see if I ever say anything nice about that bitch's boobs again.
"Really nice looking for her age" is not a compliment, I think. "Looks 20 years younger than she really is" is a compliment.
We're not going to enable your self-destructive reading habits anymore, Labs. I now inaugurate what I hope will be a long series of off-topic comments. So, via apo's blog, a dooke flop.
Was that three different flops in one game?
Those auto-admit guys are pretty scarry. Althouse is an idiot.
I'm going to enable Labs's self-destructive reading habits! Having already noticed that little aside at Althouse's place, I was thinking that this was as close as she's ever come to admitting she was wrong. About anything!
2: He didn't get the call, did he?
And it turns out that Althouse was very attractive when she was young, which makes all of her psycho positions seem much more reasonable.
What is wrong with those people?
Holy smokes, Althouse used to be adorable.
9: sure is making up for that now, though (not a comment on her looks)
Not that that's important. But yes, that's a lovely picture of her in the 60s.
7, 9.----I was not at all surprised to discover that she was a very pretty young woman. She writes like a person who has never quite relinquished the privileges of personal beauty.
He didn't get the call, did he?
He did not get the call, and amazingly enough, on a different flop, the ref actually shouted at the Duke player to stand up. The world must be changing.
The nice reading is that she seems to be acknowledging the creepiness of something that's obviously creepy. The sad reading is that in order to get it, the creepiness has to be pointed at her. This is a "whose ass gets gored" sort of moment, I guess.
The laugh track really makes that clip.
She writes like a person who has never quite relinquished the privileges of personal beauty.
Wow, that's a real shot out of nowhere at LB, JM.
He did not get the call, and amazingly enough, on a different flop, the ref actually shouted at the Duke player to stand up.
Duke is so fucking evil, and Duke-hatred connects up nicely with the unwarranted privileges to which JM points.
Apo, I thought of you when I saw Duke lose.
They're all Howdy-Doody looking nimrods.
Crap, this is reminding me that I should've imput my completely randomised NCAA picks into the Mormon family non-betting pool. (Winner and absolute loser both get an ice-cream cone gift certificate, I think.)
I'm going to regret this, it feels like the answer ought to be "At Standpipe's blog," but where's the link you're talking about in 7 and 9?
20: Click through the link on 'this' in the post. It goes to an AutoAdmit discussion of Althouse's looks, including a link to a very attractive picture of her from the 60s. I feel inappropriate talking about the picture at all, given the unpleasant context.
Now I get to make fun of LB. Haha! Too slow, slowy slow-poke snail! Pwned u!
That photo in 23/24 looks like it was taken by a fictional character played by David Hemmings right before he started lazily molesting her surrounded by a giant roll of backdrop paper.
You know, I was just thinking of that movie today when I referred to The Conversation.
There's a scene like that in The Conversation? Or are you talking about another movie?
And am I the only one who felt cheated by the fact that when Hackman finally understands what the conversation really meant, they redid the lines so that the emphasis is different than the version he initially heard? On the version he initially heard, the reading is such that his interpretation is obviously correct. If it wasn't possible to get genuine ambiguity into one take, then the movie shouldn't have been made.
Blow Up, which The Conversation is based on conceptually.
I agree witchoo, LB.
Could someone tell me why we should care about Ann Althouse and her flip-flops on various issues?
I mean, I'd never heard of the woman outside of this blog. She has influence ... somewhere? Honestly, tenured law prof or no, blog or no, why?
Apropos of nothing, that picture of her in the 60s doesn't strike me as adorable so much as Twiggy-esque, a 19-year-old (or whatever) in a 12-year-old body. Kind of creepy.
Do not forget Blow Out, which is the DePalma/Travolta version of The Conversation (i.e., "Audio Blow Up"). Do not forget!
32: Because it is fun to talk about people.
Although I did it myself, I remain uncomfortable with assessing Althouse's æsthetic merits in this context. Could we not?
19-year-old (or whatever) in a 12-year-old body
You're thinking of a "blivet": 10 lbs of shit in a 5 lb bag.
(Still meeting all your humorlessness needs!)
I totally agree with humorless LB. Wow, I've become so much less fun because of you people.
Not to derail the thread of well deserved ragging on Althouse, I have to say if you don't want naked pictures of you to end up on the internets, don't take naked pictures. Which is to say, this new fangled technology allows for absolutely no privacy. Use of anything posted for whatever reason is your own damn fault. Should the gals be upset they were objectified in this way? You bet. Could it have been forseen? Also yes. New innertube manners will be worked out over time, and Althouse is not Emily Post. (I know that the pictures in question are not nudes, but I only like the naked boobies, so there).
The age-old question: is it true perving to perv on photographs when the person photographed has undergone a major change of state, such as death, maturation, aging, uglification, etc.?
And am I the only one who felt cheated by the fact that when Hackman finally understands what the conversation really meant, they redid the lines so that the emphasis is different than the version he initially heard?
I felt cheated for different reasons. That didn't bother me so much because the movie was not a mystery. Particularly by the end the movie was clearly about "subjective" reality (from the Hackman character's POV) rather than "objective." And, really, there is enough reason to distrust Hackman's decision that making the evidence that he thinks he has even more ambiguous would give the audience no reason to trust him at all.
As it was, by the end of the movie I had mostly stopped caring; the pacing just didn't work for me.
not humourless, LB. On point, actually.
The post is about the fact that autoadmit's behaviour is objectionable, objectively, no matter where you stand, and even more about the lamentable fact that AA was unable to see what was wrong about it until she was put into the right perspective to see it. She apparently has trouble identifying abusive behaviour unless it's directed at *her*.
It is only to your credit that you are able to see what is objectionable, lb, without it being your *own* pictures that are being talked about in the discussion. It's not lacking humour; it's possessing imagination and empathy.
by the way--kudos to jackmormon for the point about personal beauty giving people a sense of privilege. I have watched that dynamic (from afar) and often thought: "the beautiful are different from you and me."
or at least: me.
Being met by smiling faces at every turn; the attention and regard (yes, not all of it welcome, I'm sure, but). Not having to deal with the world through a miasma of contempt and loathing. I'm sure it leaves a lasting mark.
38: You also used to be much better looking.
You have to admit, though: Labs has nice tits.
without it being your *own* pictures that are being talked about in the discussion
But LB really wants to talk about the pictures of her which are on the Internet. Because she thinks she's pretty. She's so stuck up.
Which is to say, this new fangled technology allows for absolutely no privacy. Use of anything posted for whatever reason is your own damn fault.
Rrrr. While I kind of sympathize with this (I'd be a lot more mealy-mouthed if the stuff I write were searchable under my own name), what's the difference between that and 'If you didn't want pictures of yourself out there, you shouldn't have gone out in public dressed like that'? The existence of cell phone cameras, for example, also allows for absolutely no privacy.
Appearing in a public place (a beach) in a bathing suit is completely conventional. Having a bunch of nimrods discuss publically in a manner available to anyone who knows your name what they'd like to do with you sexually as inspired by your appearance in that bathing suit is unconventional, and is generally regarded as bad behavior on their part. And it could have happened without the internet; the only thing peculiar to the incident about the internet is the searchability of the discussions.
So how come having a photo of yourself in a bathing suit online affects the degree to which a discussion like that is something you brought on yourself?
Being met by smiling faces at every turn; the attention and regard (yes, not all of it welcome, I'm sure, but). Not having to deal with the world through a miasma of contempt and loathing. I'm sure it leaves a lasting mark.
Absolutely. I'm seeing a young (mid/late 20s) female friend walk though life to date only vaguely aware of the privileges she enjoys in being rather attractive, despite the fact that she's deeply feminist, alternative, and a downright dirty hippie.
As an ex-attractive-young-woman myself, I see the signs in my young friend: she's in for a fall, a sort of false consciousness issue that has the potential to tear her apart, given her alternativeness. She's intelligent enough that I want her to see this; as it stands, she benefits from people's (both male and female) attraction to her, without fully acknowledging that life is not quite as accommodating for others.
47: Heh. I think there's literally one -- the one on the firm website.
I think there's literally one -- the one on the firm website.
Not so, I believe. A little-known fact is that LizardBreath has done modeling; that is, there is at least on photo I can think of which features her taken by a professional photographer which you can buy as a print to frame and put on your wall.
Oh, true fact. I've actually linked that one here someplace. And I'm not visibly wearing any clothes.
And I'm not visibly wearing any clothes.
Well, I was too much of a gentleman to say . . . or to provide a link.
yeah, pictures of me on the web. god I hate it when they photo-shop peoples' bodies onto my head and all.
I mean, worse than that--there was this photo of me in circulation for awhile where they'd replaced my body with Farrah Fawcett's--and replaced my head with her head, too!
And it was everywhere--everywhere I turned, photo-shopped pictures--of me!
I rate LB's knuckles an 8.5 or 8.6.
The longer I look at the word "knuckles," the less it looks like a real word.
48. Well, as I said I think it's a manners thing. Boorish behaviour will always be with us. Perhaps "fault" is too strong, but if one posts photos on the internet you're foolish if you think all of the uses will be innocent, or viewed only by those you know.
Boorish behaviour will always be with us. ...if one posts photos on the internet you're foolish if you think all of the uses will be innocent, or viewed only by those you know.
Funny, I agree completely with this, but I really took issue with 41. I think the situation is really complicated. For one thing, people often don't have control over who else posts pictures of them. Employers regularly require employees to have their photos on the company websites. Any kind of public event or gathering (conference, employee picnic, class trip, etc. etc.) can result in someone snapping a few shots and putting them up for the world to see.
You don't have to have a high-profile job or a flashy style of dress for there to be plenty of photos floating around online of you (some with name attached) that you weren't even aware were taken, much less gave permission to be disseminated. If I wear shorts to the company picnic, am I really at fault if a well-meaning co-worker posts the photos, with named captions, and then some random stranger feels entitled to pass judgment on my bony knees?
58 is crazy. Women shouldn't have to avoid putting their pictures on the internet for fear that strangers will make it such that the top google page for your name is all about your breast size, how "stuck up" you are and how much people want to have violent sex with you.
Who else should avoid posting pictures? Blacks? the handicapped? gay people?
Good manners require that all discussions of how fat and ugly someone is be googleproofed.
And am I the only one who felt cheated by the fact that when Hackman finally understands what the conversation really meant, they redid the lines so that the emphasis is different than the version he initially heard?
Well, LB, it all depends on how you look at it. Think of it this way: of course, within the movie, it's the same line, which Hackman's character hears differently. When he listened to the tapes initially, he had certain expectations about what sort of thing he would hear, because of his expectations about why he would have been taken on for the job, etc. (Digression about noesis elided.) We hear the line with the emphasis corresponding to his expectations: he'd kill us, etc. Later, his understanding of the whole scenario has changed, and he goes back (I can't remember if he actually listens to the tape again or if he just thinks about it) and hears it differently, to accord with his new understanding: he'd kill us. So far so good—except, of course, it's actually to different takes. Right: but that's just for us, the audience. Although we get news of the goings-on via Hackman's perspective, we aren't in his situation perfectly, so we don't know precisely what he expects, or, importantly, how he reacts to/understands what's going on. The different emphases serve a dual role; they both make sure that if we aren't paying too much attention we get what's going on, and they alert us to the way Hackman hears things—which, of course, may well be distorted! In that case, two different takes are a better solution than one take that accomodates the ambiguity.
What we hear is both a hearing and a thinking—but it's Hackman's thinking, which is why it's kind of odd.
The longer I look at the word "knuckles," the less it looks like a real word.
You know, there might be people who never experienced that phenomenon.
Leonard Cohen wrote a poem which included a fat ugly women who had beautiful hands. LC is not a nice person.
I once knew a guy who was a novelty hand model. He only had three knuckles on one of his hands because of surgery.
60. Don't not post your picture, but also don't be surprised when stuff happens. Your only hope of anonymity is in volume, i.e. you are but a speck in the universe. On the internet they only know you're a dog if you say so or post a picture.
there might be people who never experienced that phenomenon.
Does that phenomenon have a specific name?
61. Ogged is the new Emily Post of the internet. More wisdom, please.
Does that phenomenon have a specific name?
I'm used to calling it "word w/ll/es" (slashes for "i") (googleproofed because I don't need the person I called them that with to show up).
60: Apo and Labs. We've all seen enough of their various body parts.
sure, there's a word for that phenomenon; it has a long-established name.
and I just typed it in the previous line.
but then the longer I looked at it...
63: "I've said 'Jiminy Jillickers' so many times, the words have lost all meaning!"
OMG, I just did a google image search for myself, and I came up with a guy who has my name, and a cheesy caterpillar mustache, and a salon tan, and who has his picture listed on a site listing deadbeat dads. Ugh. That NOT ME!
I propose "croquemitainism", after Chesterton.
Wittgenstein mentions it in xi of PI, but now I can't find it.
Apologies for thread-jacking. I've been thinking that it would be good to organize another Boston-area meetup. I wanted to make a request of our administrative overlords. Do you think that it would be possible to get an occasional post designated for general meetup planning purposes? Maybe we could have it up once a month or so? The residents of SE city State X could use it to plan their meetups as could the Texans et al.
68: I didn't know things had gotten so bad between you and Unf, ogged.
Rob Helpy-chalk is a clean-shaven deadbeat dad. We regret the error.
72. When I first googled my (not that usual) name I found someone else. Thought better of trying to contact him.
As I've mentioned before, I'm sure, my real name is unbelievably ordinary and I was once on a mailing list devoted to men with my name organized by One Of Us who was doing an art installation of some sort based on the different lives of people with my name.
I've never Google Image Searched my own name until just now; not even close, though I did find a picture of President Clinton posing with one of my namekin.
A Google image search of my name finds a lot of other people with my name, plus a number of animal images I've posted on the net. Especially geoducks. Geoducks make Apo cry.
A GIS of my name brings up two images, both of me (actually, one is cropped from the other). They're not very good pictures, but you can sort of see what I look like.
A search for my name brings up pictures of a rural Austrailian involved-in-the-community type of person, maybe a local politician, with my name, and the avatar on my blog. It's both annoying and comforting to have someone marginally more famous than you with your name on the internet.
Especially since otherwise, I would most certainly be the top several hits for my name.
62:Good thing I read the whole thread or I would have repeated Ben w-lfs-n's explanation of The Conversation for LB in 62, most likely inarticulately, with rage and malice.
Like it was the point of the whole movie, fer chrissake. It isn't how much information you have, but what you bring to the interpretation that counts.
Like you are possibly interpreting this as making fun of LB, rather than making fun of myself. Because of expectations creating interpretations. Same-O.
My name is unusual, but I only show up on page 2 of a google search of it, and I don't show up as an author for pages after that. Public buildings and arenas with my name make for some ludicrous combinations. I think Apo observed the same about his the last time we played around with this.
62, 83: But why do you have to load the dice to make that point -- if Hackman could misunderstand, couldn't the movie have been made to lead the viewers to Hackman's misinterpretation without giving us false information? But I'm hopelessly literal, and not a film person.
82: I get an `international clairvoyant' , a `magician', and a `photographyer'
I am unique under my married name, and common as dirt under my birth name.
Yep. Buck knows who his family was back to the eighteenth century. Mine disappears into Queens and County Clare around 1905. I am the common people.
LB, has your famous namesake disappeared, or dropped from public view?
The weird thing about Pilgrim ancestors is that the people on the first couple of Google pages are predominantly from genealogy sites, and lived a long time ago.
Perhaps "fault" is too strong, but if one posts photos on the internet you're foolish if you think all of the uses will be innocent, or viewed only by those you know.
Eh. Foolish if you expect anonymity. On the other hand, everyone and his mother has digital cameras, Flickr sites, and the like, so a) if you're trying to avoid ending up on the Internet, never go to a party or leave the house and b) I expect that as more and more people have pictures of themselves online, the idea that someone was asking for it by posting a photo of herself will be properly scorned.
85:IIRC, every single scene in the movie has Hackman in it, is from Hackman's perspective, which is almost always fucked up. Except the last.
As w-lfs-n said, the information is there for te viewer, we can simply at the beginning too ready to accept Hackman's "edit". Hackman misinterprets eveything, almost absurdly, as in the party scene.
The viewer, like Hackman, says:"If I only had more information." The insanity of that is shown when he bugs a toilet so he can, what, listen to a murder? We don't need more information. we just need to realize that Hackman is always wrong. That is the point.
I'm not a privacy nut, but I must admit that since the dawn of the digital camera era, I've started to be bothered when strangers are taking photos in public and I'm in the background.
Neil is just mad because he's in so many of these pictures.
Ooooh, I love that movie.
a) Harrison Ford and "Shirley" as bad guys, maybe.
b) Maybe, because at the end we are still interpreting thru Hackman's eyes, who knows what the real story was. Those kids are awful powerful and competent for kids.
c) What happened in the hotel room? Bossman cut up in little pieces, yet an easy news story and transition to grieving widow in hours?
d) Heck, is the last scene the truth, or Hackman's fever dream? Are you sure?
Resolved: 'flopping' is part of basketball, and not intrinsically evil.
I've started to be bothered when strangers are taking photos in public and I'm in the background.
Have a couple kids and soon all that going out will be a distant memory.
Plus, it was a 3-on-1; give the kid a break.
90: Haven't heard of her since the early 90's.
Resolved: 'flopping' is part of basketball, and not intrinsically evil.
I hope this is a joke.
Also, Mamba, motherfuckers.
We know that you know, Mr. McManus...
Of course, I don't ever use Google, because everybody else does. I am not saying if any of those people are myself, like I said I don't recognize myself in a mirror anymore.
But me sainted grandmother would be so proud.
'flopping' is part of basketball, and not intrinsically evil.
Spitballs are a part of baseball, chop blocks are a part of football, character assassination is a part of politics, yadda yadda yadda.
Resolved: 'flopping' is part of basketball, and not intrinsically evil.
Not to pile on, but flopping in any sport is pathetic.
GS of my name brings up an anthropologist I wish I was, a dermatologist I'm glad I'm not, 2 paintings of mine, and a sculpture I did not do.
McManus is also the editorial page editor of the New York Post. The Holy and Apostolic Church is getting pretty fucking lax.
Learn to read, fool! If you could read, fool, you could see that she wasn't completely changing her position, fool, but in the first two posts was merely responding to non-existent calls for censoring the site that she made up with her law-school trained reading skillz! It's all perfectly consistent! Fool!
Scott, is that 'L' in your name some kind of representation of a phallus?
And Scott rips off the latex mask, revealing himself to be B.A. Barracus.
Come on, everyone knew it...
FL: I have heard rumors that you're not a law perfesser, you prick! Learn to read!
Oh joy! I used the slightly altered spelling of my last name as suggested by google and find I am an escaped notorious sex offender in South Carolina. Am I Buttle or Tuttle? Should make routine traffic stops interesting.
Scott, I think the technical term is lawprof. Clearly, you've been sucked into the vortex.
The last couple of days I crack up when reading her blog, since "'American Idol.' I didn't watch it. But then, I did." is such an Altmouse post title.
Hey, I see that she updated that post I linked to. Scott, is she calling me a fool? It's hard to read.
112: It should be 'Scott lemieux'! Hah!
So she said that initially she was "somewhat supportive" of AutoAdmit "but then" she googled and found a post about her, and now she's softened her stance (in tone, if nothing else). So, fools, what is the misreading Labs is supposedly guilty of?
And to note once again: she really is stupid.
116: If you look in the comments, I believe that she's actually calling you a 'hypocrisy ferret'. I think I need a T-shirt saying that.
Ah, here we go,
I'm not "backtracking." I had some sympathy for the women in the original post and I have exactly the same amount of sympathy now. You hypocrisy ferrets are wrong again.
How much sympathy? Exactly the same amount!
From the previous entry:
So, you go to Yale, and you interview at a lot of law firms. No offers. Blame the internet?
Too beautiful to appear in public? Too hot to be hired? Come on! What rational employer would deny you a job because idiots chatted about you on line in a way that made if obvious that the only thing you did was look good?
And from the new post:
Now, I've got to laugh and say yes, this is life here on the internet, but I'm old and I have tenure. I really do see how something like this can disturb a young woman who's in the job market, though I still don't think law firm partners are dumb enough to take obvious junk like this seriously in hiring decisions. (And given this attitude, I couldn't get too steamed when feminist bloggers railed about my failure to exhibit proper deference to the fears and feelings of women.)
Exactly the same amount! And only she has access to her personal sympathimeter, you ferrets!
I only regret that I'm not a hot twenty-something woman, so that I could keep noting how stupid she is, and have her lose her mind in response.
Careful now, Ogged. She might stop digging and deny us all this entertainment.
115: You're finally discovered Tassledloafered Leach, Robin's dissolute brother.
She might stop digging this hole, but she always find a new one.
As a thirty-something with nice knuckles, I'll say she's a dimwit.
I maintain that either Catherine or Matt F is now obligated to buy me a t-shirt that says "hypocrisy ferret."
Sadly, the charge isn't hypocrisy at all. Suppose, contrary to the obvious and clear facts that I have completely misread, she did become more sympathetic to Jill et al after seeing the "rate AA's tits" thread on autoadmit. That's a failure of empathy or moral imagination or something like this, because she's unable to see the problem when it's aimed at other people but perfectly capable when it's pointed at her.
The F stands for Ferret, dude. Don't try to weasel your way out of it.
128. That is the worst pun of the day. You should be horsewhipped, but only if you wouldn't enjoy it.
It doesn't seem like a failure of empathy -- her reaction to the AA appearance-rating gauntlet before sounded like she thought it was an unambiguously positive experience; maybe she was thinking, it sure would be nice if someone talked about me that way. And then found, when it happened, that it wasn't so nice after all.
There's plenty more where that came from, TLL.
"idiots chatted about you on line in a way that made if obvious that the only thing you did was look good?"
Is she saying what I think she's saying? Does she know she's saying what she seems to be saying?
I'm not sure -- what does she sound like to you? (And Sally is very pleased with her T-shirt, but would like to know what made the rabbit angry.)
115: There's someone with my name, who lives in my area, who was raised the next town over from me, who's a couple of years younger and who has apparently lived a much harder life than I have. About 5 years ago I got a surprise visit on a Sunday morning by a court-appointed PI, asking all kinds of strange questions: do you know this and this and this person? were you in on x night last May? do you have any tattoos? He seemed to realize pretty early on that he had the wrong Magpie Nest and the tattoo thing sealed it. Besides, he said, I looked too healthy to be the one he was looking for. It was all very strange.
"in" should be "in sketchy neighborhood".
It sounds to me like what she's saying (apart from the "if" typo) is that the "only thing you did was look good", and the idiots are just pointing that out. Which doesn't seem terribly sympathetic.
Yeah, I think that's exactly what she's saying -- more expansively "The only thing you did was look good; anyone reading this will figure that out and couldn't possibly think negatively about you as a result; so qwitcher bitching." And yeah, not terribly sympathetic.
Exactly the same amount of sympathy she has now!
I'm glad Sally likes her t-shirt. The bunny's mad because it's a cruel world. Wait, no, the bunny's mad because that used to be a nice forest and some bad people, called capitalists, built ugly factories there, and polluted the river and now all bunny's fishy friends are dead, dead, dead, dead, dead! No, wait, I don't know, make something up. The bunny is just crabby by nature.
I like the bunny as Lorax interpretation -- I'll work up something from that.
Okay, I was reading it more negatively--thought she was saying the only thing X did was look good, which is tantamount to calling X an empty-headed Barbie.
This is such a good example of how dumb she is. She has just enough debater's cleverness to know that any more sympathy now would require a concession that she'd reconsidered, but not enough actual intelligence to frame the argument in terms other than quanta of sympathy (which terms she foists on herself...), so she says this absurd thing about having "exactly the same" amount of sympathy. Haha! She's eluded our clutches yet again. I do feel a little bad for her, despite her meanness, or maybe because her meanness is so petty and ineffectual.
There appears to be a comment from Brian Leiter in that thread. Not the Brian Leiter, one hopes.
LB just assumes that rage is "bad" and needs some kind of justification. Quite oppressing us, LB.
Umm, why is w-lfs-n allowed access to the hover text?
weird that somebody is using Leiter's name on the autoadmit thread.
that ain't going to make BL happy, I'd think.
maybe one of you philosopher types should ring him on the bat-phone.
So awesome -- a Google Image search for my full name with or without quotes brings up five pictures -- four are of my workbench (two shots and two thumbnails of those two), and one is the cover of the Generic FLIPPER album.
And Yahoo image search brings up the workbench and, oddly, the Obsidian Wings kitten.
CA--
yes, same experience. image search brings up random pictures from web-pages where my name occurred. E.g. the covers of my books. photographs of politicians.
not me, thank god.
Something else cool -- While Google Pix has not head of "Clownaesthesiologist", the top hit on a search for my other bloggy pen name is the home page of Golden Bough, a group which I used to kind of love and have been to see many times.
I used to appear as the top image from my own name -- a link to the image from the Unfogged frappr map. Now it's just as 153 -- links to images on pages where my name occurred.
85: There are two answers.
1. Not necessarily; we aren't in Hackman's shoes.
2. (The answer I now favor which requires interpreting what's going on differently) What we hear is what Hackman hears. Hackman is hearing the emphasis differently—to him, it's as if he heard an entirely different utterance. Thus, we hear things differently. In order to convey this to us, it has to be a different take.
I do feel a little bad for her, despite her meanness, or maybe because her meanness is so petty and ineffectual.
Or maybe because you're a fucking wuss.
My internet dopplegangers (first name only) are a kind of shoe, a psychology professor, and a near-olympic level horsewoman who I remember when she was a little girl a couple blocks away and was, in fact, named after me.
What's wrong with the new hovertext?
It is too long for Firefox to display all of it. At least on my monitor, which is not small. I can only wonder what is going to be said, parenthetically, about contraband or about contrarians.
It's a known bug in Firefox. You want this.
(Also: Ben's new nickname should by "My Spiky Urchin".)
It would be churlish to point out that if you were really curious, you could View Source:
<img src="http://www.unfogged.com/mt-static/images/fogtext2.jpg" alt="Unfogged.com" title="And if, finally, one wishes to copulate and close with his lady *de typo greco* (or contra natura), then he must first work thoroughly at her body's far orifice till it becomes ample and pliable. Whereupon let him call out to it, O my Spiky Urchin, duct of my dreams, or O fount of unspeakable and vain, fruitless love. Yet if any incognizant fellow burns to enter into an unworked and unripe duct, knowing not how to call it and address it, well then, it were better that he abandon his endeavor at the portal, and climb into a cold and unworthy bath wherein he may abuse himself, alone and shivering, till he grunt and squirm as befits and merits him." name="Picture"
That would not only be churlish, but excessively anal, even for you, my spiky urchin.
Nothing could be excessively anal for me.
162 -- yeah, that's how I came up with 161.
Okay, this is true. I retract my poor attempt at a joke.
I'd like to be able to spell something like: mwahaha.
My internet namesakes are numerous, but sort out to a few, and I rue the day that any of them might be confused by a friend to be me. Uh, no, I don't design pillow fabrics.
I'm invisible, as far as I can tell.
Nothing could be excessively anal for me.
Ben, if you don't subscribe to the Daily Bleed, you should. You'd like, I think. A production of Recollection Books.
Here's from yesterday:
http://www.eskimo.com/~recall/bleed/0315.htm
Re: flopping, was kind of a joke. I'm not really sure, though. It seems that when it's really flagrant, it's mocked, and that's how it should be. My impression is the system is efficient. I like seeing really good floppers get away with it, and I see how that's possibly evil. I never developed a Duke antipathy, though, which is weird as I am very pro-Cal anti-Stanford, and should thus be very pro-UNC anti-Duke, but am oddly the opposite.
I like spitballs, too, for what it's worth, as long as you don't get caught (unless you get caught once a decade.) Steroids, enh. Kind of classless. Spitballs were more of a gentleman's cheat.
That's a failure of empathy or moral imagination or something like this, because she's unable to see the problem when it's aimed at other people but perfectly capable when it's pointed at her.
It's a good thing she thinks everything is or should be pointed at her, then, because otherwise she'd be a total sociopath.
