I was suspicious of TMT. I was very surprised to find out he wasn't scum.
I'm not surprised at all you thought I was scum. Like I said, I was having no luck getting a read, and so I was largely going with the flow and supporting cases that looked decent. I fully expected people to say I looked scummy for it, and was honestly surprised I was getting as little attention as I was. Another reason I was relieved to get killed: I wouldn't have to defend myself against the inevitable case.
Sad to see that the game died, but hardly surprised. I may not have been the worst offender, but my participation was hardly impressive, and I feel bad for not having contributed more. I honestly was happy when I was killed, since I simply was not into the game like I'd thought I would be. I was having a terrible time getting reads on anyone, and felt like I was just tagging along for the most part.
I think the point of the thread is to say "Anyone who opposes Obama is wrong and doesn't deserve to be heard". Seriously, so there were only like 40,000 protesters. That's still 40,000 people who chose to show up and protest, and they DO represent millions of people with a dissenting opinion; to say that there aren't millions who disagree with Obama because only 40,000 or fewer people showed up is ridiculous.
The bolded part is significant, but I don't think you realize why. If 40,000 protestors that show up represent millions of dissentors, then how many dissentors are represented when 2,000,000 protestors show up? By misrepresenting the number of protetors that show up, they are by extension mispreresenting the number of dissentors represented. THAT is the point that seds is trying to get across, I think (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Frankly, what is saddest to me is how completely un/misinformed many of the protestors are. I've seen photos from the 9/12 rally, and many of the signs were either illogical or just plain unintelligible. It's sad watching someone wave around a sign that reads "Stop stealing from Medicare to fund socialized medicine", completely oblivious to contradiction. It's sad watching someone wave aroudn a sign that reads "Bring back 'We the people'", completely oblivious to the fact that "we the people" elected the man. To these protestors, "we the people" means "we the people that agree with me".
I suspect it's falling into the valley of the dead movies, where it's got just enough negative vibe to turn away a segment (a small, stupid segment, of course, but theaters don't care about the IQ of the people buying popcorn) of the population, but not enough shock value to make it a must-see movie for the controversy alone.
He linked to an ebert "not a review" of the movie, where he mentions a gallup poll where only some 40% of american believe in evolution.
That quote about the "valley of the dead movies" is a good point. The thing that bothers me though is that there's enough negative vibe to keep the movie at bay. Even if the segment is smaller than a lot of sources would have us believe, the fact that the segment is a strong and vocal as it is is disturbing to me. The segment does exist, and it is larger than it should be and far larger than I could ever be comfortable with.
To wit, Bill Maher's movie about religion was released, as was the 'satirical' Conservative Christmas Carol.
Neither did well, but Maher's movie made more...and cost considerably less to make.
But in general, this does sound like a history channel thing, rather than a movie movie.
True, those movies did launch over here (though as you said, they did poorly). Though I think their shock factor helped them a lot in avoiding the "valley". And yes, it does seem a History Channel-ish movie, but plenty of movies of that kind do get distributed over here. That this one is seen negatively enough to not saddens me.
Yes, the segment that rails against this is not as large as a lot of sources would have us believe (the gallup poll mentioned drew criticism over the question wording, if I'm not mistaken). Yet the fact remains that the segment exists, is larger than it should be in a nation as scientifically advanced as ours, and has repeatedly shown itself to be loud enough and well-funded enough to effect change in the way businesses, schools, and even local governments handle the subject.
I mean, thats the first thing I'd think of, but I guess bashing the US is a close second
Not bashing the US (you'll notice I live here too, and for the record I love it here). But that doesn't mean there aren't things over here that could and should change. And one is the surprisingly prevelant disdain for evolution theory. Hell, here's a school that pulled evolution themed t-shirts because of fears of religious backlash.
EDIT: To be clarify, the official reason was "they had to remain religion neutral," which is of course silly since evolution has nothing to do with religion. The honest concern was that the parents would see evolution as a conflict with their religion and throw a fit.
For pity's sake. The film's not even about evolution.
Yup, which makes the whole thing even more absurd. The film is more about his personal struggle with religion and science. It isn't a documentary on evolution theory. But since it doesn't demonize him for it, it's clearly too controversial for US audiences.:facepalm:
Creation is a film based on the life of Charles Darwin. It was developed by the BBC, and has found distributors in almost every country around the globe EXCEPT the United States. The reason? Evolution theory is simply too controversial for US audiences.
Now I don't blame the distributors. They're businessmen, and they have to play to their audience. What saddens me is that the audience has to be played to in this way; that a film about an influential scientist is too controversial for a distributor to pick up, but a franchise about torture and murder can hit six-going-on-seven films and continue to rake in the cash.
From what I see in discussions from multiple sources, other largely (if not predominately) Christian nations do not suffer from this fanatical resistance to evolution theory (at least not on the same scale). Why is it that other nations have managed to reconcile the idea that their faith can coexist evolution theory, yet so many people here continue to rail against it?
To add to the absurdity, one site that was quoted in the article basically blamed Darwin for all of Hitler's atrocities. Are we to blame the inventor of the crowbar for all of the women Ted Bundy bludgeoned? Are we to blame the Wright brothers, or even da Vinci, for the WTC attacks? Is it not a testament to the absurdity of their stance that they must invoke the Holocaust to cast the opposing viewpoint in a sinister light?
What will it take for people like this to stop having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future?
Apologies for being MIA for a bit there. Had a coworker bail due to medical emergency, so I had to cover for him and we've had some major ****storms to deal with. I'm posting this while on a freakin' conference call even as we speak.
I'll be brief. I agree that kpaca looks less contributive in this incarnation than he did previously. And Ace was looking plenty bad before kpaca replaced him. I can support a kpaca lynch. Will wait for Dagger to unvote before adding my own, as he will want to hammer.
Still don't like Zionite's behavior thus far, but I guess that's going to have to wait for tomorrow.
The PR looks legit to me, judging by Wuffles' posts. But I can't see that it clears him. The PR as as he claims it is would be horribly unfair to a scum player, since a simple "are you scum?" hoses him. Clearly if he was put on the scum team, he'd have an out on alignment questions. So the claim does nothing for me one way or the other.
Looking back over Wuffles and Zionite, I'm content to leave my vote on. Zionite was real quick to jump on the terrible kpaca wagon, and quick to barn WoD on CC. Zionite defended WoD almost immediately upon replacing, argued with Cyan that he didn't defend WoD, and then almost immediately after did it again:
Quote from Zionite »
Wrath of Dog is low on my list. I think(thought) Cyan is(was) scummier. The reason being already stated above. He made that slip and it makes me think he's town.
His breadcrumbing his PR actually is more of a negative in my eyes than a postitive. In a game where (we've gone over this a lot, and Zionite even pointed it out himself in BIG BOLD RED letters) roles are independent of alignment, breadcrumbing doesn't really accomplish anything. Feels like he's trying to give his PR claim more legitimacy, which really isn't necessary for a townie. For a scum, though, it would make sense since he'd want to get as many people as possible to believe he has to lie about his alignment.
As would I. It seems a fairly open and shut case. I'll hold off on a vote pending a votecount, since I don't have the time to go count how many people have voted so far.
If you feel someone is scum, you should feel he should be lynched, irregardless of role. You backing off in the spirit of letting the "scum" be confirmed, despite your belief, doesn't speak well of you.
I honestly don't see what you and Raf have a problem with here. Yes, I honestly think he's scum, but I hardly have Sherlock Holmes' track record when it comes to scum hunting. I'm not confident enough in my scum hunting ability to lynch a confirmed doc.
Ah, you're putting words into GM's mouth here. I didn't see in any posts where GM called kpaca scummy after his defense of it. You know, it's like you stated what GM did and then put in a negative assumption at the end there just to justify your vote.
I wasn't "putting words in GM's mouth". I pointed out what I considered GM's likely motive for asking the question. And no he didn't say anything like that afterward, but then again kpaca didn't fall into the trap either. To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, in the Simpsons Mafia (it was a newbie one), Evil_Homestereo replaced out and Netfinity came in. EH was the main wagon at the time, so Net was facing a lynch from the get-go. Net made the mistake of trying to explain some of EH's posts that had drawn negative attention. I was scum that game, and it was like Christmas had come early. It was way easy to keep the wagon going because Net decided to defend EH rather than just say "I can't explain his posts, cuz I'm not him". He did mention that point of course, but didn't take his own advice and kept arguing over them. When GM decided to ask kpaca to give reasoning behind Ace's posts, it rang alarm bells in my head.
Actually I just wanted his reasoning for those posts. Which is perfectly reasonable when you see a replacement. Basically I wanted kpaca to explain what he saw of those posts. I fail to see how that is scummy.
They're not his posts. Asking him for reasoning on posts that aren't his accomplishes nothing, unless you're looking to start criticizing him over defending Ace's posts.
No reason not to put my vote back. His post at kpaca to "explain these posts by Ace" was enough to seal the deal. Anyone should know that a replacement isn't going to be able to accurately explain his predecessor made certain posts. Feels like a trap to get people looking back to Ace/kpaca instead of him; try to get kpaca to defend the those posts, then call him scummy for it.
If you read the whole post instead of quoting one line, you'd see I specifically stated that since he's a confirmed protective role, I'd like to give any investigative roles out there a chance to look at him first.
You spouted a whole lot of how you don't believe AE's role can clear him in anyway due to his behavior.
True.
Then you went back on your statement by unvoting him because you're uncomfortable lynching a doc
I didn't "go back on my statement". I do still think he's scum. I just no longer think it's prudent to lynch him at this time. He's a confirmed protective role. I'd rather hold off and give any investigative roles out there a chance to have a look at our day-doc.
(clearing him via his role)
False. I'm not clearing him at all.
but still tacked on an FoS because you don't believe his innocence (trying to justify your unvote)?
I downgraded my vote to an FoS, because I still think he's probably scum but don't feel like he needs to be lynched right now.
I'm not surprised at all you thought I was scum. Like I said, I was having no luck getting a read, and so I was largely going with the flow and supporting cases that looked decent. I fully expected people to say I looked scummy for it, and was honestly surprised I was getting as little attention as I was. Another reason I was relieved to get killed: I wouldn't have to defend myself against the inevitable case.
The bolded part is significant, but I don't think you realize why. If 40,000 protestors that show up represent millions of dissentors, then how many dissentors are represented when 2,000,000 protestors show up? By misrepresenting the number of protetors that show up, they are by extension mispreresenting the number of dissentors represented. THAT is the point that seds is trying to get across, I think (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Frankly, what is saddest to me is how completely un/misinformed many of the protestors are. I've seen photos from the 9/12 rally, and many of the signs were either illogical or just plain unintelligible. It's sad watching someone wave around a sign that reads "Stop stealing from Medicare to fund socialized medicine", completely oblivious to contradiction. It's sad watching someone wave aroudn a sign that reads "Bring back 'We the people'", completely oblivious to the fact that "we the people" elected the man. To these protestors, "we the people" means "we the people that agree with me".
That quote about the "valley of the dead movies" is a good point. The thing that bothers me though is that there's enough negative vibe to keep the movie at bay. Even if the segment is smaller than a lot of sources would have us believe, the fact that the segment is a strong and vocal as it is is disturbing to me. The segment does exist, and it is larger than it should be and far larger than I could ever be comfortable with.
True, those movies did launch over here (though as you said, they did poorly). Though I think their shock factor helped them a lot in avoiding the "valley". And yes, it does seem a History Channel-ish movie, but plenty of movies of that kind do get distributed over here. That this one is seen negatively enough to not saddens me.
Yes, the segment that rails against this is not as large as a lot of sources would have us believe (the gallup poll mentioned drew criticism over the question wording, if I'm not mistaken). Yet the fact remains that the segment exists, is larger than it should be in a nation as scientifically advanced as ours, and has repeatedly shown itself to be loud enough and well-funded enough to effect change in the way businesses, schools, and even local governments handle the subject.
Not bashing the US (you'll notice I live here too, and for the record I love it here). But that doesn't mean there aren't things over here that could and should change. And one is the surprisingly prevelant disdain for evolution theory. Hell, here's a school that pulled evolution themed t-shirts because of fears of religious backlash.
EDIT: To be clarify, the official reason was "they had to remain religion neutral," which is of course silly since evolution has nothing to do with religion. The honest concern was that the parents would see evolution as a conflict with their religion and throw a fit.
Yup, which makes the whole thing even more absurd. The film is more about his personal struggle with religion and science. It isn't a documentary on evolution theory. But since it doesn't demonize him for it, it's clearly too controversial for US audiences.:facepalm:
Now I don't blame the distributors. They're businessmen, and they have to play to their audience. What saddens me is that the audience has to be played to in this way; that a film about an influential scientist is too controversial for a distributor to pick up, but a franchise about torture and murder can hit six-going-on-seven films and continue to rake in the cash.
From what I see in discussions from multiple sources, other largely (if not predominately) Christian nations do not suffer from this fanatical resistance to evolution theory (at least not on the same scale). Why is it that other nations have managed to reconcile the idea that their faith can coexist evolution theory, yet so many people here continue to rail against it?
To add to the absurdity, one site that was quoted in the article basically blamed Darwin for all of Hitler's atrocities. Are we to blame the inventor of the crowbar for all of the women Ted Bundy bludgeoned? Are we to blame the Wright brothers, or even da Vinci, for the WTC attacks? Is it not a testament to the absurdity of their stance that they must invoke the Holocaust to cast the opposing viewpoint in a sinister light?
What will it take for people like this to stop having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future?
I'll be brief. I agree that kpaca looks less contributive in this incarnation than he did previously. And Ace was looking plenty bad before kpaca replaced him. I can support a kpaca lynch. Will wait for Dagger to unvote before adding my own, as he will want to hammer.
Still don't like Zionite's behavior thus far, but I guess that's going to have to wait for tomorrow.
Looking back over Wuffles and Zionite, I'm content to leave my vote on. Zionite was real quick to jump on the terrible kpaca wagon, and quick to barn WoD on CC. Zionite defended WoD almost immediately upon replacing, argued with Cyan that he didn't defend WoD, and then almost immediately after did it again:
His breadcrumbing his PR actually is more of a negative in my eyes than a postitive. In a game where (we've gone over this a lot, and Zionite even pointed it out himself in BIG BOLD RED letters) roles are independent of alignment, breadcrumbing doesn't really accomplish anything. Feels like he's trying to give his PR claim more legitimacy, which really isn't necessary for a townie. For a scum, though, it would make sense since he'd want to get as many people as possible to believe he has to lie about his alignment.
I'm content to leave my vote where it is.
He's at 5/9 by my count.
VOTE Zionite
The case is pretty straight-forward.
I honestly don't see what you and Raf have a problem with here. Yes, I honestly think he's scum, but I hardly have Sherlock Holmes' track record when it comes to scum hunting. I'm not confident enough in my scum hunting ability to lynch a confirmed doc.
I wasn't "putting words in GM's mouth". I pointed out what I considered GM's likely motive for asking the question. And no he didn't say anything like that afterward, but then again kpaca didn't fall into the trap either. To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, in the Simpsons Mafia (it was a newbie one), Evil_Homestereo replaced out and Netfinity came in. EH was the main wagon at the time, so Net was facing a lynch from the get-go. Net made the mistake of trying to explain some of EH's posts that had drawn negative attention. I was scum that game, and it was like Christmas had come early. It was way easy to keep the wagon going because Net decided to defend EH rather than just say "I can't explain his posts, cuz I'm not him". He did mention that point of course, but didn't take his own advice and kept arguing over them. When GM decided to ask kpaca to give reasoning behind Ace's posts, it rang alarm bells in my head.
They're not his posts. Asking him for reasoning on posts that aren't his accomplishes nothing, unless you're looking to start criticizing him over defending Ace's posts.
No reason not to put my vote back. His post at kpaca to "explain these posts by Ace" was enough to seal the deal. Anyone should know that a replacement isn't going to be able to accurately explain his predecessor made certain posts. Feels like a trap to get people looking back to Ace/kpaca instead of him; try to get kpaca to defend the those posts, then call him scummy for it.
If you read the whole post instead of quoting one line, you'd see I specifically stated that since he's a confirmed protective role, I'd like to give any investigative roles out there a chance to look at him first.
True.
I didn't "go back on my statement". I do still think he's scum. I just no longer think it's prudent to lynch him at this time. He's a confirmed protective role. I'd rather hold off and give any investigative roles out there a chance to have a look at our day-doc.
False. I'm not clearing him at all.
I downgraded my vote to an FoS, because I still think he's probably scum but don't feel like he needs to be lynched right now.