« on: June 22, 2014, 07:42:00 pm »
"... in no way intentional..." cynical fucks
PD.com: Trimming your hair in accordance with the anarchoprimitivist lifestyle
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The best thing about this generation with comic book nerds and gamers is I get to see all the stupid self-entitled douchebags bitching and whining about their worthless childhood being destroyed. Your childhood was destroyed the minute your nut sack dropped, yet I don't see you whining about that do you? You know the ability to start having sex.
I've realized now I don't want to befriend in real life, or online, or be in the same room with people who are clinging to their worthless nostalgia colored goggles.
The fact that you pieces of shit suck the life and fun out of every fucking thing makes me sick to my stomach, and there's only one thing I can do. The only thing I should do. Which is laugh at your childhood, and you til you go back to whatever basement you crawled out of.
Also fuck the 80's the only thing important was Reagan and A.I.D.S. Fuck the 90's the only thing important was the Internet being commercially available. Fuck the 2000's the only good thing about that was watching Metallica fans cry because their shitty band was making even shittier music.
I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:QuoteIn 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism
In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).
I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.
MJ is a poignant example because I see him as kind of a Frankenstein's Monster. We created him and we eventually had to destroy him en mass with torches and pitchforks. This has been the nature of celebrity for thousands of years.
Celebrities are Holy, that's why we rip out their hearts and send their severed heads bouncing down the steps of Chichén Itzá.
Did the card choice actually effect anything or was that just to screw with you? Pretty cool flash either way.
Actually looks like it could be pretty useful for protection from falling debris.
Strangely, the videos focus all on the gun angle and not at all on this. I've got a hundred and one work related debris horror stories and if it's at all useful in that regard the guy is going to be fabulously rich. I really doubt it'll provide any real protection once you're dealing with objects with any real weight though.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.