The swine flu was created and released by Cafepress, to divert everyone's attention from the godawful mess they've made.

It's not exactly a public trainwreck, since you have to have an account to view it, but getting an account is as easy as opening a store – you don't even need to put anything in your store. Just having the store gives you access to the 2009 Marketplace Announcement Discussion. This forum was started...I'm going to guess less than five days ago...and it's already got 4,026 posts. I think it's over five pages of posts – I don't know for sure right now, because the forum just crashed.

...and it's back.

Five pages. In under a week. Five pages of people being very upset about the change.

What change? Oh, nothing major. Just a complete reversal of their usual [somewhat trite] 'unique expression of you' line.

What they're going to do is make it so that each individual type of product – no matter the design – has a set, flat price in the marketplace. You'll still have your own markup in your regular store, but in the marketplace? Not anymore. And you'll only get...I think the quoted rate was 10%.

I guess their new line [instead of that 'unique/you' shit] is 'the customer is too stupid'.

There's a lot of shit in that forum. A lot of people saying they're leaving. And a lot of things that really shouldn't be there – like the story about one shopkeeper calling in to ask what the hell was going on, and getting told 'you don't do shit' by the person on the phone.

As someone with a shop there, this...bugs me. I've spent hours just setting up the sections and getting the images right, not counting the time spent on my drawings. My iguana took months to draw. Telling someone who does this that they 'don't do shit' is just...not right.

I hope CP records their calls, and that this person was fired.

At this point, I don't really care what their reasoning is anymore. And I'm starting to not care about the other side, either. Because, seriously, whining on a messageboard about how you're going to tell the media? Not helpful.

Actually telling the media might be helpful, but you might want to do it in a non-petulant sort of way.

One might also consider just blogging about it. Since most of this is contained within a private forum [not too private, but private enough that most people won't go to the trouble to see it], you might want to be sharing the information with the general public.

Also an idea: if you want to get your attention, you should do what those people in Texas did to Yahoo back when Yahoo ditched the user rooms. They called a Troubleshooter type news person to report 'pedophile rooms', and the troubleshooter person got in touch with the various companies that advertise with Yahoo. CP has certain special account-holders that might not be aware of this. I think one of them sells Peanuts products [y'know, Snoopy?]. Those groups might be interested in hearing about this, and they – even though they're an extreme minority among shopkeepers – might have a little more pull, if you really don't want this to happen.

I know I don't want it to happen. I'm rather fond of not having to put any work into my shop, and occasionally getting sales from the marketplace. I won't much like it if my rather modest markup suddenly becomes even less because of this. But I don't do shit, right?

Yeah. I don't.

Especially right now. I'm not really in the mood to continue with this post. Maybe I'll say something else about it later. Maybe I'll get around to talking about ways this wouldn't annoy me. Or maybe it'll go the way of my common-law marriage post.

I'm not kidding. It's all in this article.

If your kids play interactive video games, like the Nintendo Wii, be on the lookout. The Mid-Missouri Internet Crimes Task Force is warning of predators using games like, "Animal Crossing- City Folk," to target kids.

Really? How come the only link between Animal Crossing and pedophiles I can find on the internet is people talking about this article? Must be those devious pedophiles again.

Of course, I didn't really look very hard.

Using the game you create a character and create your own town and house. When hooked up to the internet you can talk to anyone across the country. Kids playing the game have no control over what other players might be saying. For example, the character we ran across could be the man in California police are warning about.

I don't believe you.

No. Really. I don't believe you. I don't believe that you actually got a Wii, and a copy of this game, and sat down to play it.

If you had, you'd know that you don't so much 'create' your own town as 'name it' and answer a few questions which affect the somewhat random layout. You don't go in and say 'Museum goes here, store goes here, and my house goes here.'

And you don't create your own house. You pick one of four houses already built. You can furnish your own house, but that's something entirely else.

But that's just me being picky. Not so picky? And the reason I don't believe you? The fact that I doubt you found anyone willing to trade friend codes with you. You probably don't even know what a fucking 'friend code' is. You probably think Agent S, Frobert, Pekoe, and Static are all actually people who just happen to be online and playing every time you turn the machine on. They're not. And Kid Cat is not the man they identified in California.

"There is no reason an adult should have this game," says Andy Anderson, Mid-Missouri Internet Crimes Task Force.

Anderson says adults playing "animal crossing" and similar games are likely doing it for the wrong reasons.

'Fun' is the wrong reason. Of course.

You probably have told your kids never to talk to strangers, but when playing, the heart of the game is building relationships with the animals in your town as well as other players. To really reach the next level, the game urges you to exchange letters, gifts, and favors.

The 'heart' of the game is actually completing your catalogue. Technically. And you're not actually expected to exchange letters with 'strangers' -- you really can't, because of the friend code system. You're supposed to build relationships with the townsfolk. That's what the favours are all about. You get in good with them, send them letters and presents [and maybe get some foreign fruit back from them], do things for them -- find them a fish they ask for, or give them a piece of furniture that falls into the category they express an interest in. Eventually, they'll give you a picture of themselves. Or, they did, in Animal Crossing: Wild World. I haven't really been playing City Folk as much as I should.

Anderson says it is going to take parents paying attention to keep this problem from exploding.

Something's exploded. And it's because people were paying attention....

"The equipment is real expensive and we cannot afford to buy all of the systems and do not have the resources either to examine all of the possibilities," Anderson explains.

...and this is why you're so painfully wrong. Please do not speak about things when you haven't researched them even a little bit.

Right now, we only know of the three Missouri children who have been contacted. Anderson says this is not something to be paranoid about, but to be aware.

This warning includes any web-based game that allows instant messaging or voice-over IP.

And, again, I don't believe this. I don't think the kids were playing Animal Crossing. I think this might be as much bullshit as the 'Scary Pedophiles on your DS' thing. I think this is more about getting attention than warning parents.

Why? Because, out of the three current systems, the Wii is the most parental-control friendly. Now, I could be dead fucking wrong, since I don't, in fact, own a PS3, but, compared to the Xbox 360's online system [which, again, I have little understanding of], the Wii is locked down pretty tight.

In order to invite someone over to your town [or go over to their town], you both have to have exchanged friend codes. And, in Animal Crossing on the Wii, there's a voice chat option, which uses the Wii Speak -- a room-wide microphone that, I assume, plays the voice of the other person over the speakers of your entertainment system. Which makes it kinda obvious if your kiddies are talking to adults -- unless you're a completely fucking oblivious parent.

...and even an oblivious parent would be able to figure out the Wii Messageboard, where the times spent playing games is posted in a fairly obvious way.

And, speaking of oblivious, have we just not noticed the rating? E. For everyone. Not 'ec', for 'early childhood'. We're not talking about The Koala Brothers: Outback Adventure, or Bob the Builder Can-Do Zoo, or even Freddi Fish ABCs Under the Sea here. Or is Viva Pinata off-limits to adults, too? And the Katamari series? And the Lego Star Wars/Indy/Batman type games? When Lego Harry Potter comes out, are we going to have to create a new rating? K-Tw, Kids to Tweens Only?

Is this some sort of ploy to create a Berlin Wall of Games Ratings? Kids on one side, People Who Qualify to Play M Rated Games on the other?

Okay, that came out all wrong. I'm not calling this a conspiracy or anything, but I gotta wonder if maybe that's what some non-gaming adults are thinking. "Well, videogames are for kids. But we've got these M rated ones that obviously aren't. So maybe we need to make a distinction, and keep adults from playing the ones for kids. Because videogames are for kids."

Here's some news for you: You're wrong. Videogames are not 'just for kids'. They haven't been in a very long time -- pretty much since I was a kid. Perhaps you'd know this, if you bothered to spend more time with your own kids. My mom made time to play games with me -- I'm sure you can do the same. I recommend Lego Star Wars, because you'll at least be playing co-op when your kid pwns you.

Oh, and, in case you need me to spell it out for you? Playing Animal Crossing is not a sign of undesirable, undiscovered proclivities if you happen to be over the age of majority. Not even if you're male.

I suppose it makes sense, in some weird way, that it'd be one of the few things that still annoys me. The average person knows more about Dwarf Blue Sheep than they do about common law Marriage. If they'd just have the fucking sense to not talk about it the way they don't talk about the Dwarf Blue Sheep, though....

I guess that's my real issue -- that people talk about shit they barely know. The fact that you know the phrase 'common law Marriage' does not make you an expert. And I doubt that you know someone it happened to any more than you know someone who was related to someone who went to the hospital with roach-infested tonsils after eating at Taco Bell. Because that shit didn't happen. You don't accidentally get married anywhere -- except, maybe, Las Vegas. And getting so drunk you don't know what you're doing, and waking up married to someone you don't know is not 'common law'. Because Nevada isn't on the list.

What list? Why, the list of states that allow common law marriages. And, hey, here it is:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Montana
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Utah

Now, before you try to claim that the list is incomplete -- it's not. It's just a list of states that currently [as far as I know] allow for the formation of common law marriages. In Georgia, it's only valid if it was formed prior to January 1st, 1997; Idaho, 1996; Ohio prior to October 10th; Pennsylvania before 2005. Oklahoma's got some legal conflicts that make it unclear as to whether or not a common law marriage can be legally formed after November 1st, 1998, and New Hampshire allows them, but only for inheritance purposes.

So that's...what, ten states? Out of fifty. Sure, ten states that people have been known to live in -- and with other people, even, but that doesn't mean you've got anything to worry about. Or that I've got anything to worry about.

You might be wondering why this bugs me so much. Since you're actually putting up with this, I guess I owe you an explanation. Okay....

Surprising as it may be, this actually has very little to do with the-ex-that-tried-to-sue-for-divorce, except that she's part of the problem -- the problem being the ignorant fucking masses. It's surprising how many people think that living together for six months makes you married. Or, hell, seven years. Because seven, it's a powerfully magical number, innit? Where the fuck did that idea come from?

I should've posted about this a year ago, or whenever it was when I figured out that I'd been living with Gremlin for seven years, because that's what started all this again. A bunch of people who did more talking than reading assuring me that seven years means married. No, it doesn't. Not seven years, not six or a dozen or two decades, either. It doesn't work that way. There is no magic number defined by any of those states [that I'm currently aware of] that instantly turns two people into husband and wife.

That's not to say there aren't requirements, because there are. The short version is that the couple have to represent themselves as husband and wife, and have a reputation in the community as husband and wife. It also helps if they agree to it, and intend to be legally married at some point in the future. There's also occasionally mention of 'cohabitation' and 'consummation', which, I suppose, makes sense. Living together and having sex are something that married people sometimes do. And, hey, maybe I can see where some people might think that gaining a reputation as 'married' might be easy, if a bunch of people see you living together, assume you're having sex, and jump directly to 'married' because they can't allow themselves to think otherwise. But...it's still not that easy. It's not that...accidental.

Because people don't accidentally file joint tax returns, or tell their employers, their insurance companies, and everyone else that they've got this spouse when they don't. Except, I suppose, they sometimes do. And they probably get caught. Because, in some states, that's less 'common law' and more 'fraud'. So, just don't do it.

I'd like to say more on the subject, but it seems that I have stuff to do. I'll try to get a little less opinioney and a little more referencey later....

Ableist.

At first, I was very nearly offended by the word because I thought it was another term, like 'differently abled' or 'handicapable'. Then I found out what it meant, and I was just annoyed.

Lemme lay out a little context here:

Post Subject: We can ban science from schools now
Posted By: Gremlin

I know there are teachers in general around here; at least one teaches some form of science, right?

This idiot was likely graduated from some form of public school: http://gotards.com/Multiple_head_wounds

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

You know, I'm new here and have no social equity whatsoever, so you'll probably not take much stock in my opinion, but Dave Hingsburger has a message I consider important: http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/200 ... -girl.html

Yeah, I know speaking up and saying something hurtful isn't amusing is not really cool on the internet, but I'm just no fun that way.

Posted By: tandabat

Yes, I teach science, but I've long since given up arguing with such people. On either side. It is a pointless argument. Much like "uh huh" "nuh huh".

And that guy probably didn't do public school. It is much more likely that it was a private school or homeschool. Seriously.

And Lisa, give it up. I had a sister with Downs, got beaten up in Middle school for standing up for that exact word and have decided that if I can have fire retardant clothes, you can be mentally retardant as well.

Yes, I'm feeling a little snarky today. Don't care.

Posted By: Gremlin
About the argument: the question was never really whether X was factual, mythical, or whatever; it was whether fact can now mean sounds good to me, kinda like the layman's misunderstanding of theory has demoted the definition to silly guess.

About gotards.com: I'd predicted a bit of an outcry, and wrote a disclaimer about it; I apparently just never made it an obvious link from the rest of the site: http://why.gotards.com

[In the interest of full disclosure: I've left out a couple of posts that contained a side-discussion about chat]

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

I know it's a losing battle to try to educate people who think hate speech isn't bothersome, but there is a big difference between correctly applying the term "mental retardation" and using the word "retard" as an insult. Would a disclaimer be reason enough to excuse a website full of tales of stupid people being called "GoNiggers?" Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren't still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society. Brent Martin's murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions. Tanda, why should I give up on what's RIGHT, simply because it's not popular? I don't need to stfu about something I consider hateful and ignorant (see? Ignorant- an insult both accurate and free of hate speech connotations!) just because you gave up on sticking up for your sister. I'm sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

And Gremlin, while I do believe you have the best intentions, and I adore Josh Blue (and have met him and his funny pervy PA a few times) who continually pokes fun at his disability, there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who's had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

Reclamation of language does happen- see: Queer. But it should start with the people who were hurt by those words. When people with intellectual disabilities start wearing "retard" as a badge of honor, fab. Until then, news flash: Some people on the internet actually aren't soulless shells like you find on 4chan.

Anyway, it's been fun, guys, but I figured out what I wanted to know- there's nowhere in town right now to take my curious coworker to see y'all do Rocky Horror- so, peace, love, and thanks for all the fish.

Posted By: Chewy

Lisa, there is one thing you have to understand about many of the people here (especially Grem), and that is Political Correctness isn't common place on this forum. There are many people out there who want the words Fag, Retard, Nigger, Spick, Redneck, Chink, etc... banned because they 'offend' people, we aren't those people. We have plenty of all that come here, and to our show, and we aren't going to do much (if any) censorship here. It's cool that you won't use 'retard' to describe anyone who isn't mentally handicapped, but frankly there are many of us around here that would, and do.

If you are looking for political correctness, this is definately the wrong place to look.

Keep in touch with us on here, we will hopefully have a home soon, k?

Posted By: tandabat

LisaDroesdov wrote:
I'm sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

Yeah well, it's hard to defend someone that's DEAD.

...hmm...yup, still snarky. Still don't care.

Posted By: Gebus Krost

"It's not the word itself, but the censorship of the word that gives it its power."
--Lenny Bruce

Posted By: Gremlin
LisaDroesdov wrote:
Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren't still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society. Brent Martin's murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions.

If you think you know an English word I'm not aware of: hit me.

If you think that calling someone a 'tard is tantamount to waging some halfassed genocide, then you've got a point: 'tard isn't a strong enough word.

LisaDroesdov wrote:
there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who's had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

I'll grant that I didn't build a focusgroup of people with IQs of twenty to ask whether they regarded ableist epithets as opprobriums; I guess I'm not evil enough to hit 'tards with concepts that advanced, just to prove a point.

Posted By: Annie
wow. I've never seen one of these posts degenerate quite so quickly.

Let me say something overused, but still apt: arguing on the internet is like being in the special Olympics. even if you win, you're still retarded.

And my addendum: Arguing with gremlin is like signing retards up for the normal Olympics. You can not win, and you're still retarded.

So, I've got this new word. 'Ableist'. As it turns out, it means the same thing as my other new word for the day -- 'disableist'. And the words come with a bonus fight over which word should be used...but I don't really care about that right now.

What I care about is the word, and what it means. And the stupidity.

First, the word....

Ableist -- and 'disableist', apparently -- means 'a person who discriminates against people with disabilites'.

...which is kinda stupid. Two different words, meaning the same thing? I'd argue that an 'ableist' would be, say, a person in a wheelchair, or a blind person, who discriminates against people who can walk, or can see. But that's just what would make sense to me. Because they really are two different words.

On the subject of different words, there's LisaDroesdov's posts.

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

You know, I'm new here and have no social equity whatsoever, so you'll probably not take much stock in my opinion, but Dave Hingsburger has a message I consider important: http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/200 ... -girl.html

Yeah, I know speaking up and saying something hurtful isn't amusing is not really cool on the internet, but I'm just no fun that way.

Social equity has very little to do with how much anothers' opinions are worth. Especially when anothers' opinions are being supported by an article about the word 'retard', not 'gotard'.

...and especially when that article is all full of the word 'retard' being censored like 'fuck' and 'shit'. Which, I'll admit, bugs me. It's as if a person assumes that the reader is too...deficient – perhaps even too differently abled -- to handle the word, so they have to protect the reader from it by misspelling it, or blocking out certain letters.

Hey, don't we have a word for that?

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

I know it's a losing battle to try to educate people who think hate speech isn't bothersome,

Assuming what others think is...not good. I don't remember seeing anyone in that thread saying anything about hate speech, let alone 'hate speech isn't bothersome'. Given that 'hate speech' is speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, class, occupation, or political views, I don't see why the term is being flung into this conversation...except maybe to evoke a desired emotional response.

but there is a big difference between correctly applying the term "mental retardation" and using the word "retard" as an insult.

And there's a big difference between 'retard' and 'gotard'.

Would a disclaimer be reason enough to excuse a website full of tales of stupid people being called "GoNiggers?"

Actually, yes, it would. But you've completely missed something here. Like the fact that 'gotard' is a word. 'Goniggers' is not. The website is not 'Go! Tards!' or anything of the sort, it's 'gotards'.

I suppose that expecting a person to understand this after it's already been explained to them a number of times is 'ableist' somehow. Or perhaps 'ignorantist'. Maybe I do discriminate against people who willfully remain ignorant of some things.

Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren't still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society.

Wait, what?

So it's okay to use an insult, as long as it's not meant to hurt this specific group of people?

Brent Martin's murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions.

Is this a stock phrase that all activists are issued to defend their position? Seriously, I can change a few words, and make it look like Jack Thompson said this....

Tanda, why should I give up on what's RIGHT, simply because it's not popular? I don't need to stfu about something I consider hateful and ignorant (see? Ignorant- an insult both accurate and free of hate speech connotations!) just because you gave up on sticking up for your sister. I'm sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

Yes, I see now. So hate speech is okay so long as it's hate speech you agree with. The ignorant are people, too!

Or maybe not. Nevermind. The ignorant aren't people. You fucking ignorant cow.

...wait, no, that's hateful toward cows, isn't it? Maybe I should just censor everything – except, no. Then I might offend someone who can somehow find words in the random pattern of characters I type out.

See, the problem with this sort of soft censorship is that it really is a slippery slope. By-and-by, there's nothing left that's safe to say, and there's naught to be done about it.

Personally, I would prefer that people become a bit thicker skinned. The words have no power when you're not afraid of them. An unloaded gun can still be used to club someone to death, but a word that's no longer feared is just a word.

Trite, but true.

And Gremlin, while I do believe you have the best intentions, and I adore Josh Blue (and have met him and his funny pervy PA a few times) who continually pokes fun at his disability, there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who's had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

Gremlin? Having the best intentions? Ha.

And way to go on that whole belittling the experiences of david_darkeyes.

Oh, wait, I read that wrong. 'If it bothers them.' Yes, I suppose one should stack their research group with people who are biased. Wait, no, that's wrong, isn't it?

Reclamation of language does happen- see: Queer. But it should start with the people who were hurt by those words.

I've known gotards who've called themselves gotards. And I've known queers who are offended by the term 'queer'. So perhaps Lisa here should stop flinging the word 'queer' around with such impunity....

When people with intellectual disabilities start wearing "retard" as a badge of honor, fab.

Which is why nobody's offended by 'nigger' now. Oh, wait....

Until then, news flash: Some people on the internet actually aren't soulless shells like you find on 4chan.

Newsflash: people on 4chan aren't soulless shells. How channist of you. Or would that be 'soulist'.

I think that there are a lot of disabled people out there who would be offended by this shit. To me, the idea that the world needs to be more 'inclusive' because people are 'different' is far more insulting than a couple of words. Especially since it's all about the people who can't walk, see, or hear. Apparently, not being able to, say, stand the sunlight isn't a 'disability'. I suppose it's all just general teenaged silliness, and it's just fine to not accomodate that minor handful of people, right? And then there's the people with mental health issues – agoraphobes and people with panic disorders. I don't see a lot of rushing around to accomodate them, either. So this whole ableism thing? It's a little more offensive than a word – especially this word that this individual obviously misunderstood.

What's a word for someone who doesn't like stupid, emotional twits who are so guilt-ridden by their lack of disability that they have to lash out and pretend that their patronizing bullshit is somehow less hurtful overall than a few words? We need a word for that, because I feel like I deserve to have a name to be called when I come down against these individuals.

And if you think I don't deserve one, then you're just a wordist.

I'm glad that someone else, someone who may be considered to be more credible than I am [for no good reason other than 'he's a real live scientist!] has noticed this taste difference. From the day that Wendy's took their first [fully voluntary] step and changed their fries, things haven't been the same.

And Wendy's fries? Have never been that good. McDonalds fries are strange, soggy little water-tasting things now, and I'm not sure why, except that they're now '0 trans fat' fries.

I'm sure that KFC's newly 'zero trans fatted' chicken is equally 'ih'.

And for people who claim that there's no way to tell the difference ['there is no difference, it's just healthier!'], or that 'it's just because your tastebuds have been brainwashed and overloaded with fat, give them time, you'll get over it!' I say: It must suck to be you. To be not only that tasteless, but that easily fooled? I'd be careful if I were you. You're one website away from believing that Bush is a reptillian alien.

These are likely the same people who tell me that 'Pepsi tastes just like Coke' and 'You can't tell the difference between whole and 2% milk. And you'll never know if I slip you some soy milk instead.'

What the hell is wrong with them? Were they born without a full compliment of functioning tastebuds? Are these people just...vindictive, and trying to sentence the rest of us to a viceless world of nasty-tasting, 'healthy by current standards' horrors?

And, hey, what's this I hear about further studies on trans fats showing that there are actually good ones, just like there's good cholesterol? Can we maybe stop ripping things out of our foods to fit trends before the research is fully done?

Also, can we maybe please stop running around telling eachother what we can and cannot taste? Because I really don't care about your deficiencies. The only thing that matters to me is the way it tastes to me. Yeah, I know, that's terribly selfish of me, to be concerned about how much I enjoy eating something, but it's none of your fucking business. There's maybe a handfull of people who get to be concerned about what I put into my body, and most of them are immediate family.

Unless there's something I don't know about [like family in charge of certain companies -- in which case, we need to talk about truckloads of freebies], we just need to mind our own business, okay? You can have your 0 trans fat options, and I'll have the stuff that tastes good. Barring unusual conditions in which we are literally unable to make a choice, we will each make our own, and take responsibility for them.

That's just too much to ask, isn't it?

Regarding your amazing discovery of Sunday, February 24th, 2008: we're still waiting for you over here. You've got some catching up to do. Will you be discovering gravity next? Or evolution?

Don't bother to let us know.

--The Rest of Us.

For those of you who haven't been bothering to keep up with the trickle of very dull news, some...let's call it a 'newfag'...discovered [no doubt through an epic adventure worthy of Indiana Jones] Dr. A Nordenholz's Scientologie, Wissenschaft von der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens.

That's Scientology, Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge, for those of you who can't figure it out for yourselves.

Apparently, this is the 'smoking gun' of the decades old crime of plagiarism committed by L. Ron Hubbard. See, he *must* have read it. And that's where he got the 'axioms'. And his habit of making up words!

It's a good thing someone figured this out. I mean, We never would've known otherwise.

I wonder how long it'll take for them to discover the 1901 usage by Allen Upward. I'm sure it's going to be really hard, since it's only right here. And on wikipedia in all the articles they should probably be reading. And in the books a few of them have said that I should read.

I also wonder whether they'll be all 'lol, L.Ron didn't get the joke!' when they find out that he [ooh] 'stole' it from [gasp] a guy who coined it to mean 'science elevated to unquestioning doctrine'. [shockhorror]

This is where I admit that I was wrong. They really aren't doing it right at all. Almost none of them are anywhere near as informed as they need to be to take on Scientology.

People are stupid. Act surprised....

In this case, both of my posters were crumpled up on one end because they overstuffed the tube with tissue paper. I suppose that was intended to keep the posters from moving around a lot.

Also, one of the posters was not the poster I ordered.

See, I bought a Saw IV double-sided poster -- the one with the wheelchair, and 'IT'S A TRAP'. What I got? Decidedly not double-sided.

This is very much their mistake. And I'm not at all interested in paying for their mistake. Not even in the form of return shipping.

I am not a happy customer. Whether or not I'll recommend them to anyone relies entirely on what they do next. If their solution is 'fill out the returns form, pay for return shipping, and we'll send you new ones [oh, and you'll have to pay for that shipping, too], I'm thinking my recommendation is going to be "Stay the hell away. Their customer service is only outdone by BestBuy."

A proper response to this would be at least free return shipping. An exceptional, customer-winning response would be a partial refund, and a replacement of the damaged and mistaken posters.

I'm expecting more of a 'BestBuy' though. Mostly because 'exceptional, customer-winning' has only come from one store. And newegg they ain't.

On the subject of exceptional, though, my Netflix actually showed up today. Netflix processed stuff yesterday, sent things yesterday, and, even though the mail was down and they were telling me that the movies wouldn't be here until tomorrow, they were out there today. All happy and flat and red and Netflixey....

So, yay Netflix. Good job. How 'bout selling posters? No? Maybe a joint deal with Rifftrax, then? Pweese?

There are a few problems with this, I think.

First, if you want to make a 'wall of protest', I think a literal wall is far more noticeable and...better for use in protests, don't you? Yeah, I know that the wall of the missing [or whatever it was called] has disappeared into a small office in a building somewhere, hidden down several corridors, but when it was actually outside, it was noticeable. It got on TV, and it was impressive. Except maybe not really, because a really, really impressive thing kept getting repeated on TV with it.

Second: I'm taking this about as seriously as an e-petition, and I think that most narrowminded governmental grownups are going to see it the same way.

The seriousness of it is probably the biggest overall problem. So big, I'm not even sure I can give it a number. Instead, I'll just cram it in right here.

The seriousness. It's just not there. The MS Paint is, and the pictures of peoples animals. And also the shame. But no seriousness. This is, as Serious Cat said, serious business. Only, hopefully, with less funny misspellings. Except I think there are funny misspellings, and outright 'leet'. Not appropriate.

Game legislation isn't exactly a funny, funny joke. Okay, maybe sometimes it is. And the people around it are sometimes living, breathing parodies of actual human beings, but that really doesn't mean that the gaming community should put itself out there as everything from 'what you think we are' to 'why god why?'

Go on. Look at the site. At the time of this writing, there are two chinchillas and what might be a Bichon Frisé asserting their constitutional rights to protest. And one of the chinchillas' pictures is actually named 'Roxxor Chinchilla has something to say!'

Now, I haven't checked lately, but I don't seem to remember chinchillas being given rights as full citizens in the 'good ol' US of A'. I suppose it could've happened. This might be why everyone says the rest of the world hates us. I don't really ever watch the news, so I probably missed that one.

Wait...I've got it. It's the 9th amendment that does it with the whole 'the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' This is where people also get their 'right of never being offended by anything, ever [or else], which supercedes your right to free speech which otherwise means you can say whatever you want, whenever you want.' I've heard those Constitution-writing people were real idiots and couldn't even write a sentence in a proper and comprehensible way, so I suppose that the 'by the people' part could include various small rodent-like things sold on the exotic pet trade. Sugar gliders probably have the right to protest, too.

Honestly, I'm all for that. But I draw the line at Bichon Frisé rights.

Some of the pictures are okay. Some of the people look like the respectable sort who wouldn't go out for the crazy protests that involve peace signs, breasts, and eventually firehoses and teargas.

For example, at the time of this writing, there's a guy in the top row in the new BDUs. I could probably take him seriously, even with that little moustache, but the guys on either side of him? One of them has a barely readable sign on a piece of paper, and what looks like a retardedly huge open-mouthed grin on his face [although it might just be him yelling at the camera, what with the raised fist], and the other has what looks like an elaborate tinfoil hat, which makes me think that maybe his 'let me play my games in peace' means 'without all those nasty mindcontrol rays, kthx.'

I already mentioned MS Paint and Shame, right? Would adding 'Myspace' and 'emo' and 'ih' be redundant? Because a lot of these pictures look like myspace pictures reworked with MS Paint. And there's some emo. And at least one mullet. And a lot of ih.

By 'ih', I don't mean 'I don't want to look at that because it is terribly unattractive', but 'I don't want that representing me in a gamer protest.' The 'funny typos and leet are appropriate in this area' people, and the 'not-so-veiled-threat' people [Leave my games alone. I'm warning you. from Jewiki The Anomaly, for example], and the funny-face-attempting-to-glower people. And let's not forget the 'using someone else's shit and 'shopping' in our comments people, which Mr. Terminator Poster 'the ESRB pwns the MPAA' might be a part of.

...and then there's the people in costume.

More later. And I really mean that. I'm going to post more about this later.

I am not the HelpDesk. The HelpDesk is not here. The HelpDesk never was here. I don't even have a fucking desk, okay? See? NO DESK HERE. My monitor is currently sitting on top of my tower, and my keyboard is on the floor. Sorta. It's more like...on this funny angle at the side of this big comfy chair, but it's partly on the floor. NO DESK. Ergo, no HELPDESK. The HelpDesk is on the other side of the planet somewhere, where they do not speak American anywhere near as fluently as I do.

I suppose that's why people keep coming to me. That, and I keep letting people get away with 'hey, thanks,' and 'I owe you.' The great, worthless and intangible gratitude.

Also, I keep trying. And for some people, I don't really mind helping. Some people, I point them in a certain direction and they get it. "If you want to make this stop, then go to [somewhere in some menu]." It's usually very vague, but people get it, they go there, they do it, and it's done.

I sometimes don't even mind some of the bigger things, like fixing Danny's computer, even though it was a bitch and tried to eat my fingers, and the copy of XP he gave me was an upgrade copy. These things happen; XP is annoying that way. And after that, with the broken monitor, it didn't take days to figure it out because communicating the problem and what might fix it were both very easy. "This monitor isn't working." "Weird. Is there another monitor?" "Yeah. Oh look, that one works." "I wonder what's wrong with the other one. Hey, try setting the resolution to 800x600." "It works now, but the colours are all funny, and [something else]." "Um, try degaussing? I don't know if that'll do anything, but it's too fun not to do." "There's no way to do that on this monitor." "That's no good."

There've been a few fun technical problems that I've helped my mom with, too, but...well, and here's the issue I don't have with her that I have with so many others: DETAILS.

When I ask my mom for something -- a model number, an error message, whatever -- she gives it to me. She gives me the details I need to at least try to figure things out. Funny how that works.

See, I'm only human. A pathetic, dirty little human female who can, miraculously, tell that the clearly marked and colour-coded cables coming from the cable box go into the matching clearly marked and colour coded holes on the TV. That's not amazing, though. It doesn't make me some sort of freaky Technology Whisperer. I do not have a special psychic link with all things electrical.

What does that mean? It means that I can't fix things without details. "It's broke, fix it." isn't anywhere near enough. What were you doing with it when it broke? Were you hitting it with a hammer? Dragging it behind your car? Trying to use it in the shower? Or was it something less stupid, like reformatting, or downloading lots and lots of picture.jpg.exe files? If it's not a hardware-type-issue-thing, then there are other things that need to be mentioned. What are you saying is broken? A link somewhere, or an image, or a whole page maybe? Well, that sucks. Why don't you show me? Show me the page where it's broken, or what you've typed to make the link/image/whatever happen.

I think everyone can see where I'm going with this.

If you can't, well, the HelpDesk is closed. Please call back during our office hours. Our office hours are --:-- to --:--.

I went out to get the mail a few minutes ago, and I noticed a slip of paper stuck to my door. It was little and notepad sized, so I wondered if maybe one of my neighbours was upset with me.

Then I saw what it said.

Then, I got my camera.

If you can't read it in that picture for some reason, here's what it says:

ATTENTION NEIGHBORSA SEX OFFENDER HAS MOVED
INTO THIS AREA ! ! !

WE ARE ASKING EVERYONE
TO BECOME AWARE ! ! !

FINED OUT WHO THEY ARE
AND WHAT THEIR ADDRESS IS!

WWW.NEIGHBORHOODREDALERT.COM

Fined?

Anyway, the first thing I did when I got back inside with my mail, my pictures, and my little bit of paper was check the first official sex offender registry I could find -- the Convicted Sex Offender Site. I figure it's probably official because of the simplistic 'no bot' shit. Also, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation/Colorado Department of Public Safety shit. And the state.co.us stuff. I'm a silly, trusting sort of soul.

I limited it to my zip code, my city, and the county I thought I might be in. I got three offenders, and one was just about on the other side of that park with the evil duck.

I did a second search with just my city and my zipcode, opened to all counties, and got 56.

That makes sense. The city is pretty big, spanning two counties. And I bet my zipcode does, too.

Then, I went to the URL on the doorspam.

After I recovered from my "OH GOD A BLINK TAG" fit, I grabbed a throwaway email address and gave them my zipcode.

Then I took a minute to read the site.

If you received a red alert notice then you have at least one or more registered sex offenders living in the community, either under criminal justice supervision or having completed their sentence.

Knowing that it is impossible to notify every citizen about a sex offenders location, our goal is to make the information available so that you can take the appropriate precautions.

Sexually violent predators are the only category of sex offenders subject to community notification.

The 'red alert' bit is actually all caps, bold, red, underlined and blinking on the site. They must've done some of that through some e-magickqueal trick, because the direct copy-paste I just did didn't actually let me have the all caps. Strange.

Anyway, this is where I started to wonder a bit. If only 'sexually violent predators' are subject to community notification, then why didn't this slip of paper have anything more than this URL on it? Why wasn't there a name, an address, and a picture?

But I think I'm getting ahead of myself here, because thinking should never come before the terms and conditions [big image -- screenshot spliced together].

Terms and Conditions:

This information is not intended to be published or made available to any person in any jurisdiction where doing so would result in contravention of any applicable laws or regulations. Accordingly, if it is prohibited to make such information available in your jurisdiction or to you (by reason of your nationality, residence or otherwise) it is not directed at you. Before reviewing the pages of our site, you must be satisfied that doing so will not result in such a contravention and is not so prohibited, and by proceeding to review them you will be confirming that this is not the case.

Hypertext Link
As to any hypertext links contained herein, www.neighborhoodredalert.com:
1. possesses no control whatsoever over such links and Web sites, linked thereby;
2. makes no express or implied warranties, representations or endorsements of any kind regarding any linked Web sites; and
3. assumes no liability of any kind for information contained in any linked Web sites

Your Warranties
You warrant that you are at least 18 years old and posses the legal authority to enter into this agreement and to use this website in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. You agree to be financially responsible for all of your use of this website as well as for the use of your e-mail address on this website by members of your household, including minors living with you. You also warrant that all information supplied by you or members of your household in using this website is true and accurate and given of your own free will after thorough review of the terms and conditions contained herein.

Information Accuracy
The information contained in the pages of the "www.neighborhoodredalert.com " web site (the "Information") has been prepared by "www.neighborhoodredalert.com ", which has taken all reasonable care to ensure that it is fair, accurate and complete, or has been compiled by "www.neighborhoodredalert.com " from sources ("Data Suppliers") believed to be reliable. Neither "www.neighborhoodredalert.com " nor any Data Suppliers make any representations or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any purpose or use of the Information. The Information may not in all cases be current and it is subject to continuous change. "www.neighborhoodredalert.com " and the Data Suppliers do not warrant that the supply of Information will be uninterrupted or error free and will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential loss arising from any use of or reliance on the Information or any portion of www.neighborhoodredalert.com. Individuals relying on the Information assume the risk of its accuracy or lack thereof.

Affirmative Consent
I am giving affirmative consent as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 7702(1) to the use of my e-mail address for the purposes of commercial electronic mail transmission by www.neighborhoodredalert.com or its designee, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and employees affiliate in compliance with 15 U.S.C. §7704.

Use of Information Contained Herein
The Information contained on www.neighborhoodredalert.com does not constitute or form part of an offer, subscription, recommendation or solicitation or to take up any services, nor shall it be relied on in connection with any contract or commitment whatsoever.
You must not distribute any of the Information to any other person without attaching a copy of this page and obtaining the agreement of such other person to comply with the terms set forth in this disclaimer notice. If you distribute any of the Information without attaching a copy of this disclaimer notice or obtaining the agreement of its recipient to comply with the terms set forth you will be liable to indemnify "www.neighborhoodredalert.com " against any costs or other losses arising from any complaint, claims or actions arising directly or indirectly from such distribution.

Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado. All disputes, controversies or differences that may arise between parties out of or in relation to or in connection with this Agreement, or the breach thereof shall be finally settled by applying the laws of the State of Colorado in the Denver District Court of such state.

Indemnification
By using the www.neighborhoodredalert.com web site you agree to indemnify www.neighborhoodredalert.com and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and employees (specifically including GFY Web Services LLC as an affiliate) and hold them harmless from any and all claims and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising from your use of the www.neighborhoodredalert.com web site, your use of the Information, or your submission of ideas and/or related materials to www.neighborhoodredalert.com or from any person, regardless of whether such use is authorized by you. By using www.neighborhoodredalert.com Information, or submitting any ideas and/or related materials to www.neighborhoodredalert.com, you are hereby agreeing to release www.neighborhoodredalert.com and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and employees from any and all claims, demands, debts, obligations, damages (actual or consequential), costs, and expenses of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, that you may have against them arising out of or in any way related to such disputes and/or to the Information or to any disputes regarding use of ideas and/or related materials submitted to www.neighborhoodredalert.com.

Use Restrictions and Liability
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT ANY MATERIAL DOWNLOADED OR OTHERWISE OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF THE www.neighborhoodredalert.com, INCLUDING THE INFORMATION, IS DONE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK AND THAT YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS IN THE DOWNLOAD OF SUCH MATERIAL. YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT www.neighborhoodredalert.com DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, CONTENT, COMPLETENESS, LEGALITY, RELIABILITY, OR OPERABILITY OR AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION OR MATERIAL IN THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OFFERED THROUGH THE www.neighborhoodredalert.com WEBSITE, INCLUDING THE INFORMATION. www.neighborhoodredalert.com DISCLAIMS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DELETION, FAILURE TO STORE, MISDELIVERY, OR UNTIMELY DELIVERY OF ANY INFORMATION OR MATERIAL. www.neighborhoodredalert.com DISCLAIMS ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY HARM RESULTING FROM DOWNLOADING OR ACCESSING ANY INFORMATION OR MATERIAL THROUGH THE SERVICE OR THE www.neighborhoodredalert.com WEBSITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, FOR HARM CAUSED BY VIRUSES OR SIMILAR CONTAMINATION OR DESTRUCTIVE FEATURES. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL www.neighborhoodredalert.com AND/OR OTHER PERSONS CREATING OR TRANSMITTING THE SERVICE AND THE INFORMATION BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DELAY OR FAILURE IN PERFORMANCE RESULTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM ACTS OF NATURE, FORCES, OR CAUSES BEYOND ITS REASONABLE CONTROL, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, INTERNET FAILURES, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FAILURES, TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FAILURES, OTHER EQUIPMENT FAILURES, ELECTRICAL POWER FAILURES, STRIKES, LABOR DISPUTES, RIOTS, INSURRECTIONS, CIVIL DISTURBANCES, SHORTAGES OF LABOR OR MATERIALS, FIRES, FLOODS, STORMS, EXPLOSIONS, ACTS OF GOD, WAR, GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS, ORDERS OF DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN COURTS OR TRIBUNALS, NON-PERFORMANCE OF THIRD PARTIES, OR LOSS OF OR FLUCTUATIONS IN HEAT, LIGHT, OR AIR CONDITIONING.

Loss of or fluctuations in heat, light, or air conditioning? WHAT?! I can't read the rest of it. Just that line. Is there anything else in there that silly?

Suddenly, I'm glad I gave them a 'fake' email address from one of those special throwaway-email, no-signups-necessary type sites.

Anyway, I agreed to not hold them responsible for any fluctuations in air conditioning. And I was not at all surprised by the next page.

Thank you for your interest in NeighborhoodRedAlert.com

At NeighborhoodRedAlert.com we realize that the information we present is easily obtainable for free, from your local or state government. Just use your favorite search engine and search for, state name + "sex offender"

Even if you do not use our service please take the time to seek this information, for the safety of you and your household

Ignorance is bliss, except when it comes to the safety of your familyAs a Father of nine children and Grandfather of ten (so far), I was stunned to find out that 94% of Americans have been to a free sex offender website at one time or another. Only 8% have ever gone back for updated information after intending to do so. 94% proves our good intentions to keep our families safe, the 8% reflects the reality of our busy society.This is where neighborhoodredalert.com provides a crucial service. Did you know that over 1,500 sex offenders have moved or been released in Colorado in the last 6 months? Is one of them your neighbor? Does one live near your child’s school? Does one live near the park where you send them to play? They all live next door to somebody, we feel you should know if it’s near you or someone you care about.We believe it is important for you to know as fast as possible when an offender is released and where in the community the offender will be living. Many of the people that receive the RED ALERT notice are finding out for the first time that they have a sex offender living in close proximity and are now armed with the information needed to protect their families and friends. But what happens in the coming months? These offenders are released or move everyday. If ignored, are you putting your family or friends at greater risk? The offenders that we are putting the spotlight on, are not happy we are doing this. They would just as soon we forget about their offenses and go on with our lives with blinders on---which is always an option.

Neighborhoodredalert.com will monitor your neighborhood constantly so that you don’t have to.

Neighborhoodredalert.com will notify you via e-mail the moment we are made aware a sex offender has moved into your area.

So, they admit that the information can be gotten for free. That's good. So why don't they give it for free? If they want to let people know about sex offenders, why don't they actually let me know? Why don't they post slips of paper with the names and other information?

Because they couldn't possibly make any money off it that way, I guess. And probably because they could get themselves into a lot of trouble with the state and the individuals they're posting information about.

At this point, after going through the state run database, I don't have any fucking clue what's going on. This could be a well-intentioned but misinformed person with poor proof-reading skills posting things on doors, this could be a money-making scheme, or it could be some asshole looking to get a lower price on a house in the area.

I'm not saying it's actually any of these things, though. Please understand that. I'm just...conveying my annoyance at this rather horrible way of notifying a neighbourhood of anything. If anyone is going to attempt to rouse me from my apathetic torpor about anything, there's a couple of things you should know.

1. No typos. Please, for the love of all things ink can be wasted on, proofread your work. It's not even a full page.

2. No scam-lookalikes. If you're attempting to inform me of something terribly important [like a sex offender], do not send me somewhere where some 'trustworthy grandparent' only wants $5 a month for the important information to protect ones self and family. That's just slimy. No decent person should be able to live with themselves if they did this -- and I can say this with certainty because I probably could live with myself, and I'm not a decent person.

3. There's an official state registry. You may not be all that pleased with them, because they actually have a process for evaluating data quality and making sure it's accurate. The people registered there are meant to be on the lists. A clever person actually seeking to warn a neighbourhood and not gain anything but the personal satisfaction of having done a 'good deed' could probably find a way to, say, make a tinyurl that could easily be printed on a little slip of paper with a warning on it. That tinyurl could probably point to the person's file in the sex offender registry -- the free, official one that the state runs.

If I were to get a slip of paper with something pointing me to the official registry, I might take it seriously instead of blogging about it and wondering why I'm not doing more important things.

There's really nothing more I can say about this, except: by viewing this site, you agree to not hold me responsible for any loss of or fluctuations in heat, lights or air conditioning, or for any accidental pregnancies, or anything else that may happen to you.