Ever said anything astoundingly stupid online, or read something amazingly idiotic said by a friend online? Were these quotes the result of a typo, or due to ignorance of some sort? Did these quotes make you seem unintentionally homosexual, involved in an act of incest/bestiality/self humiliation?
Whatever the quote, you were probably glad later that it was just an in-joke to share with the friends who were party to that chat, correct? It's not as though anyone else out there would know about the horrifyingly n008ish thing that you'd said.
Well, that is, unless your friends knew about Bash. Bash.org is a website which does nothing but compile such hilarious quotes, which can be viewed at random, by the latest accepted, or by the top 100-200 by rating from readers.
A sample from the website:
death09>my girlfriend broke up with me and sent me pix of her and her new boyfriend in bed
ktp753>ouch.
death09>yeah.i sent them to her dad
Be warned though, the website may be NSFW as many quotes make it onto the website because they are funny due to sexual/rascist humor, and many contain swearing. Understandably (at least I feel) because most of these quotes were submitted by people talking in mIRC, Instant Messengers, or in MMO's, and many of the submitters were speakers of the 1337.
So, if you consider yourself versed in the language of the nerd, or just enjoy the often unintentional stupidity of others, kill some time reading over at www.bash.org .
*note
You can copy and paste quotes from conversations directly into a "submit" form they have there. If it's stupid or hilarious enough, it may make it onto the site for others to enjoy. Hurrah!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Billy's Balloon
How could I have forgotten to post this!
I apologize, seriously. I meant to post about this when it was first introduced to me, some two weeks back, but I kept forgetting.
In any case, I'm talking about Don Hertzfeldt. Don Hertzfeldt is an animator who, even if you've never heard of him, you've probably seen a reference to his work. For instance, the pop-tart commercials: that's not his work, but it's closely based on his style. In fact, Don has never once made a commercial that actually aired on TV, though he has received world-wide acclaim for his animations and experimental methods.
"World-wide?" You must be thinking, "Then why haven't I ever heard of him?"
Probably because Don believes that commercials are "lies," has a distaste for corporations, and seems to have a genuine appreciation for art and animation purely as a medium through which to express one's self. And what does he express?
Only some of the most twisted, surreal and at times extremely dark humor I have ever been witness to, as well as a talent to touch on emotions and themes we've all experienced and can identify with. Don uses simplistic black and white figures (for instance, Billy, as seen here) and a few accent colors, as well as easy to read facial features to make "stick figures" express more emotion in a shorter space of time than most professionals do in their first tries. Oh, did I mention? Don taught himself how to animate. That's right.
In the world of Hertzfeldt's imagination, balloons viciously attack small children, eyes explode, and sometimes people's legs grow regardless of their body. I highly recommend looking this guy up, and watching a few of his cartoons. Should you have any interest, here's his website, where you can read his journal, buy his stuff, etc., and here are some of my personal favorites, as seen on youtube. Enjoy!
Billy's Balloon
Rejected
Welcome to the show
I apologize, seriously. I meant to post about this when it was first introduced to me, some two weeks back, but I kept forgetting.
In any case, I'm talking about Don Hertzfeldt. Don Hertzfeldt is an animator who, even if you've never heard of him, you've probably seen a reference to his work. For instance, the pop-tart commercials: that's not his work, but it's closely based on his style. In fact, Don has never once made a commercial that actually aired on TV, though he has received world-wide acclaim for his animations and experimental methods.
"World-wide?" You must be thinking, "Then why haven't I ever heard of him?"
Probably because Don believes that commercials are "lies," has a distaste for corporations, and seems to have a genuine appreciation for art and animation purely as a medium through which to express one's self. And what does he express?
Only some of the most twisted, surreal and at times extremely dark humor I have ever been witness to, as well as a talent to touch on emotions and themes we've all experienced and can identify with. Don uses simplistic black and white figures (for instance, Billy, as seen here) and a few accent colors, as well as easy to read facial features to make "stick figures" express more emotion in a shorter space of time than most professionals do in their first tries. Oh, did I mention? Don taught himself how to animate. That's right.
In the world of Hertzfeldt's imagination, balloons viciously attack small children, eyes explode, and sometimes people's legs grow regardless of their body. I highly recommend looking this guy up, and watching a few of his cartoons. Should you have any interest, here's his website, where you can read his journal, buy his stuff, etc., and here are some of my personal favorites, as seen on youtube. Enjoy!
Billy's Balloon
Rejected
Welcome to the show
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Excreta and The Eye
For the past two days, I've been suffering a horrible bout of what I really do hope is just a strain of the flu. Short of mind-searing imagery, I'll describe none of what my body has been expelling via projectile force and instead whine about the headaches, the shivering, the constant chest pain, the dizziness, etc. etc.
My body hasn't rebelled against me like this in years, and I really am quite upset, but as my temperature has finally returned to normal and seems to have leveled off, I hope that this will all be over by tomorrow.
If you've read this far, don't fear! This entry actually isn't all about my illness. I'm actually updating to talk about something I did while ill: my recent viewing of the original "The Eye."
Yes, for those of you that didn't know, "The Eye" is just one more of what seem to be a tidy package of horror remakes coming out of Asia (The Ring (1 and 2), The Grudge (1 and 2), Pulse, One Missed Call, etc). Now, I've had the privilege of watching most of the originals and comparing them to the American remakes, and I'm going to be honest - while the way we in America seem to destroy the story-lines of these movies always makes me feel a little bad, the production values and effects are pretty much always better. (I'm going to ramble a little and say, yeah, I know - our country as an audience are criticized for having weak imaginations concerning what we see on screen, visual dependency and a huge need for plot explanations at every turn, and therefore our effects "need" to be better to make a good movie (I don't believe this is always the case, but the general populace would seem to disagree with me, what with its love of explosions and all). ) In this rare situation though, I passed up on seeing a horror flick - that is, "The Eye" (2008), featuring Jessica Alba. I mostly discounted it because the story seemed so... well, used. Patient receives donor organs, starts doing/seeing odd things via cellular-memory, finds out donor was someone weird, blah blah blah - I can't tell you how many short films and stories out of the '80's and '90's I'd seen or read based on this plot. And it being an American remake, especially one whose previews seemed to promise a lot of jump-scares and action, it just didn't seem worth the cost of a ticket, not to mention the fact that it received absolutely horrible reviews from most critics, both acclaimed and blogger alike.
(For those of you who couldn't figure out the entire movie based on the previews, the movie is about a blind girl who acquires vision through a cornea transplant (I'm a little confused as to how in the world that would work, as the cornea has very little to do with the actual process of seeing, at least to my knowledge - in both movies it seems more like they transplanted the area directly around the pupil, or the iris), only to find that her new vision also allows her to see the spirits of the dead, as well as glimpses of the future, or oncoming tragedies.)
However, when a copy of "Gin Wai (or "Jian Gui")," (2002) that is, the original "The Eye" from Hong Kong, crossed into my hands for a short amount of time (free of cost) I couldn't resist watching it. What a delight! There really were no jump-scares to speak of, but the overall mood was lightly disturbing and highly intriguing. I found myself not so much attached to the main character, as to the ghosts she was seeing (an interesting twist which I'm almost positive was intentional). The artistic direction was also surprisingly strong - color schemes were subtle but constant for each scene and helped direct the mood, and I was forced into a sort of "nearsightedness" by a constant, nearly maddening blurring of the background that wore away as time progressed and, logically, Mun (the name of the main character in the HK original) adjusted to her new vision. While I'm sure I'll be greatly disappointed when I do finally watch the remake, I'm definitely going to rent or purchase it at first opportunity sheerly to see if it is one of the elusive examples of a direct translation of the original but with better effects. Why? Because of the previews! They were, from what I saw while watching the original, nearly frame for frame exactly the same thing.
Below are some of the images I was able to snatch off line based off comparisons I saw in the movie and what was available. I even managed to find some direct video comparisons on YouTube, so enjoy!
(ooh, spooky dead lady at the hospital, she's all blurry!)
(Let's touch the spooky blurry dead lady! Seriously, who reaches out to touch a complete stranger, much less one who is moaning "I'm freezing" in a raspy, death-rattle-ish way, at least leaning forward like that?)
(I don't know what Jessica Alba is doing, but Mun (Angelica Lee) was playing for a Blind Society type thing in her community)
(Feet! The horror!)
(The face that goes with the feet! Oddly, in the original, the old man wasn't bloody, his face was just sort of caved in.)
(Kid jumping out the window. Hmm...)
I really did want to post a comparison shot of this, but couldn't find it - aside from the amazing amount of glass, this exact shot showed up in the original, except with Angelica Lee instead of Jessica Alba (in that version, there were only a few pieces instead of a virtual storm of shrapnel). I just had to post this shot anyway because it really was so very close...
And the videos (make sure to turn up your volume!)
My body hasn't rebelled against me like this in years, and I really am quite upset, but as my temperature has finally returned to normal and seems to have leveled off, I hope that this will all be over by tomorrow.
If you've read this far, don't fear! This entry actually isn't all about my illness. I'm actually updating to talk about something I did while ill: my recent viewing of the original "The Eye."
Yes, for those of you that didn't know, "The Eye" is just one more of what seem to be a tidy package of horror remakes coming out of Asia (The Ring (1 and 2), The Grudge (1 and 2), Pulse, One Missed Call, etc). Now, I've had the privilege of watching most of the originals and comparing them to the American remakes, and I'm going to be honest - while the way we in America seem to destroy the story-lines of these movies always makes me feel a little bad, the production values and effects are pretty much always better. (I'm going to ramble a little and say, yeah, I know - our country as an audience are criticized for having weak imaginations concerning what we see on screen, visual dependency and a huge need for plot explanations at every turn, and therefore our effects "need" to be better to make a good movie (I don't believe this is always the case, but the general populace would seem to disagree with me, what with its love of explosions and all). ) In this rare situation though, I passed up on seeing a horror flick - that is, "The Eye" (2008), featuring Jessica Alba. I mostly discounted it because the story seemed so... well, used. Patient receives donor organs, starts doing/seeing odd things via cellular-memory, finds out donor was someone weird, blah blah blah - I can't tell you how many short films and stories out of the '80's and '90's I'd seen or read based on this plot. And it being an American remake, especially one whose previews seemed to promise a lot of jump-scares and action, it just didn't seem worth the cost of a ticket, not to mention the fact that it received absolutely horrible reviews from most critics, both acclaimed and blogger alike.
(For those of you who couldn't figure out the entire movie based on the previews, the movie is about a blind girl who acquires vision through a cornea transplant (I'm a little confused as to how in the world that would work, as the cornea has very little to do with the actual process of seeing, at least to my knowledge - in both movies it seems more like they transplanted the area directly around the pupil, or the iris), only to find that her new vision also allows her to see the spirits of the dead, as well as glimpses of the future, or oncoming tragedies.)
However, when a copy of "Gin Wai (or "Jian Gui")," (2002) that is, the original "The Eye" from Hong Kong, crossed into my hands for a short amount of time (free of cost) I couldn't resist watching it. What a delight! There really were no jump-scares to speak of, but the overall mood was lightly disturbing and highly intriguing. I found myself not so much attached to the main character, as to the ghosts she was seeing (an interesting twist which I'm almost positive was intentional). The artistic direction was also surprisingly strong - color schemes were subtle but constant for each scene and helped direct the mood, and I was forced into a sort of "nearsightedness" by a constant, nearly maddening blurring of the background that wore away as time progressed and, logically, Mun (the name of the main character in the HK original) adjusted to her new vision. While I'm sure I'll be greatly disappointed when I do finally watch the remake, I'm definitely going to rent or purchase it at first opportunity sheerly to see if it is one of the elusive examples of a direct translation of the original but with better effects. Why? Because of the previews! They were, from what I saw while watching the original, nearly frame for frame exactly the same thing.
Below are some of the images I was able to snatch off line based off comparisons I saw in the movie and what was available. I even managed to find some direct video comparisons on YouTube, so enjoy!
(ooh, spooky dead lady at the hospital, she's all blurry!)
(Let's touch the spooky blurry dead lady! Seriously, who reaches out to touch a complete stranger, much less one who is moaning "I'm freezing" in a raspy, death-rattle-ish way, at least leaning forward like that?)
(I don't know what Jessica Alba is doing, but Mun (Angelica Lee) was playing for a Blind Society type thing in her community)
(Feet! The horror!)
(The face that goes with the feet! Oddly, in the original, the old man wasn't bloody, his face was just sort of caved in.)
(Kid jumping out the window. Hmm...)
I really did want to post a comparison shot of this, but couldn't find it - aside from the amazing amount of glass, this exact shot showed up in the original, except with Angelica Lee instead of Jessica Alba (in that version, there were only a few pieces instead of a virtual storm of shrapnel). I just had to post this shot anyway because it really was so very close...
And the videos (make sure to turn up your volume!)
Saturday, February 16, 2008
The "Creepy Guy": Myth or reality?
Depending on the gender of the person being asked, the answer is almost always a variation on "There are definitely creepy guys out there" (female) or "Women are all just way too uptight" (male - and perhaps a victim of the "creepy guy" label).
Why the difference in views?
One could easily argue the perpetuation of gender stereotypes which finds its way on and off again into media, classroom debates and workplace "sexual harassment" seminars nationwide. The idea something along the lines of "when a guy sleeps with a lot of women, he's a stud - but when a women sleeps with a lot of guys, she's a slut," type thing, which in this situation becomes "when a girl stares and flirts openly with a guy upon meeting him, she's easy - when a guy does it, he's creepy." But does this really cover everything? If it's just a stereotype, why is it that so many people can call up at least one instance of this happening to them? That one person who suddenly came on too quickly - guy or girl - with comments along the lines of "we should totally hook up, do you mind if I get your phone number?" within moments of meeting you, and quite possibly after you made it clear that you weren't interested.
Perhaps it's the result of another stereotype, one which most people automatically assume but don't actually think to themselves - vulnerability. For most men, in any situation - at a party, with friends, at the bar - when a girl comes up and starts flirting with them, there is no sense of danger (unless she happens to be a body builder, that is). The general assumption there is that if he turns her away, he doesn't have to worry about her following him to his car and assaulting him, following him home, etc. Even if she did, so what? What physical danger does a girl present?
While on the female end of this, even if a guy is relatively the same size, the moment most girls are confronted by a flattering, forward guy, motives come into question. A startlingly low number of women are happy with their bodies (should you choose to look it up) and therefore see any sudden flood of positive comments on their bodies or appearances as insincere, and probably an attempt towards an easy lay, etc. And, the vulnerability stereotype here being that a girl is less able to defend herself than a guy, worries concerning how to handle the situation and turn a guy away instantly arise.
Does that mean that when a girl mentally declares a guy "creepy" that she's just defending herself?
Not necessarily.
While nearly every woman out there seems to have something they'd like to change about themselves (dyeing their hair, getting contacts because glasses seem too "bookish," etc), there are always those that quickly get labeled a "bitch" or "ditzy" for being confident or arrogant about their looks. Presumably, these girls being more physically desirable, would get more attention from so called "creepy guys" and have to deal with them more often - but the men, "creepy" or not, who get turned away by these women, are probably understandably upset and label them back in the aforementioned ways.
So what makes a man creepy? A quick search spits back these results:
-Too much too fast
-Staring
-being emotional, touchy-feely or "too personal" before getting to know a girl
etc
However, when one is trying to get into a relationship, isn't that what happens? You do everything you can to get to know a person, and share yourself with them - you want to see them, and you want to tell them everything. So is the creepy guy label the result of a one-sided genuine attempt at forming a relationship?
The undeniable truth is, there are men out there just looking for an easy lay, but there are just as many guys looking for a real relationship who approach a certain girl the wrong way. Not to mention the constant propagation of the idea that all girls grow up with, that all men are just out to get in their pants.
My final thoughts? (Not that you really care)
It's unfortunate that the creepy-guy label exists. There are more important things to worry about. So a girl gave you a weird look and turned you away - chalk it up to experience. So a guy gave you the jitters and made you nervous - don't talk to him. Some people are even proud to be considered creepy.
There are major government cover-ups, corrupt politicians and media, drug-abuse, disease, homelessness, war and - oh no! - work or school on Monday, at least for some of the wanderers reading this. You're worried about the word creepy?
Seriously now. But, after all that, some real humor, regarding creepy guys.
Why the difference in views?
One could easily argue the perpetuation of gender stereotypes which finds its way on and off again into media, classroom debates and workplace "sexual harassment" seminars nationwide. The idea something along the lines of "when a guy sleeps with a lot of women, he's a stud - but when a women sleeps with a lot of guys, she's a slut," type thing, which in this situation becomes "when a girl stares and flirts openly with a guy upon meeting him, she's easy - when a guy does it, he's creepy." But does this really cover everything? If it's just a stereotype, why is it that so many people can call up at least one instance of this happening to them? That one person who suddenly came on too quickly - guy or girl - with comments along the lines of "we should totally hook up, do you mind if I get your phone number?" within moments of meeting you, and quite possibly after you made it clear that you weren't interested.
Perhaps it's the result of another stereotype, one which most people automatically assume but don't actually think to themselves - vulnerability. For most men, in any situation - at a party, with friends, at the bar - when a girl comes up and starts flirting with them, there is no sense of danger (unless she happens to be a body builder, that is). The general assumption there is that if he turns her away, he doesn't have to worry about her following him to his car and assaulting him, following him home, etc. Even if she did, so what? What physical danger does a girl present?
While on the female end of this, even if a guy is relatively the same size, the moment most girls are confronted by a flattering, forward guy, motives come into question. A startlingly low number of women are happy with their bodies (should you choose to look it up) and therefore see any sudden flood of positive comments on their bodies or appearances as insincere, and probably an attempt towards an easy lay, etc. And, the vulnerability stereotype here being that a girl is less able to defend herself than a guy, worries concerning how to handle the situation and turn a guy away instantly arise.
Does that mean that when a girl mentally declares a guy "creepy" that she's just defending herself?
Not necessarily.
While nearly every woman out there seems to have something they'd like to change about themselves (dyeing their hair, getting contacts because glasses seem too "bookish," etc), there are always those that quickly get labeled a "bitch" or "ditzy" for being confident or arrogant about their looks. Presumably, these girls being more physically desirable, would get more attention from so called "creepy guys" and have to deal with them more often - but the men, "creepy" or not, who get turned away by these women, are probably understandably upset and label them back in the aforementioned ways.
So what makes a man creepy? A quick search spits back these results:
-Too much too fast
-Staring
-being emotional, touchy-feely or "too personal" before getting to know a girl
etc
However, when one is trying to get into a relationship, isn't that what happens? You do everything you can to get to know a person, and share yourself with them - you want to see them, and you want to tell them everything. So is the creepy guy label the result of a one-sided genuine attempt at forming a relationship?
The undeniable truth is, there are men out there just looking for an easy lay, but there are just as many guys looking for a real relationship who approach a certain girl the wrong way. Not to mention the constant propagation of the idea that all girls grow up with, that all men are just out to get in their pants.
My final thoughts? (Not that you really care)
It's unfortunate that the creepy-guy label exists. There are more important things to worry about. So a girl gave you a weird look and turned you away - chalk it up to experience. So a guy gave you the jitters and made you nervous - don't talk to him. Some people are even proud to be considered creepy.
There are major government cover-ups, corrupt politicians and media, drug-abuse, disease, homelessness, war and - oh no! - work or school on Monday, at least for some of the wanderers reading this. You're worried about the word creepy?
Seriously now. But, after all that, some real humor, regarding creepy guys.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
You will go crazy.
A couple of years back, a friend introduced me to the website www.bash.org - a great way to kill time, by the way. In case you don't actually feel like checking out the site, it's basically a compilation of quotes gleaned from conversations people have had over any net-based communication. These quotes are generally funny because they seem to be real, and reference unexpected, often ridiculous and sometimes nearly brilliant experiences or thoughts.
There was one quote among these that stuck with me over the years, bothering me time-to-time when it came to mind:
Let's say you have an ax. The kind that you could use, in a pinch, to hack a man's head off...
And let's say that very situation comes up and for some very solid reasons you behead a man.
On the follow-through, though, the handle of the ax snaps in half in a spray of splinters.
So the next day you take it to the ax store down the block and get a new handle, fabricating a story for the guy behind the counter and explaining away the reddish dark stains as barbeque sauce.
Now, that next spring you find in your garage a creature that looks like a cross-bred badger and anaconda. A badgerconda.
And so you grab your trusty ax and chop off one of the beast's heads, but in the process the blade of the ax strikes the concrete floor and shatters.
This means another trip to McMillan & Son's Ax Mart. As soon as you get home with your newly-headed ax, though, you meet the reanimated body of the guy you beheaded last year.
He's also got a new head attached and it's wearing that unique expression of "you're the man who killed me last Spring" resentment that one so rarely encounters in everyday life.
You brandish your ax. He takes a long look at the weapon with his squishy, rotting eyes and in a gargly voice he screams, "that's the same ax that slayed me!"
...Is he right?
I have no idea if I should have heard of this sooner - friends who heard me quote this rather unusual riddle too them seemed to have no idea either. Yet, a quick look with your favorite search engine reveals that this, and similarly worded riddles, have been used in forums for ages. It never occurred to me to look it up before now. The reason for my sudden interest in its origins?
Today while checking the latest page of a favorite web-comic about a Doctor who is also a ninja (www.drmcninja.com), I saw a link at the bottom of the page. I'm not sure what drew me to click it, which given what it led to may be a little concerning, but I discovered the e-book (now apparently also in print, and I plan to buy a copy) "John Dies at The End."
I'm only 16 pages into it at this moment, and I am completely addicted. I have had to take a break to keep my eyes from melting, and my brain from trying to climb out the back of my head to take a breather. But I digress- that strange, nonsense riddle is actually part of the opening to said book (what I have posted above is actually a very shortened version of the full riddle) and pure idiot-babble that it may seem to be at first, it now makes complete sense to me.
The first page of this e-book warns that you will go crazy trying to figure that riddle out - and I had my moment of hesitation, being the paranoid that I am. But now I've started, and I'm going to push through this sucker to the end. Said sucker is a high-speed, often almost stream-of-though novel (which I almost wish was presented as non-fiction to really mess with people) about a man named Dave Wong (not his real name - Wong just happens to be the most common surname on the planet) and his friend John whom, as the titles suggests, is probably going to be dead by the end of the story. Psychics, spirits, ankle-deep pools of feces, talking dogs, people that aren't there, cell-phone bratwursts and monsters emerging from puddles of urine with chin-strap wigs, insinuations as to the aliens, demons, angels and the end of the world - and like I said, I'm only on page 16.
I have never been for stories that do nothing but intrigue - as an audience or a reader, you expect some give, some time to breathe and figure things out, but this story just keeps pushing and pushing and handing you very little. Just enough, in fact, to keep you from giving up altogether. Over 50,000 people have read this e-book to the end, and as a banner on the site proudly proclaims, 97% of people who bought the book on Amazon.com gave it a 5 star rating. I'm sure I'll do the same.
My recommendation? Risk the insanity and read "John Dies at The End."
http://www.johndiesattheend.com/
There was one quote among these that stuck with me over the years, bothering me time-to-time when it came to mind:
I have no idea if I should have heard of this sooner - friends who heard me quote this rather unusual riddle too them seemed to have no idea either. Yet, a quick look with your favorite search engine reveals that this, and similarly worded riddles, have been used in forums for ages. It never occurred to me to look it up before now. The reason for my sudden interest in its origins?
Today while checking the latest page of a favorite web-comic about a Doctor who is also a ninja (www.drmcninja.com), I saw a link at the bottom of the page. I'm not sure what drew me to click it, which given what it led to may be a little concerning, but I discovered the e-book (now apparently also in print, and I plan to buy a copy) "John Dies at The End."
I'm only 16 pages into it at this moment, and I am completely addicted. I have had to take a break to keep my eyes from melting, and my brain from trying to climb out the back of my head to take a breather. But I digress- that strange, nonsense riddle is actually part of the opening to said book (what I have posted above is actually a very shortened version of the full riddle) and pure idiot-babble that it may seem to be at first, it now makes complete sense to me.
The first page of this e-book warns that you will go crazy trying to figure that riddle out - and I had my moment of hesitation, being the paranoid that I am. But now I've started, and I'm going to push through this sucker to the end. Said sucker is a high-speed, often almost stream-of-though novel (which I almost wish was presented as non-fiction to really mess with people) about a man named Dave Wong (not his real name - Wong just happens to be the most common surname on the planet) and his friend John whom, as the titles suggests, is probably going to be dead by the end of the story. Psychics, spirits, ankle-deep pools of feces, talking dogs, people that aren't there, cell-phone bratwursts and monsters emerging from puddles of urine with chin-strap wigs, insinuations as to the aliens, demons, angels and the end of the world - and like I said, I'm only on page 16.
I have never been for stories that do nothing but intrigue - as an audience or a reader, you expect some give, some time to breathe and figure things out, but this story just keeps pushing and pushing and handing you very little. Just enough, in fact, to keep you from giving up altogether. Over 50,000 people have read this e-book to the end, and as a banner on the site proudly proclaims, 97% of people who bought the book on Amazon.com gave it a 5 star rating. I'm sure I'll do the same.
My recommendation? Risk the insanity and read "John Dies at The End."
http://www.johndiesattheend.com/
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The horror
I've always had a fascination with warning labels - especially on toys and machinery. Why? Because they have to try and convey the full extent of what can happen to you yet still not frighten you from buying or using the product. But because like most rules or warnings, they are not preemptive... that's right: That means that if there is a specific warning against something on a product, that probably means that someone, somewhere, did something that the producer now labels that item, and similar items, in the hopes of avoiding future law suits.
Think about that the next time you see an "external use only" label on a untensil.
However, I don't mean to be completely morbid - another reason I enjoy graphic warning labels is because they are so completely absurd. Again, they have to communicate danger to people of any language, so they are utterly simple, so utterly horrifying... yet, more often than not, the "victims" in the images look so much like the "male" symbol on the bathroom door that it looks a little to me as though he got bored, left his post, and paid for his mistake with his life.
Or at least a limb.
Still, while images appeal to me because of the idea of a "universal langue" which should very easily explain why not to use a particular item a particular way, I find that disclaimers, especially for medication, are also often disturbing in their own special way - that's why I've included them in this.
I would also like to mention that I'm not including the "silly" warnings - for instance, "do not feed to fish" (found on a certain brand of dog shampoo) - but warnings which I have seen for myself and caught my attention in some special way.
In any case, enjoy my top 10 favorites.
This is self explanetory. I do, however, want to point out, that this was NOT always present on toys with small parts! While the dangers of giving small children hard candies, nuts, rocks, keys - anything which could easily be ingested and cause asphyxication - have almost always been left up to common sense for parents to decide what is and is not safe for their children to come in contact with, this still means that at some point, a child died because they were given a toy with small, possible detachable or already seperate pieces which they swallowed because someone wasn't thinking. A simple warning, yes, and usually very subtle, but the message is chilling nonetheless.
#9: Caution: wet floor
#8: Toddler drowning
#2: May cause Suicide in teens
Think about that the next time you see an "external use only" label on a untensil.
However, I don't mean to be completely morbid - another reason I enjoy graphic warning labels is because they are so completely absurd. Again, they have to communicate danger to people of any language, so they are utterly simple, so utterly horrifying... yet, more often than not, the "victims" in the images look so much like the "male" symbol on the bathroom door that it looks a little to me as though he got bored, left his post, and paid for his mistake with his life.
Or at least a limb.
Still, while images appeal to me because of the idea of a "universal langue" which should very easily explain why not to use a particular item a particular way, I find that disclaimers, especially for medication, are also often disturbing in their own special way - that's why I've included them in this.
I would also like to mention that I'm not including the "silly" warnings - for instance, "do not feed to fish" (found on a certain brand of dog shampoo) - but warnings which I have seen for myself and caught my attention in some special way.
In any case, enjoy my top 10 favorites.
10: Choking Hazard
This is self explanetory. I do, however, want to point out, that this was NOT always present on toys with small parts! While the dangers of giving small children hard candies, nuts, rocks, keys - anything which could easily be ingested and cause asphyxication - have almost always been left up to common sense for parents to decide what is and is not safe for their children to come in contact with, this still means that at some point, a child died because they were given a toy with small, possible detachable or already seperate pieces which they swallowed because someone wasn't thinking. A simple warning, yes, and usually very subtle, but the message is chilling nonetheless.
#9: Caution: wet floor
Ah, the lawsuits that must have caused this ever familiar sign's existence. The cracked skulls. The broken hips. The bruised dignities. I simply love this warning because it does not appear to me as though the stick-victim is falling: no, he is about to throw down and impress the stick-ladies with his mad break-dancing skills. Bravo, stick-man, bravo.
#8: Toddler drowningAgain, wanderer, the presence of this warning on buckets, large containers and other plastic bins indicates that it has happened at some point or another. This is only #8 because neither is it all that comedic or graphic: it is, however, still disturbing. It is very clear what is happening - a child is climbing or falling into a fluid filled container in which they will presumably drown. Yet, the "no" slash is what draws my attention - who in the world would make the mistake, without the slash, that the picture indicates that a child should be allowed to play in the container, with or without fluids? This suggests to me that somewhere, there is such a parent: woe to their offspring.
#7: May Crush a Limb
This makes #7 because of it's oddly graphic, yet non-graphic approach to warning potential users. A bit like a cartoon character being run over by a steam roller, your limb will apparently become flat but otherwise be fine - still, the idea is painful. An oddly graceful approach to a warning users of common machinery-related injury and that they should be aware of it.
#6: Explosive force
Oh my! Explosives. The verbal equivalent doesn't come anywhere near it: "do not store near heat." I definitely favor the visuals on this one because in no way do those 5 words express the "impact" of what may happen should a compressed gas container be exposed to high temperatures or be punctured while a person is near.
#5: Danger Corrosive Chemical
This one always makes my hands tingle a little. Be it battery acid, polish, a dissolvent or other, the idea of a liquid chemical burning sizzling holes into your flesh - anywhere, really - is just plain horrifying. Yet, the hand shown just seems to be... sitting there. It makes me imagine someone pouring corrosives on a severed hand, or the hand of a dead body or - horror! - a living but catatonic person. How gruesome.
(As a side note, what in the world is that black bar supposed to be? We're torturing chocolate as well? Or are we protesting censorship?)
(As a side note, what in the world is that black bar supposed to be? We're torturing chocolate as well? Or are we protesting censorship?)
#4: Risk of Amputation
Point blank: this machine will cut off any limb in the way of it's moving parts like shears through a hunk of meat. While much more graphic than the usually accepted stick-victim, who in the world drew this? A 6 year old? This is, by the way, a real label found on a crane at a local construction lot.
#3: May Cremate You
Cremate: that is, reduce to ashes. Keep in mind, again, that warnings this specific suggest that somewhere, this actually happened to someone. The machine I found this on specified that, if you were to touch the device while it was in contact with a bare power cable or the like that this would be the result, but the only other labels on the machine were the usual warning against being in its way while it moved, or being in the way or moving parts. It is, in that way, awkward and out of place - making it seem even more so that this may have actually happened. Just imagine! (note: the label pictured is incorrect, will be corrected as soon as possible)
#2: May cause Suicide in teensI understand that teenagers are flooded with chemicals that cause reactions to hormonal treatments that vary from those of most adults past puberty. However, this makes it all the way to #2 for these reasons:
-We are living in a world where so called "anti-depressants" with these effects are still allowed to be given to teens. If there was a children's cough syrup with a warning saying that it may cause violent diarrhea and vomiting, would you still give it to the child?
-The announcer who says this in the commercial sounds just so darn cheery-yet-concerned that it's hilarious - the tone of voice is just so "teens may kill themselves and that's sad, but if this medicine works for you, that'd be great!"
And, my all time favorite:
#1: CONTACT CAN CAUSE DEATH
There is no room for doubt. If you get caught in the moving parts of this machine, you will die. Simple as that. I have seen this on industrial meat grinders, giant blades for certain types of fans, and several chemicals - but this specific label was found on the shield to the blade-tiller on a large tractor. I'm not only curious as to whether or not the human body can actually distort like that without ripping to shreds, but also who this first happened to for the makers to be so sure. Why is it #1? Simply for the shear comedically gruesome nature of the image. Bathroom-logo stick-man down on the farm, got caught in a tiller and died.
My sincere condolences to bathrom-logo stick-woman.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Greetings.
Hello, wanderer
Welcome to the dreamless state. This is what some would call my “hello world!” post - space filler so that my brand-new blog doesn’t look empty and unkempt.
Still, I am brand-new to the blogging game (could it really be called a game? What are the prizes, then? And how does one win?) so excuse me if I ramble a bit. I promise that future posts will have a little more substance - substance being defined as, at the very least, a slightly more entertaining way of killing time.
A little about me - I am female. I will not be posting my age or location, because I am a paranoid female - thus the blog’s title (well, that and I am a Stephen King fan, so hats off to my favorite author). I will also not be posting images of my face. I do this because, fair reader, unlike any other public forum - a shopping center, the street, the coffee shop where a man with dark hair watches me carefully - if you were to look at my face or hear my voice, I might have the chance to do the same, and easily know you were seeing me. In a situation like this, there is very little probability that I’ll ever see your face or know you’ve seen mine. I know, I know - it’s an irrational fear. Countless people see my face every day, and I’ll never know who they are, where they go, or what they do with their waking hours. Yet - there is an appeal to the anonymity of the blog, which I’m sure you understand.
In addition to owner-ship of working ovaries, I thoroughly enjoy dreaming. I’m not one of those new-age types who believes in astral-projection or the like, but I have had some amazing experiences concerning REM sleep. I have found myself lucky enough to have vivid dreams nearly every night, and in most dreams, control of my actions and even the environment around me. So, be forewarned, upcoming posts may be focused completely on odd dreams that I’d like to record or dream related studies I may find online - I have a great love of dreams and dreaming in general.
The last thing I will say here is that I’m very fond of all sorts of art - musical, digital, physical - myself, I love sketching, painting, ect: I also dabble in digital art. In addittion, I enjoy creating puppets and recently became interested in small scale sculpture and jointed-doll making (photos hopefully to come soon). So, excuse me if some of my posts become cluttered with images of what I may be working on, or something that I have seen recently.
All in all, I’d just like to thank you for taking the time to read this n008’5 post, and hope you’ll return again some time soon to pass the waking hours.
As an added goodie, here is a short-film adaptation of one of my favorite poems - by Mr. King - Paranoid: A chant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pMwSqqc9Ws
Welcome to the dreamless state. This is what some would call my “hello world!” post - space filler so that my brand-new blog doesn’t look empty and unkempt.
Still, I am brand-new to the blogging game (could it really be called a game? What are the prizes, then? And how does one win?) so excuse me if I ramble a bit. I promise that future posts will have a little more substance - substance being defined as, at the very least, a slightly more entertaining way of killing time.
A little about me - I am female. I will not be posting my age or location, because I am a paranoid female - thus the blog’s title (well, that and I am a Stephen King fan, so hats off to my favorite author). I will also not be posting images of my face. I do this because, fair reader, unlike any other public forum - a shopping center, the street, the coffee shop where a man with dark hair watches me carefully - if you were to look at my face or hear my voice, I might have the chance to do the same, and easily know you were seeing me. In a situation like this, there is very little probability that I’ll ever see your face or know you’ve seen mine. I know, I know - it’s an irrational fear. Countless people see my face every day, and I’ll never know who they are, where they go, or what they do with their waking hours. Yet - there is an appeal to the anonymity of the blog, which I’m sure you understand.
In addition to owner-ship of working ovaries, I thoroughly enjoy dreaming. I’m not one of those new-age types who believes in astral-projection or the like, but I have had some amazing experiences concerning REM sleep. I have found myself lucky enough to have vivid dreams nearly every night, and in most dreams, control of my actions and even the environment around me. So, be forewarned, upcoming posts may be focused completely on odd dreams that I’d like to record or dream related studies I may find online - I have a great love of dreams and dreaming in general.
The last thing I will say here is that I’m very fond of all sorts of art - musical, digital, physical - myself, I love sketching, painting, ect: I also dabble in digital art. In addittion, I enjoy creating puppets and recently became interested in small scale sculpture and jointed-doll making (photos hopefully to come soon). So, excuse me if some of my posts become cluttered with images of what I may be working on, or something that I have seen recently.
All in all, I’d just like to thank you for taking the time to read this n008’5 post, and hope you’ll return again some time soon to pass the waking hours.
As an added goodie, here is a short-film adaptation of one of my favorite poems - by Mr. King - Paranoid: A chant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pMwSqqc9Ws
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)