
( Read more )
- Mood:LAST POST I PROMISE. (...maybe.)
NYC prosecutor blasts 'heroin how-to' pamphlet
New York City’s top narcotics prosecutor says a Health Department pamphlet that teaches heroin addicts how to shoot up safely is wrongheaded because there is no safe way to inject heroin.
( Read more... )
DEA rips NYC-funded handbook on heroin
‘Step-by-step instruction on how to inject a poison,’ drug agent says
NEW YORK - A New York City-funded guidebook for heroin users offers information on how to prepare drugs carefully and care for veins to avoid infection.
( Read more... )
Public Officials Attack City’s Heroin Pamphlet
If you’re going to do drugs, do it right, because even drug addicts deserve to have their lives protected.
That’s the message New York City health officials say they were trying to convey in a city-funded and distributed pamphlet on “tips for safer use” of heroin that has raised the hackles of public officials, including the city’s special narcotics prosecutor, over the last few days.
( Read more... )
I listed to this on Sean Hannity while a friend drove me to the drs. I figured there was a bit more to the story than the New York Post said, and there was. There was also some stuff about wasting tax money but those seemed more like blogs, from what I found.
REPORT: Challenges To Constitutionality Of Health Reform Funded By Health Industry Money
Since Democrats secured 60 votes to pass health care reform legislation — and passage became inevitable — prominent conservatives relaunched an under-the-radar campaign to invalidate reform through the legal system. On the eve of the final health care vote in the Senate, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV) invoked a “constitutional point of order” to allow the Senate to rule by majority vote on whether the “Democrat health care takeover bill” is unconstitutional. Legislatures in approximately 14 states — organized by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a “business-friendly conservative group that coordinates activity among statehouses — have also introduced initiatives to ratify constitutional amendments that would repeal all or parts of the pending health care reform legislation, and Attorney Generals in at least 13 states are challenging a deal secured by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to fund Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion for perpetuity.
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the attorneys generals from South Carolina, Washington, Michigan, Texas, Colorado, Alabama, North Dakota, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Utah, Florida, Idaho and South Dakota “wrote that they consider the [Nebraska] provision ‘constitutionally flawed’ and demanded that it be stricken from the final bill.”
Yesterday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining “Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional.” “The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional,” he wrote, and went on to challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the so-called sweet heart deal for Nebraska, and the requirements for states to establish health insurance exchanges and insurance regulations.
The effort may prove a strong political organizing tool for conservative activists, but the legal reasoning has little support beyond the right fringe of the Republican party and the health care industry. Several weeks ago, the New York Times reported, “The states where the [constitutional] amendment has been introduced are also places where the health care industry has spent heavily on political contributions.” The industry has also contributed heavily to the campaigns of at least 7 of the 13 attorney generals threatening to sue the federal government over the Nebraska provision. (Campaign finance data was not readily accessible for the other 6 attorneys generals.)
An analysis conducted by the Wonk Room of available campaign finance disclosures for AGs from South Carolina, Washington, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah and Idaho reveals that the health industry contributed heavily to their campaigns. For instance, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett (who is also running for Governor) accepted some $24,300 from the health care industry for his campaigns, including $10,300 from Pfizer PAC, $3,500 from Aetna Inc. PAC, and $2,500 from United Health Group Inc. Read the full analysis here.
Since Democrats secured 60 votes to pass health care reform legislation — and passage became inevitable — prominent conservatives relaunched an under-the-radar campaign to invalidate reform through the legal system. On the eve of the final health care vote in the Senate, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV) invoked a “constitutional point of order” to allow the Senate to rule by majority vote on whether the “Democrat health care takeover bill” is unconstitutional. Legislatures in approximately 14 states — organized by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a “business-friendly conservative group that coordinates activity among statehouses — have also introduced initiatives to ratify constitutional amendments that would repeal all or parts of the pending health care reform legislation, and Attorney Generals in at least 13 states are challenging a deal secured by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to fund Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion for perpetuity.
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the attorneys generals from South Carolina, Washington, Michigan, Texas, Colorado, Alabama, North Dakota, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Utah, Florida, Idaho and South Dakota “wrote that they consider the [Nebraska] provision ‘constitutionally flawed’ and demanded that it be stricken from the final bill.”
Yesterday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining “Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional.” “The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional,” he wrote, and went on to challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the so-called sweet heart deal for Nebraska, and the requirements for states to establish health insurance exchanges and insurance regulations.
The effort may prove a strong political organizing tool for conservative activists, but the legal reasoning has little support beyond the right fringe of the Republican party and the health care industry. Several weeks ago, the New York Times reported, “The states where the [constitutional] amendment has been introduced are also places where the health care industry has spent heavily on political contributions.” The industry has also contributed heavily to the campaigns of at least 7 of the 13 attorney generals threatening to sue the federal government over the Nebraska provision. (Campaign finance data was not readily accessible for the other 6 attorneys generals.)
An analysis conducted by the Wonk Room of available campaign finance disclosures for AGs from South Carolina, Washington, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah and Idaho reveals that the health industry contributed heavily to their campaigns. For instance, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett (who is also running for Governor) accepted some $24,300 from the health care industry for his campaigns, including $10,300 from Pfizer PAC, $3,500 from Aetna Inc. PAC, and $2,500 from United Health Group Inc. Read the full analysis here.
When I was 15, for some bizarre reason, I saw War of the Roses (trailer). The movie stars Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas, who play a married couple in the midst of a divorce and basically spend the entire movie trying very, very hard to hurt each other physically and emotionally. It’s a violent, violent comedy.
I remember really liking it and telling my Dad who, with his usual gentle wisdom, said something to the effect of “it’s never funny when two people who are supposed to love each other try to hurt each other.” I was chagrined.
I was reminded of this moment when I watched the trailer for Bounty Hunter, sent in by Ryan G. In the movie, Jennifer Aniston plays a woman who fails to show up in court and is then, essentially, violently kidnapped by her bounty hunter ex. The trailer:
Now, 20 years later, I’m with my Dad.
(Trigger warning for all the links below.)
What it is about U.S. society that makes sexually-charged violent hate so funny? Are we, as the bemoaners claim, anesthetized to violence? Is it an internalized sense that men and women are at war? Is it the idea that (heterosexual) relationships are, ultimately, a zero sume game? Is it a conflation of sex and power, and a constant affirmation that good sex (and relationships) include violence, that makes a movie such as this so titillating? Is it a true hate for the other, supposedly opposite sex? In other words, why doesn’t this trailer, for most, inspire disgust instead of anticipation?
Via Sociological Images.
I remember really liking it and telling my Dad who, with his usual gentle wisdom, said something to the effect of “it’s never funny when two people who are supposed to love each other try to hurt each other.” I was chagrined.
I was reminded of this moment when I watched the trailer for Bounty Hunter, sent in by Ryan G. In the movie, Jennifer Aniston plays a woman who fails to show up in court and is then, essentially, violently kidnapped by her bounty hunter ex. The trailer:
Now, 20 years later, I’m with my Dad.
(Trigger warning for all the links below.)
What it is about U.S. society that makes sexually-charged violent hate so funny? Are we, as the bemoaners claim, anesthetized to violence? Is it an internalized sense that men and women are at war? Is it the idea that (heterosexual) relationships are, ultimately, a zero sume game? Is it a conflation of sex and power, and a constant affirmation that good sex (and relationships) include violence, that makes a movie such as this so titillating? Is it a true hate for the other, supposedly opposite sex? In other words, why doesn’t this trailer, for most, inspire disgust instead of anticipation?
Via Sociological Images.
- Music:way_out_west-only_love | Powered by Last.fm
My boyfriend had best realize that he is a lucky son of a bitch, because I am cleaning the shit out of my room so he can come over. It is his birthday, and I am sick, and cleaning. ): Poo. I am totally stealing his leather jacket tonight, ♥
On the air today, popular radio host Glenn Beck mocked "birthers" and claimed there is a concerted campaign to get those questioning Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility onto the airwaves – a strategy Beck said would actually benefit Obama.
"There's always games being played behind the scenes at a talk radio show," Beck said. "Rush has always called them seminar callers. But instead of being coy with the seminar callers or with you, I'm just going to expose the game that is going on. Today there is a concerted effort on all radio stations to get birthers on the air."
"I have to tell you, are you working for the Barack Obama administration?" Beck scoffed. "I mean, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
The ongoing dialogue then spun off into ridicule as Beck caricatured those who question the sitting president's eligibility with straw-man arguments reminiscent of jibes made by Obama's apologists in other news outlets.
Beck defined birthers as people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or other foreign country, was raised as a Manchurian candidate and somehow brainwashed Hillary Clinton into not exposing his fraud. According to Beck's running joke, birthers believe someone – maybe Obama's KGB "control" – preemptively placed Obama's birth announcement in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers with a "roadmap" of getting an African man into office.
...
"Birthers," however, reflect a far greater diversity of opinion than is assumed by Beck's characterization. For example, while the term has been applied to anyone questioning Obama's eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause, many "birthers" don't doubt Obama's Hawaiian birth, but instead take issue with his father's foreign citizenship.
...
Obama's birth papers, however, aren't the only piece of the sitting president's past that Obama has refused to reveal.
As WND has reported, other documentation not yet available includes Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
...
"Why don't we go after the things that are provable, after the things that actually you need to stop right now?" Beck concluded. "And if you want to argue, then let's argue based in fact, based on things that are provable and true. And what do you say? Do you want to argue the Constitution? Good. Let's show the number of people in Congress and in the Senate that don't even read the Constitution – can't tell you right now if healthcare is even in the Constitution. Let's talk to the scholars. Let's talk to the average Joe that understands this isn't in the Constitution. Let's argue the Constitution on the laws and the systems that they are building today. Instead of arguing the Constitution and whether or not he was born in America, why don't we argue the constitutionality of a little known thing called czars and the power that these people have?"(source)
Profile
- panksters
- Fabulous Funk Machine
- Titfordshire
Page Summary
- noelleno : Fuhhh. [+0]
- wtf_inc :: pwnuspoints : The $15M Ejaculate Lasso [+5]
- bad_rpers_suck :: will_aurelius : Go Sell Crazy Someplace Else- We're All Full Up Here [+13]
- ontd_political :: suitablyemoname : (no subject) [+6]
- cat_macros :: compost75 : (no subject) [+0]
- 4chan :: shoe5005 : He's doing it, he's doing it!!! [+1]
- ontd_political :: evildevil : Bank of America Tries to Use the Chewbacca Defense [+4]
- dearest :: mozart : (no subject) [+1]
- roleplaysecrets :: shouei : She was more like a beauty queen [+357]
- wtf_inc :: rick_day : Florida Keys cops leave ransom note for pot, nab suspected grower [+3]
- ontd_political :: schmiss : So. uh. [+193]
- ontd_political :: mylaptopisevil : REMIND ME TO NEVER LEAVE MY SUITCASE UNATTENDED WHEN AROUND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN SLOVAKIA, OKAY? [+16]
- ontd_political :: evildevil : Michael Steele Seeking The Racist Vote [+18]
- ontd_political :: lavenderfrost : ... [+30]
- ontd_political :: brecho : NEW YORK DEMOCRATS WANTS OUR CHILDREN TO DO DRUGS AND FOR TAXES TO PAY FOR IT [+48]
- ontd_political :: evildevil : Health Care Industry Spends Tons of Moneys To Prove Reform is Unconstitutional. Free Market Rulez! [+5]
- ontd_political :: popehippo : The Violent Romantic Comedy [+31]
- wtf_inc :: musicboxwaltz : COCK A DOODLE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO--- [+28]
- gypso_child : you sat down next to me like poetry to wine; [+1]
- ontd_political :: mylaptopisevil : WORLD NET DAILY LAUNCHES ATTACK AGAINST THE NEWEST OBAMA APOLOGIST OUT THERE: GLENN BECK. OW MY HEAD [+39]