Allamorph

[FONT=Calibri]Why are the forum blurb boxes different widths? Although I suppose I should really punctuate that with a period so that my tone carries properly.[/FONT]

[quote name='Gavin'][font="Tahoma"][size="2"]For a moment, before I realised it was Ace I was dreading he'd actually returned.[/size][/font][/quote] [FONT=Calibri]inorite? Also this quote deal is interesting. Not sure I need to know the exact date and time of a quotation each and every time I quote someone. Ah, well, more deleting for me.[/FONT]

[quote name='Aberinkula & Fitch' date='03 June 2010 - 03:24 AM' timestamp='1275553480'] [font="Comic Sans MS"] Also, it has become fun and easy and we can do it ourselves three times a month. It's a feature that simply needs to be abused.[/font] [/quote] [FONT=Calibri]Incidentally, the first portion of your current callsign does in fact have a sort of unfortunately permanent stigma of omgzorzIrontehinterwebz attached to it. Might I suggest looking him up in the members list? A large spider (and the problem of killing it efficiently) kept me awake until four-thirty in the morning the night before last, and so in protest I went to bed at ten last night and woke up at quarter to six for no reason at all.[/FONT]

[font="Calibri"]Visited the library yesterday, picked up six books. For some reason the library held neither [b]The Count of Monte Cristo [/b](although they had four unique copies of [b]The Three Musketeers [/b]for whatever reason) or [b]A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[/b], which upset me, but I did return with: [list][*][b]The Hunchback of Notre Dame[/b], Victor Hugo;[*][b]The Dead Zone[/b], Stephen King;[*][b]By The Sword[/b], Mercedes Lackey;[*][b]Dragonsdawn[/b], Anne McCaffrey (I never get tired of reading this book);[*][b]Turn Coat[/b], Jim Butcher; and[*][b]The Bourne Supremacy[/b], Robert Ludlum[/list] Hopefully this will keep me occupied for at least a couple of weeks.[/font]

[font="Calibri"]As long as I can still post in my own font I'm okay. Also, I almost discovered a great new way to save everyone else the aggravation of me making footnotes all over the place, but it seems I can't do that. =/ [b]Edit[/b]: Two oddities I notice right away are that I'll have to alter my signature because the reputation system has taken over my shoutbox and according to the BBcode deal I run the site. Hunh. AAAGGGHH BIGASS EDIT BOX WHAT IS THIS [/font]

[QUOTE=Ace][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Okay, so a rogue "anti" virus program just wormed its way into my system. It's popping up messages every three seconds that I'm infected and need to run my sweeps. Thank you, captain obvious. Problem is, this SOB is blocking me from accessing my legitimate programs, so I can't nuke it with Avira. I'm being forced to download a vaccine program, which is taking forever. So I guess my question is if there's any way I can track the origin of this thing and set its creator on fire. Or is there another, more painful method I don't know about?[/FONT][/QUOTE] [FONT=Calibri]First off, if the program you're downloading it one suggested by the program, stop the download. It's not legit. Second, I could be wrong, but I think this might be the same persistent bastard that hit us in about 2004 and made me get so anal about antivirus. But to be sure I'd need to talk to you about what the symptoms are. What I remember is (like you said) being informed every several seconds that I was infected with either adware, spyware, malware or trojans, and that I should download a FREE [program] SCAN to get rid of them; or that I had registry errors and needed to download a FREE REGISTRY SCAN to fix them. And after a few clicks on the "no, thanks" option, I was usually presented with a window that said "You really need this scan. We're starting it now." and the only way to get rid of it was to Big Red X the window. Thing is called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vundo"][COLOR="Blue"]Vundo[/COLOR][/URL]; I know it as Virtumonde. Probably heard me rant about it before. Google something like "how to fix vundo" and you'll probably get a few hits on free-download stuff to fix it. That's about all I know to do, though, aside from wiping the hard drive. Which is what we did. It sucks. [B]Edit:[/B] Sam is stalking me via Who's Online.[/FONT]

[FONT="Calibri"]There's an ad on a roadsign of blue For an OB/GYN named Pou. Thought I, "Femininity's In the vicinity; Pray he don't mix up the two." (True story.)[/FONT]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]Funny you mention Rudyard Kipling; I only just finished reading The Jungle Book. At the moment I'm reading a few classics. I'm about halfway through 20,000 Leagues and I've just started Flatland (I have a terrible habit of keeping a couple of books going at the same time).[/font][/QUOTE] [FONT=Calibri][B]The Jungle Book[/B] is exactly what I retreated to, funnily enough. One of my permanent favorites. I find it amusing that after I read something fairly awful I tend to dig back through my library and gorge myself on books I know are good. After Kipling, I blazed through several of the Jim Butcher books that I own (books six, seven, and four, in order of reading), and then read some more of that Asimov book I mentioned a while back. Incidentally, I highly recommend [B]The Dresden Files[/B] for light reading. Definite strong fantasy vein (since it's occult fiction), but Jim Butcher writes with an amazing sense of humor combined with a fairly deep lore behind it?although some of the more intense occult/mythology buffs may find it a bit squirrelly at times. Plot revolves around the misadventures of Chicago's only Yellow Book wizard as he . . . runs away a lot. Sometimes he blows things up, but, and I quote, "discretion is the better part of not getting exsanguinated." Anyway, next trip to the library (at least, when I actually check something out) will probably see me coming back with some Anne McCaffrey, Robert Ludlum ([B]The Bourne Supremacy[/B] is up next) and probably either [B]The Count of Monte Cristo[/B] or [B]Les Misérables[/B], as well as a Mercedes Lackey to test out and hopefully restore my faith in the fantasy genre. Probably [I]By The Sword[/I], since it seems on a quick preread to have a strong female lead who isn't a skin-leather-bound in-the-closet whore, and I am [I]so[/I] tired of pansy women and sex bombs both. Fun times.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Bah, I need more time to formulate a decently thorough enough response. =/ [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Boo[/COLOR]:[/B] That depends. If the purpose of the tax is to actually generate some money for the government to use, then I don't really see a [I]huge[/I] issue with it—although I would like to get hold of some hard data on our Federal income versus outflux so I can tell whether we're really HOMG SPENDING TOO MUCH AND UNSUCCESSFULLY like the one side claims or if there's actually a decent balance like the other side claims. But if the point of the tax is country-wide behaviour modification then that's a pretty stupid reason for a tax. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Lunox[/COLOR]:[/B] You're right about the editorial bit, but that only partially mitigates my criticism of the article because my overarching point is journalistic integrity. If a person wants their column to be taken with any measure of weight then I would [strike]suspect[/strike] hope that they'd go out of their way to actually show the merit of their opinion. And if the purpose of one's column is simply to spout one's own views without regard to whether their opinion is correct (or even valid) then that indicates to me an ego issue getting in the way, and that pretty well negates the value of the person's opinion completely. There are a few other things I want to comment towards but don't have the time right now. (Plus I'd like to do your stuff justice, at least.) However, I'd like you to consider how one can say "everyone should know soda doesn't make you fat" (we're in agreement there, actually) with a culture that needs to be told that cooking food in a skillet on a stovetop at medium-high for twenty minutes [I]might[/I] produce hot food. Of [I]course[/I] soda doesn't make you fat, and of [I]course[/I] hot food is going to be hot. But since we have these warnings on our food packagings, seems our culture can't handle concepts that complex. =/ Back at ya later. =) [QUOTE=James][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I sometimes encounter people who enter a debate and, when their argument is countered, they say "Oh, you got that from the news media?" As if to say "Oh you poor fool, you actually believe those capitalist puppetmasters? How sad!" The reason this bothers me is because it is intellectually lazy to just dismiss all mainstream news media as being biased to the point of pandering. There are definitely plenty of media outlets guilty of this, but certainly not all of them.[/FONT][/QUOTE] What bothers me more than this is that there are enough dominant news-media sources to justify a person even saying this in the first place. It's just another stereotype, like the Valley Girl one. Not all valley girls are insipid social whores, and not all news-media outlets are "biased to the point of pandering" (I like that phrase). But there are enough who fit the bill such that the stereotype not only arose in the first place, but is constantly and continually reinforced. For myself, I don't [I]want[/I] to dismiss them as such. But I'm left with no choice. [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]chibi-master[/COLOR]:[/B] There is a clause for 'diet' sodas for the same reason that the results of the studies mentioned are mis-paraphrased to imply that sodas "make you fat"—and really, for the same reasons that all the no-carb/calorie/sugar are popular without actually being effective EXCEPT for people who understand how to abide by them. And the reason is this: People Are Stupid. Not an individual person, for sure. Generally, an individual is at least moderately intelligent enough to understand concepts—like the concept that the body actually needs carbohydrates and sugars to function at all, and that calories are actually a measurement of energy and not physical quantities. You learn this in basic chemistry. But you get people in groups and for some unfathomable reason, all the individual intelligence flies headfirst out the window and we get a nation of sheople who believe that "maintain a healthy body weight" means "lose weight" simply because there are so many people who can't control their own eating habits that the two phrases are used interchangeably, and then we end up with a large population of overweight people, a large population of unhealthily-underweight people who still think they need to lose weight, and a relatively small middle ground of actual weight-healthy people. Bleh.[/FONT]

[QUOTE=CaNz]showing you this does two things 1. it clues you in on the meme.[/QUOTE] [FONT=Calibri]Saying this marks you as: [LIST][*]a jerk (because I'm honest, but still polite) [*]preemptorily defensive (which is unnecessary) [*]afflicted by Compulsive Response Syndrome (which ain't no one can help you with)[/LIST] In summary: [CENTER][IMG]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z158/Allamorph/Misc/lolz/thbbbpppt.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] [quote name='Lilt']And what is that face from anyways? The internet?[/quote] God forbid.[/FONT]

[quote name='chibi-master']I helped the hungry, played with grape-scented bubbles, went on an adventure in a small forest, danced in the middle of a downpour, fed chocolate to a trashcan deity, looked at artwork and squeed at a caterpillar. I did this all of with my very best friend at my side. Life is good.[/quote] [FONT=Calibri]Translation: Animal Crossing is visual cocaine.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Note that "work weekends" means beaches.[/FONT] [QUOTE=CaNz]your a sexy office girl too Sangome! ...well... i dont know what office we are talking about but you get the point...[/QUOTE] [CENTER][IMG]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z158/Allamorph/Misc/lolz/urflavrhurtzme.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[quote name='Stephanie][size=1']You quoted me, not 'Gome. V_V Saydz.[/size][/quote] [FONT=Calibri]No, I'm quite certain it wasn't you. I never change people's usernames, so it must have been her. Besides, I can't get on your case. You're our sexy office girl.[/FONT]

[quote name='Sangome][FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][SIZE="1"]...words. [/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Calibri][I]J'accuse![/I][/FONT]

[quote name='Ace][FONT="Comic Sans MS"']NO THERE WAS NOT STOP SAYING WORDS[/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Calibri]Humor. [quote name='Sangome][SIZE=1']WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS[/SIZE][/quote] Cool story, bro.[/FONT]

[CENTER][FONT="Calibri"] ò õ [/FONT][/CENTER]

[FONT=Calibri]I'd say something about it not being long until there's a Little Indi running around, but I don't know whether she'd decide it was a short joke.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]With the recent return (or at least resurfacing) of our former news-hound [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachbuggeroff[/COLOR], I have decided to take it upon myself to join in his efforts of edification. Actually that's not true. Summer's already starting to bore me a little, and I'm tired of not knowing anything that's happening in the country or world or wherever it is we live. Mars, it's starting to seem like, lately. So I've been diving into some news sites to at least get a feel for things while simultaneously practicing my ability to see through the retarded levels of liberal/conservative spinshit facing the masses today. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachmanenough[/COLOR] has had no influence on my decision. But while I've been browsing, I've been forced to come to the conclusion that if an article has any variation of the phrase "studies show" anywhere inside it that the author of the article has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Take, for example, this article from the New York Times on a potential per-ounce [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/business/economy/19leonhardt.html?ref=us"][COLOR="Blue"]soda tax[/COLOR][/URL]. First off, the entirety of the pertinent information (or at least useful information) is contained in the final sentence of the third paragraph: [I]"...the Washington Council seems to be seriously considering a penny-per-ounce tax on nondiet sodas, energy drinks and artificial juices."[/I] (Aside: 'seems to be'? Are they or aren't they? They're voting on it next fracking week. I think a scheduled vote means they [I]are[/I] considering it; don't waste time pondering if they [I]might[/I] consider it. This is news, you halfwit.) Right, so a potential per-ounce soda tax may be on the way. While I force down thoughts of Britain and her tea tax, my now-first reaction is "well, we do need to generate some revenue for the country already, this might be a decent way to do it". But looking through the article, it seems that the thought of the government actually making money is taking a backseat to some of the most specious arguments I've ever seen, both for and against it. Let's start with the argument against it. Per the article: [INDENT][I]"...a tax would most hurt 'hard-working, low- and middle-income families, elderly residents and those living on fixed incomes' and would destroy jobs."[/I][/INDENT] The author of the article (who is probably a flaming liberal, as I'll point out later; got no bone with a more left-wing view, just with flamers, either side of the coin) doesn't buy this argument for a second, and neither do I. It is absolutely idiotic to think that pop is a household staple. There's milk, there's fruit juice, and there's water, and if you can afford multiple two-liters and twelve-packs of cans a week then you can afford a fracking Brita filter. Soda is a [I]want[/I], not a need, so if you're going to suddenly become destitute from buying soda, then I have an idea. DON'T BUY FRACKING SODA Ain't the government's job to regulate how you spend your money if you can't figure out how to do it yourself. That's y'own dang fault. However, the leading argument [I]for[/I] the tax is possibly even more specious than that. Per the article: [INDENT][I]"The tax also appears to be one of the most promising ways to attack obesity, given the huge role sugary drinks play in the epidemic. 'It’s wrong for the government to stand idle in the face of an epidemic of obesity that’s hurting the quality of life and the health of our residents,' says Mary Cheh, the Council member who has proposed the tax, 'when we have policy choices in front of us that can materially affect the problem.' "[/I][/INDENT] ...excuse me? Okay okay okay. So this tax you're proposing isn't supposed to help pay for the actions of our Federal government—which, might I remind you, is now in the [I]trillions[/I], which I can't even begin to comprehend—but instead is supposed to be a form of behaviour modification? I want a hit of whatever these people are smoking. The article's author spends the majority of the article supporting this standpoint, and even at one point says why extending the current 6% sales tax to soda wouldn't be a good idea: [INDENT][I]"...small tax changes don’t always change behavior, as a recent study by the RAND Corporation found. So a small soda tax could actually have a worse impact on some families’ budgets than a substantial one — by raising the price of soda without affecting consumption."[/I][/INDENT] In other words, the bigger the tax, the greater the chance for mass societal behaviour-modification. But think about this for a second. If a smaller tax increase might not affect consumption rates, wouldn't that be effective at generating the money our government needs right now? Or rather, wouldn't a larger tax on soda be counterproductive to the purpose of [I]having a tax in the first place?[/I] But speaking of the RAND Corporation, let's take a look at how this argument for national health is supported. First up: [INDENT][I]"As Kelly Brownell, a Yale researcher, says, the link between obesity and soda is scientifically stronger than the link between obesity and any other type of food or beverage."[/I][/INDENT] [U]Statistics Lesson #1 – Correlation[/U]: Just because there is a relationship present between two items [U]does[/U] [U]not[/U] [U]mean[/U] that one causes the other. This is literally the first thing you learn when going into applications of statistics: you [I]can not[/I] automatically assume causation from correlation. Once you learn the methods, you get it drilled into your head. For example: it can be shown that there is a positive relationship between monthly consumption of ice cream and monthly reports of skin cancer, from winter to summer. By the logic in this article, that would mean that eating ice cream is a strong cause of skin cancer. But guess what? In the summer, people who go outside wear less coverage because it's hot, and people eat more ice cream because it's hot. This is what's called a [I]confounding factor[/I]: a secondary item not in consideration that affects the results of your study. So you can't actually say that ice cream causes skin cancer. What you [I]can[/I] say, though, is that there is a definite relationship between the two, and comment on the strength of it. In the case of the article, that's what was said: note the words "scientifically stronger". But what will the interpretation by the author and, in general, society at large be? "Soda makes you fat." Yes, and eating ice cream gives you skin cancer. And you can cure AIDS by going to church. Moving on: [INDENT][I]"And soda is a huge reason the country is so much more obese. The typical American consumes almost three times as many calories from sugary drinks as in the late 1970s. This increase accounts for about half the total per-capita rise in calorie consumption over the same period. Remember, many of these drinks have zero nutritional benefit — unlike meat, cheese or juice."[/I][/INDENT] Guess what, bucko? [I]Water[/I] has zero nutritional benefit! And I don't know anyone who likes to drink meat-and-cheese smoothies. If you compare two items for the shocker-phrase (zero nutritional benefit, gasp!), make sure there's not another 'healthy' choice out there that does the exact same fracking thing. And notice what was said right there in the first fracking sentence: soda is why we're fat. [INDENT][I]"We’re drinking more soda for several reasons. Above all, the inflation-adjusted price has fallen 34 percent since the late 1970s, largely because it can be manufactured more cheaply than in the past. Meanwhile, the average real cost of fruits and vegetables has risen more than 30 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."[/I][/INDENT] So . . . by this logic we're drinking more soda because it's less expensive than drinking vegetables? To be fair, I understand the intent of the logic here: if it's more expensive to buy fruits and vegetables, it's more expensive to produce (and therefore buy) fruit and vegetable juice. But, again, what about water? Aren't we supposed to be drinking eight glasses a day? And do you think that these people who are "guzzling" soda (ostensibly because it's cheaper, surely not because it tastes good) are also drinking their eight glasses of water a day and therefore don't need that particular lecture? Incidentally, take a look at the graph there at the top of the article. Notice how it says "fresh fruits and vegetables"? That's a subtle bit of biasing right there. It also says nothing about canned fruits/veggies or juices or V8s, and I'm not entirely certain it reflects the prices of fruits and vegetables from the farms to the bottlers. So much for honesty. No, neither argument, for or against, makes any fracking sense at all, and to me the entire article is full of superfluous data. Nowhere was there a link to the proposed tax bill, no information on the status of the vote itself (aside from it taking place next week), nothing. All I know is that the idea exists and it will be voted on soon, and the rest was just more soapbox diatribe passing for informing the public. And the most telling part of the article comes in a conclusion of which the author is most likely particularly proud—or else they're just relieved to have BSed another article for their deadline. [INDENT][I]"Someday, we will probably look back on our gallon-a-week soda habit the way we now look back on allowing children to ride without seat belts or listening to doctors who endorsed Camel cigarettes. We will wonder what we were thinking."[/I][/INDENT] (~flaming liberal~) Or maybe someday we'll look back on the days when we allowed our sources of information to be overrun with self-possessed spin doctors who graduated with their B.A. in journalism by half-assing every paper they ever wrote and continued to do so in their jobs, and we'll wonder the exact same thing. Because this isn't just localised to the article I linked above. It's everywhere I look. And since I think I've ranted enough, and for the purposes of some sort of discussion, I suppose, is anyone else satisfied with this kind of reporting? Now back to [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachlightenup[/COLOR] in the studio.[/FONT]

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="Navy"]This can [B][U]and will[/U][/B] happen to you.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Calibri]I sense an issue that needs to be addressed....[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Just finished a pair of more recent books, both published shortly after the turn of the century, and I'm pretty well disgusted right now, not just with modern literature in general, but also with what seems to be passing for "award-winning" in recent years. Books are [B][U]Pattern Recognition[/U][/B] (William Gibson) and [U][B]New Spring: The Novel[/B][/U] (Robert Jordan), and although I'm not going to get into anything much about them now, suffice it to say that I expected a lot more from a successful fantasy writer (Jordan) and the 2004 winner of the fracking Mary Shelley Award for Outstanding Fiction (Gibson). I mean, when one feels like an adolescent's personal fantasy journal and another feels like Napoleon Dynamite without idiotic dysfunctional people or twenty-minute completely dead scenes that are allowed to exist because it's an indie film and that somehow makes everything excusable.... Can you tell I'm unhappy? I'm gonna go read some Rudyard Kipling now and cheer myself up.[/FONT]

[quote name='chibi-master']Awww, you know you wouldn't zap me, Korey! I'm too damn wuvable.:rolleyes:[/quote] [CENTER][IMG]http://www.avenuek9.com/wp-content/uploads/shock.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[FONT=Calibri]I'm sorry, who are you, again? At any rate, welcome to Otakuboards! Always good to see new members. :animesmil[/FONT]

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]Boy you trippin' :rolleyes:[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote] [CENTER][IMG]http://sharkrobot.com/images/medium/shirt_vgc_trippinballs_MED.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] [FONT=Calibri]Schfifty-five.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]100% chance. [I]Now[/I], anyway.[/FONT]

[QUOTE=chibi-master]I get that all the time, but in person. And minus the facial hair comment. Also, Lilt, my dog's name is Tucker and he's a Pembroke Welsh Corgi.[/QUOTE] [FONT=Calibri]YAY WELSH CORGI! Only small dog I will probably ever be more than neutral towards. Also, is it the "you look like a homosexual [U]man[/U]" comment that you get, or just the "you look like a homosexual"? Because if it's the latter, then I would think you'd take it as a compliment...? 54[/FONT]