Why ??!!...The whinging,moaning,complaining,ranting,letting off steam thread !!

1606163656689

Comments

  • Posts: 9,767
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    I keep a bottle of clove oil in the cabinet, and have used it many times.

    Never heard of clove oil, but it might be useful to have handy!

    "Is it not remarkable? Simple oil of cloves and how amazing the results. Life can be that simple. Relief, discomfort. Now which of these I next apply, that decision is in your hands." :)

    Had to look up that quote, and saw it was from Marathon Man. Might be watching that film tonight!

    Only if it's safe to do so. ;)

    It's a great film. I've got it on Blu-ray and I need to watch it on that new format as I've only seen it on DVD before.

    It was safe. ;)
    Great film too. Don't know why it's taken me soo long to watch Marathon Man again.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ah dentists I had a dentist who was a terrorist sympathizer and pulled out a tooth in very marathon man style trust me it was not fun….

    Oh, I'm glad my dentist is of the more careful type! Sounds like a nasty one this former dentist of yours.

    Yeah I feel I should get a tshirt

    I have been tortured by an isis sympathizer and all I got was this t shirt
  • Risico007 wrote: »
    Ah dentists I had a dentist who was a terrorist sympathizer and pulled out a tooth in very marathon man style trust me it was not fun….


    On a lesser note two silly complaints

    1. Why can’t I beat goldeneye in 00 agent
    2. How many fricking dead tribute shows are there in CT

    00 agent mode is tough. Some levels do feel next to impossible. I'd suggest looking up some playthroughs on YouTube and seeing if there are any tricks, techniques, routes, or strategies you hadn't thought of that might make a particular level easier to beat for you.
  • Posts: 9,767
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ah dentists I had a dentist who was a terrorist sympathizer and pulled out a tooth in very marathon man style trust me it was not fun….


    On a lesser note two silly complaints

    1. Why can’t I beat goldeneye in 00 agent
    2. How many fricking dead tribute shows are there in CT

    00 agent mode is tough. Some levels do feel next to impossible. I'd suggest looking up some playthroughs on YouTube and seeing if there are any tricks, techniques, routes, or strategies you hadn't thought of that might make a particular level easier to beat for you.
    I am currently going back and forth between jungle and Caveran as they seem the two most likely too beat

    Then of course I have Train and Control which are the hardest

    Then cradle and Aztec
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 6,844
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ah dentists I had a dentist who was a terrorist sympathizer and pulled out a tooth in very marathon man style trust me it was not fun….


    On a lesser note two silly complaints

    1. Why can’t I beat goldeneye in 00 agent
    2. How many fricking dead tribute shows are there in CT

    00 agent mode is tough. Some levels do feel next to impossible. I'd suggest looking up some playthroughs on YouTube and seeing if there are any tricks, techniques, routes, or strategies you hadn't thought of that might make a particular level easier to beat for you.
    I am currently going back and forth between jungle and Caveran as they seem the two most likely too beat

    Then of course I have Train and Control which are the hardest

    Then cradle and Aztec

    For Train, I'd say learn where all the enemies are and how many because I feel like there's a set number in that level. Towards the end one or two will come out of a locked door you've passed, so just know when you have to check behind you. When you come up to the guys with the ZMGs let them come to you. Don't try to firefight them in the open and don't take on more than one at a time.

    For Control, when you're defending Natalya, try to pick the guys off from afar as they come down the central stairs to minimize the amount of coverage you have to do to your far left and right.

    For Cradle, I feel like you just have to get lucky in terms of how long Trevelyan decides to take before the level enters the endgame. The longer you have to chase him the less likely you are to succeed.

    For Aztec, may God be with you.
  • Posts: 2,894
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They want to make a live action remake of HTTYD. Why oh why? And why now?
    https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2023/feb/17/how-to-train-your-dragon-live-action-remake-week-in-geek-shrek

    Because Disney has been doing it, and no matter how awful and pointless their remakes have been, they still make money.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,782
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They want to make a live action remake of HTTYD. Why oh why? And why now?
    https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2023/feb/17/how-to-train-your-dragon-live-action-remake-week-in-geek-shrek

    Because Disney has been doing it, and no matter how awful and pointless their remakes have been, they still make money.

    And that's what it's all about in the end analysis. Critical reception be damned!
  • Posts: 14,816
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They want to make a live action remake of HTTYD. Why oh why? And why now?
    https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2023/feb/17/how-to-train-your-dragon-live-action-remake-week-in-geek-shrek

    Because Disney has been doing it, and no matter how awful and pointless their remakes have been, they still make money.

    Bloody hate it all the same.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    Critics reject changes to Roald Dahl books as censorship

    https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/critics-reject-roald-dahl-books-censorship-97322799

    I do too. I mean, what the hell!? The man is dead. You do not alter a writer's words without his consent.
  • Posts: 12,251
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Critics reject changes to Roald Dahl books as censorship

    https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/critics-reject-roald-dahl-books-censorship-97322799

    I do too. I mean, what the hell!? The man is dead. You do not alter a writer's words without his consent.

    It’s total BS. Mind-boggling that anyone would think it’s a good idea. Everyone I’ve talked to about it agrees censorship is dumb.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    FoxRox wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Critics reject changes to Roald Dahl books as censorship

    https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/critics-reject-roald-dahl-books-censorship-97322799

    I do too. I mean, what the hell!? The man is dead. You do not alter a writer's words without his consent.

    It’s total BS. Mind-boggling that anyone would think it’s a good idea. Everyone I’ve talked to about it agrees censorship is dumb.

    I just don't get it. What are they hoping to achieve?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,984
    They obviously seek to eliminate past and future thought on a wide scale.

  • Posts: 12,251
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Critics reject changes to Roald Dahl books as censorship

    https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/critics-reject-roald-dahl-books-censorship-97322799

    I do too. I mean, what the hell!? The man is dead. You do not alter a writer's words without his consent.

    It’s total BS. Mind-boggling that anyone would think it’s a good idea. Everyone I’ve talked to about it agrees censorship is dumb.

    I just don't get it. What are they hoping to achieve?

    That’s basically a good quick summary. I can rant about censorship and banning for hours, but it boils down to that. It does nothing good whatsoever. Only bad.
  • Posts: 14,816
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Critics reject changes to Roald Dahl books as censorship

    https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/critics-reject-roald-dahl-books-censorship-97322799

    I do too. I mean, what the hell!? The man is dead. You do not alter a writer's words without his consent.

    Between newspeak and Bowderlization.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2023 Posts: 2,919
    When these people first read 1984, do you think any of them imagined they'd end up willingly rewriting books to suit the prevailing agenda? Do you think any of them would even accept that this is what they're doing? Justification through Doublethink. Not for the first time, I wish George had been a bit less right about things.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    Venutius wrote: »
    When these people first read 1984, do you think any of them imagined they'd end up willingly rewriting books to suit the prevailing agenda? Do you think any of them would even accept that this is what they're doing? Justification through Doublethink. Not for the first time, I wish George had been a bit less right about things.

    @Venutius correctly points out the Orwellian nightmare this is feeling like. I mean, these adjustments are minor, but it's the principle behind it all that upsets me. You just don't take words out of a book, meanwhile assuming that other people, even if they are kids, are somehow incapable of putting things in the proper context.
  • Posts: 12,251
    1984 is my favorite book of all time and brilliant all around, but one of my favorite aspects is how the main force of evil is simply called “The Party.” Because people from any political party can be / become corrupt and stand for the harmful things that The Party in 1984 does. Censorship, history rearranging, invasion of privacy, etc. are not unique to any one group. Looking at the two main political parties in the US, both Republicans and Democrats have done plenty to drive us towards Orwell’s bleak vision. My biggest question is how many of them realize it, and if so, if that’s what the world they truly want for us all.
  • Posts: 372
    I highly doubt any of these people have ever even read 1984.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,984
    Or Animal Farm.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2023 Posts: 23,524
    Or a history book?

    Now, I understand that these books are aimed at children, but just imagine the Flemings got the same treatment. What would the description of Rosa Klebb be like if we can no longer call characters fat or ugly? ;-)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,949
    What I love about Dahl--and there is a lot not to love, for sure--is that he stood for one undeniable truth:

    Children can be brats, or worse. They're not perfect little beings.
  • Posts: 14,816
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Or a history book?

    Now, I understand that these books are aimed at children, but just imagine the Flemings got the same treatment. What would the description of Rosa Klebb be like if we can no longer call characters fat or ugly? ;-)

    Or just imagine 1984 Bowdlerised. Or A Clockwork Orange.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    echo wrote: »
    What I love about Dahl--and there is a lot not to love, for sure--is that he stood for one undeniable truth:

    Children can be brats, or worse. They're not perfect little beings.

    Exactly. And removing certain words from their literary vocabulary isn't going to turn the school playground into an oasis of unconditional peace and friendship.
  • Posts: 12,251
    echo wrote: »
    What I love about Dahl--and there is a lot not to love, for sure--is that he stood for one undeniable truth:

    Children can be brats, or worse. They're not perfect little beings.

    I’ve known plenty of rotten people in my life, but many of the cruelest were children.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2023 Posts: 2,919
    'Language corrupts thought', as Orwell said in 1984 - by trying to control the language that kids are exposed to, they're evidently trying to shape the way kids think so that it accords with an accepted narrative. That's insidious, it really is. Talk about a slippery slope.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,673
    The German edition of Astrid Lindgren's "Pippi Longstocking" trilogy, written in the late 1940s, now no longer describes her father Capt. Ephraim Longstocking as a "negro king" (the German equivalent word, of course) in the South Sea, but simply as a "South Sea King". I must say that even as a child, when first reading it in the early 1960s, I was surprised how there could be a "negro king" in the South Sea, since for me "negroes" came only from Africa. Nevertheless, this is probably yet another example of purging a classic piece of literature for political correctness.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2023 Posts: 23,524
    @Venutius and @j_w_pepper , very well put, gents!

    I am not too worried myself. In the end, the forbidden fruit always tastes best. People will seek out the uncensored version of something, and in the age of the Internet, will find it too. Publishers will notice that and be forced to release both versions. In the end, it is all about the money. Take Kubrick's Spartacus. Who cares about the censored version these days? The only version you can buy is the uncensored film. Because in the end, that's what people want. If my son wants to read Dahl at some point, I will happily supply him with the original books. And discuss with him whatever he wants to talk about-- a lost art, if you ask me.
  • Posts: 14,816
    A friend of mine made a good point recently about this: part of the fun of Dahl's writing for children is the transgression in it. They are cheeky, sometimes naughty, they say rude words, are up to mischief, they distrust authority figures, etc. They are not perfect, polished little beings. You take that transgression away, you are pretty much siding with the witches.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2023 Posts: 2,919
    Yes, that's definitely part of the appeal that these books have for kids. I think that's why DarthDimi's right that measures like this won't actually have the effect that the censors think it will - because kids have always responded to that mischievous, transgressive element and if there's a sanitised version and a 'naughty' version, it's the latter that will always appeal to them.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2023 Posts: 23,524
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, that's definitely part of the appeal that these books have for kids. I think that's why DarthDimi's right that measures like this won't actually have the effect that the censors think it will - because kids have always responded to that mischievous, transgressive element and if there's a sanitised version and a 'naughty' version, it's the latter that will always appeal to them.

    Thank you, yes. What's more, the changes made are positively ridiculous. A few examples:
    1. The word "ugly", in relation to a person (e.g. "an ugly woman"), is removed. Why, though? To keep children from calling other people "ugly"? The world of children is boxed; they see things pretty black and white -- tall and short, young and old, cool and stupid. A nuanced perspective on society is something we must all learn to achieve over the span of decades. Ergo, children will also think of some people as good-looking and others as ugly. And if they lack the vocabulary, then they will still say "not good-looking", while the message remains the same. You can try to unteach certain words, but children will still get the idea across. Plenty of words to choose from, including antonyms of the positive ones. If necessary, "not good-looking" will simply become the new insult.

      (Same comment about "fat".)

    2. The Oompa Loompas are now gender-neutral. Why, though? Apart from the fact that they were vastly different in their original conception, one might ask why gender even matters in this context. Dahl ultimately settled for these strangely amusing little guys. We never zoom in on their biology, procreation, or anything of the kind -- whether they are male, female, something else, or nothing at all, it does not matter. Grumpy, dwarfish men merely serve as a caricature. Whoever decides that this is a missed opportunity to promote gender neutrality in real life, has priorities all wrong.
    3. The witches wear wigs. Of course they do, because they are bald. New prints of the book will now include additional text (!), explaining that people who wear wigs may as well be cancer patients. Look, where are the parents in this context? Aren't parents supposed to teach their children that one's appearance is no laughing matter, and certainly when you don't know anything about the other person? Someone looks funny to little Timmy, well, then little Timmy must learn not to burst out in laughter. Surely, we don't need extra lines in old books to teach children such lessons. Are we going to interrupt Disney movies too now, freezing the frame for a public announcement?

    Talk about sucking the fun out of a book! But there's more. What really has me upset is the fact that children are considered dumb, vacuous little creatures who must live in blissful ignorance about certain things rather than learn about the harsh facts of life and how to cope with things, or how to judge bad things, or how to separate fiction from reality. A child cannot become a good person in a vacuum, shielded from all that (apparently) is bad. Rather, every "good" person has had to learn from personal experiences, many of which were unpleasant. A child has to say bad things, and then remorsefully understand that such things are best not repeated. Allow children to make mistakes, to be both the sender as well as the receiver of clumsily put, negative statements. Only then can it grow into adulthood. A perfectly sterile environment in which we pretend that "an ugly woman" is a phrase that doesn't exist, is no place to raise a child.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,949
    Venutius wrote: »
    'Language corrupts thought', as Orwell said in 1984 - by trying to control the language that kids are exposed to, they're evidently trying to shape the way kids think so that it accords with an accepted narrative. That's insidious, it really is. Talk about a slippery slope.

    The thing about calls for censorship is that they are currently coming from both sides: the left wants more inclusive language for certain groups (women, gays, trans), while the right wants to eliminate certain groups from the discussion (you guessed it--women, gays, trans).

    We are at a weird point in history. I hope we're not revisiting the 1930s but it sure feels that way sometimes.
Sign In or Register to comment.