Jump to content
Zeusthecat

I Had A Random Thought...

Recommended Posts

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is Clint Hawking's masterpiece, not Far Cry 2.

 

Just+back+away+slowly+and.....+RUNNNNNNN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have these automatic soap dispensers in the restroom at my work that make me feel like my hands are being ejaculated on every time I wash them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have these automatic soap dispensers in the restroom at my work that make me feel like my hands are being ejaculated on every time I wash them.

 

When the Blockbuster I used to work for closed down, I took the entire store supply of that weird pearlescent pink industrial restroom handsoap.

 

I haven't bought handsoap in two and a half years. I'm still good for at least another two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the one glory hole to rule them all, one glory hole to find them, one glory hole to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

 

And by "them" I mean penises of course. Okay, I'll stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

something something rat trap in a glory hole something something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Wikipedia still considered an unreliable source of information? I recall all of my professors in college not allowing students to use Wikipedia references in papers because any nutjob could put whatever false information they wanted up there. Honestly though, I can't think of a single instance where I read something on Wikipedia that turned out to be incorrect. I'm sure it happens, I just think it is interesting that the truth seems to have mostly prevailed despite the fears many people had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information for research papers and scholarly works, no.  It can, however, be a good starting point for such things if you're only held to an UG standard - hit the "References" and you'll probably find your way to a good vein of academic/peer reviewed sources more appropriate for such purposes.

 

 

Qualifications:  I have an MS in Library Science which included study of information gathering and expected/actual research behaviors amongst undergraduate students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Wikipedia still considered an unreliable source of information? I recall all of my professors in college not allowing students to use Wikipedia references in papers because any nutjob could put whatever false information they wanted up there. Honestly though, I can't think of a single instance where I read something on Wikipedia that turned out to be incorrect. I'm sure it happens, I just think it is interesting that the truth seems to have mostly prevailed despite the fears many people had.

 

At least in my own field, Wikipedia is not often wrong, per se, but it's not a good source for two reasons: i) its rules for notability predispose it towards older obsolete scholarship that is widely available, and ii) its web-based nature predisposes it towards sources that are freely accessible online. Therefore, if you're lucky, you're getting the hottest research from 1964 on the marquisate of Montferrat, but if you're unlucky, you're reading the 1911 Britannica or Catholic Encyclopedia entry that's the only thing out of copyright.

 

Even in my professional work, I use Wikipedia for names, dates, and places, but I would never take as given any sort of thesis I found there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Library Science" sounds way too awesome and I don't want to know the reality of what it actually is so I didn't finish reading that sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how to repair a book binding!  

 

Or I did until I forgot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in my own field, Wikipedia is not often wrong, per se, but it's not a good source for two reasons: i) its rules for notability predispose it towards older obsolete scholarship that is widely available, and ii) its web-based nature predisposes it towards sources that are freely accessible online. Therefore, if you're lucky, you're getting the hottest research from 1964 on the marquisate of Montferrat, but if you're unlucky, you're reading the 1911 Britannica or Catholic Encyclopedia entry that's the only thing out of copyright.

 

Even in my professional work, I use Wikipedia for names, dates, and places, but I would never take as given any sort of thesis I found there.

 

I can definitely understand the inherent limitations that you mention and don't mean to imply that it is accurate or exhaustive enough to provide all of the information one would need on a topic, especially for academic purposes. I'm just surprised that in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is the internet, that it has managed to maintain the level of accuracy that it has without completely succumbing to the countless shitheads out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia admins are their own special brand of shithead.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, have you tried tales of maj'ejal? you should.

Everyone should. It's my favourite current roguelike by a country mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can definitely understand the inherent limitations that you mention and don't mean to imply that it is accurate or exhaustive enough to provide all of the information one would need on a topic, especially for academic purposes. I'm just surprised that in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is the internet, that it has managed to maintain the level of accuracy that it has without completely succumbing to the countless shitheads out there.

 

Well, if there's one thing for which the internet is good, it's nitpicking over facts. Wikipedia represents the best of that. But still (and sadly) you're probably better picking up a couple books on the topic from your library if you're looking for any sort of depth. And that's not to mention the weird nationalism that's all over any article pertaining to the Balkans and other fractious regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something that's always bothered me about the Buu saga in DragonballZ.

 

First, fat Buu is conjured up and he's all wacky and dangerous. Then, due to the heroic acts of Mister Satan, fat Buu decides he wants to be good and expels the bad part of himself who ends up taking form as a skinny, gray Buu. Then they fight and evil Buu turns fat Buu into a cookie and eats him. This makes evil Buu turn pink and get super strong. Then evil Buu absorbs various heroes and eventually ends up with Goku and Vegeta fighting their way through his innards. As they are freeing the other heroes from Buu's insides, they notice fat Buu and he ends up getting freed too. Then, instead of turning back into gray Buu he turns into kid Buu and he is now the most powerful being in the universe. That shit makes no sense. Either fat Buu should have originally spewed out kid Buu, or evil, pink Buu should have turned back into gray Buu when fat Buu was freed. I'm pretty sure what they did violates the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Also, how much fucking acid was Akira Toriyama consuming when he came up with this shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DBZ should have ended after the Cell saga.  It always bothered me that Goku was always the one who ends up saving the day.  Why bother having a cast of super powerful characters when you really only need one to do fucking everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I totally agree. The Cell Saga was my favorite piece of DragonBallZ content alongside the Saiyan Saga. I definitely tended to like the series best when all the other fighters actually contributed too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toriyama also thinks DBZ should have ended after the Cell saga. As I recall.

 

I think DBZ should've ended before it began, and DB should've ended before Goku got tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toriyama also thinks DBZ should have ended after the Cell saga. As I recall.

 

I think DBZ should've ended before it began, and DB should've ended before Goku got tall.

 

Awww, come on. Then we would have never had Gohan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gohan is complete and utter shit compared to young Goku, in every imaginable way.

 

YOU HEAR ME DRAGONBALL Z

 

YOU SUCK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But without DBZ we never would have had Frieza! And Vegeta! TRUNKS! CELL!

(And teenage me would not have had Android 18... That sentence shall speak for itself and I will not speak further about it.)

 

(Although, with the differences in tone and feel between DB and DBZ, I probably would have been fine with DBZ if it hadn't had anything to do with DB and had been its own series entirely. I still enjoyed it enough that I wouldn't want it to have not existed entirely.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean I loved DBZ when I was a kid so obviously I don't actually want it not to have existed. But it's vastly inferior in my mind.

 

I already went over a lot of this at one point in the anime thread because I tasked myself with watching the entire franchise with a friend. We sort of stopped at the beginning of the Cell saga because it was so boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU! (except the Android 18 part, robots aren't to be trusted)

 

Edit: Not to you Twig, to Ucantalas. Although DB was pretty damn good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×