• Anonymous Coward (unregistered) in reply to IT Girl

    Just a huge amount of makeup

  • Wyrd-Mr.CantTellJokeFromSeriousToday (unregistered)

    And that, dear reader, is why you must always be very careful what you write and how you read what someone else has written.

    -- Furry cows moo and decompress.

  • A. N. Mouse (unregistered) in reply to IT Girl
    IT Girl:
    Preston Sumner:
    Eyrieowl:
    Just Some Guy:
    OK, I'm far from being a politically correct treehugger, but a picture of a bruised woman who had presumably been "beaten into submission" is pretty awful.

    Yeah, that picture...I thought the pictures were supposed to be adding to the humor of the story, not horrifying the reader. It...verges on inappropriate, and certainly doesn't help the joke out.

    Are you people being serious?

    I can't speak for them, but I'm serious. That photo is disturbing and really detracts from an amusing story about how easily people can misunderstand each other. I don't see a misunderstanding in that photo.

    Well. As long as we are talking about what we see in the photo. What I see is a woman wearing a lot of makeup. Some women are just better at putting it on in an attractive manner. :D

    make-up and style by: FAM - school of artistic make-up, Warsaw, Poland

    Why are we offended and disturbed so easily? Are you this offended when you see men battered and bruised? How about when you see it in a movie? In a comedy?

    And why assume the worst?

    Life is fun! Quit trying to be mad! If fewer people assume the worst then there will be fewer people desiring retaliation for misunderstandings and making the worst, worse.

  • (cs) in reply to Kazan
    Kazan:
    Matt:
    Kazan:
    a lot of people here don't know the difference between "Feminism" and "Feminazism"

    that's ok.. the Feminazis don't know the difference either... but BOY are the real Feminists ever pissed about it.

    (feminism was about gender equality, not about "omg men suck")

    Just like how Environmentalism was about the environment, but now it's nothing more than an excuse to be used against capitalism and for Statism.

    So when I tell people I'm an Environmentalist they react like I'm some Leftie. That's when it's helpful to say "I'm a REAL environmentalist. That means I actually do spend time in the woods and want to preserve them; not just stand in front of an EPA office with banners and slogans chanting about mother Gia."

    *sigh*

    your first sentence makes me thing you're a Climate Change Denier (The modern Flat Earther). Sad. A real environmentalist (like you claim to be) would realize that a 50% increase in what is the steady state of the carbon load in earths atmosphere since the industrial revolution, with no explanation except anthropomorphic sources, is a problem.

    All I really want is to have people call the facts, observations and experimental results "science" call the extrapolations and simulations which are based on sound data "projections" or "theories" and call the random extrapolations based on virtually nothing "trash".

    The majority of what Al Gore proposed is under the "trash" category. "Global Warming is occurring" is the science category. The effects of this are either the theory category or the trash category, depending on the specific effect. "a 50% increase in what is the steady state of the carbon load in earths atmosphere" is the science category (I'm assuming that's actually a valid stat, I don't care enough to verify it) "no explanation except anthropomorphic sources" is, at best, theory. Go ahead prove that increased solar flares haven't caused a slightly higher temperature which has caused the ocean to retain less CO2.

  • Anon Cow Orker (unregistered)

    I like to get all my political and science facts from a tech blog where people fight about typing FRIST

  • IT Girl (unregistered) in reply to A. N. Mouse

    [quote user="A. N. Mouse"][quote user="IT Girl"]

    Well. As long as we are talking about what we see in the photo. What I see is a woman wearing a lot of makeup. Some women are just better at putting it on in an attractive manner. :D

    [quote] make-up and style by: FAM - school of artistic make-up, Warsaw, Poland[/quote]

    Why are we offended and disturbed so easily? Are you this offended when you see men battered and bruised? How about when you see it in a movie? In a comedy?

    And why assume the worst?

    Life is fun! Quit trying to be mad! If fewer people assume the worst then there will be fewer people desiring retaliation for misunderstandings and making the worst, worse. [/quote]

    I didn't say offended. I said it was disturbing. It's intended to be disturbing that's what the make-up and the expression on her face are for. So yes, when I see it in a movie, I am equally disturbed if those involved in the movie do their jobs well enough. That doesn't make me mad, or even angry. But the picture is not fun and I doubt it was intended to be fun. The story on the other hand is quite amusing. Thereby making the juxtaposition of the remarkable. Hence the reason so many of us remarked.

  • Anon Cow Orker (unregistered)
  • (cs)

    Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Except it wasn't in a professional environment, but in a social one. Girl took whatever I wrote completely out of context and what was a simple request of mine ("Could you please send this to me a day earlier next time?" - it wouldn't be a big deal for her) became a rispid attack on her, acidly replied with copies to a dozen of our friends. It had been a long time since the last time my blood boiled like that.

  • Ahox (unregistered) in reply to hatterson
    hatterson:
    "no explanation except anthropomorphic sources" is, at best, theory. Go ahead prove that increased solar flares haven't caused a slightly higher temperature which has caused the ocean to retain less CO2.

    C. Froelich, "Total solar irradiance during the last three cycles: What does the low present solar minimum tell us about long-term trends?", AGU, 2008. I hope that's the right paper, anyway. I can't check right now. The author is the right one, for sure. And the time is right, too

  • MetaMan (unregistered)

    ...the code between us and Tammy Burns needs to be placed on a wooden table, taken a picture of, and ...

  • (cs)

    This one hits close to home.

    I was in my third year, position, and department at a computer software vendor in the healthcare field. Excel and Word macro viruses had just been invented and had started to spread like wildfire.

    After the bazillionth email in a row from administration with an attachment containing a macro virus, I (young and foolish) did a Reply All and pointed out the problem, trying to escalate the issue so someone would finally deal with it. I pointed out what you could do to detect and remove the macro virus, and I suggested that someone do something about it systematically before more company PCs became similarly infected.

    I got called into the department director's office because, for some reason the administrative staff interpreted my email to say that THEY THEMSELVES had viruses.

  • titter.com (unregistered)

    Noone ever believes me when I say that the modern Western society is doomed. There you have it. Noone even tried to read a message before responding to it in the most inappropriate way imaginable.

    For those of you who still can't see the problem - it means that the IQ of an average company manager or any other higher-up is placed somewhere between an anencephalic fetus and an amoeba.

    People can't even read anymore. This is so pathetic beyond any words that I don't longer even feel angered by the fact that we're doomed. I doubt there are even phrases that could express what one feels when reading such a story - no matter how cleverly constructed and imaginatively worded.

    God damn it, I just want to strangle someone.

  • Buffled (unregistered) in reply to Jon Doe
    Jon Doe:
    She clearly stated "especially when it's directed towards women". That's what I meant by feminism... Threats of violence should not be trated any more specially if they're directed towards a woman, it's the same thing regardless who it's directed to.
    Or whom it's directed against, for that matter.
  • (cs)

    I don't see any comments on the email's problem being the unanticipated systematic insertion of line breaks...

  • (cs) in reply to IT Girl
    IT Girl:
    Preston Sumner:
    Eyrieowl:
    Just Some Guy:
    OK, I'm far from being a politically correct treehugger, but a picture of a bruised woman who had presumably been "beaten into submission" is pretty awful.

    Yeah, that picture...I thought the pictures were supposed to be adding to the humor of the story, not horrifying the reader. It...verges on inappropriate, and certainly doesn't help the joke out.

    Are you people being serious?

    I can't speak for them, but I'm serious. That photo is disturbing and really detracts from an amusing story about how easily people can misunderstand each other. I don't see a misunderstanding in that photo.

    This story is XKCD enabled. Try a little mouse-over action for additional information.

  • Buffled (unregistered) in reply to Satanicpuppy
    Satanicpuppy:

    In short, there is no grammar problem with the sentence. The only problem is that the prepositional phrase is klunky and unnecessary. "The code needs to be beaten into submission" is more than sufficient. If you really have to have more, use a real adjective (e.g. "the (something) code needs to be beaten into submission") rather than using the crappy prepositional-phrase-acting-as-adjective thing.

    It's purely a style thing.

    I agree that there's no grammar problem, but that sentence does not have the same meaning with your proposed alteration. "The (something) code" is too general, whereas he was specifically referring to code of unknown ownership.

  • Buffled (unregistered) in reply to Thuktun
    Thuktun:
    This one hits close to home. -snip-

    I got called into the department director's office because, for some reason the administrative staff interpreted my email to say that THEY THEMSELVES had viruses.

    I have a strong suspicion that your email said "you have a virus" or "your spreading the virus" and not "your computer has a virus that you need to address". Taking "technical" terminology usage for granted when using it among a non-technical crowd can reasonably cause that problem. I don't see that as nearly WTFy as this issue, since all ANYONE had to do was read the complete sentence.

  • (cs)

    Why did he even send this email to Tammie when it was Tamme who broke the code? Also that picture is just terrible; maybe you can fix it when you finish the article. (It just kinda cuts off partway through a sentence there.)

  • Tolvak (unregistered) in reply to kastein

    No need to be sorry, that was lovely :)

  • m0ffx (unregistered) in reply to A. N. Mouse
    A. N. Mouse:
    Well. As long as we are talking about what we see in the photo. What I see is a woman wearing a lot of makeup. Some women are just better at putting it on in an attractive manner. :D

    It took until the third page of comments before someone bothered reading the tooltip. Sharpen up, people.

  • Knee jerk much (unregistered)

    This is typical knee-jerk behavior in our PC-dominated world. Hardly an isolated incident, any perceived transgression of PC-ism results in immediate escalation. Do not pass go. Escalate to the highest levels immediately.

  • m0ffx (unregistered) in reply to hatterson
    hatterson:
    All I really want is to have people call the facts, observations and experimental results "science" call the extrapolations and simulations which are based on sound data "projections" or "theories" and call the random extrapolations based on virtually nothing "trash".

    The majority of what Al Gore proposed is under the "trash" category. "Global Warming is occurring" is the science category. The effects of this are either the theory category or the trash category, depending on the specific effect. "a 50% increase in what is the steady state of the carbon load in earths atmosphere" is the science category (I'm assuming that's actually a valid stat, I don't care enough to verify it) "no explanation except anthropomorphic sources" is, at best, theory. Go ahead prove that increased solar flares haven't caused a slightly higher temperature which has caused the ocean to retain less CO2.

    READ THE IPCC REPORTS

  • Annoy (unregistered) in reply to Da' Man

    The real Wtf is that there's not enough space between nbsp and and and and and Tammie

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    It took until the third page of comments before someone bothered reading the tooltip. Sharpen up, people.
    It's not like WTFs usually have tooltipped images. So why bother looking for it?
  • (cs)

    Hated the picture. Really hated it. Had to stare away from it and couldn't wait to scroll down. Felt scummy for reading on, but needed to speak my mind.

    Call your mother.

  • (cs) in reply to Satanicpuppy
    Satanicpuppy:
    ZaM:
    better line: "but the code between us and Tammie Burns must be studied and redone"

    Sadly agreed. I winced when I read the "beaten" line, not because I had poor reading comprehension, like everyone in this poor bastards company, but because adding phrases like "beaten into submission" into a mass email never ends well. Ever.

    Someone will always take offense. The more pissed you are, the more you need to sanitize your communications. People know that I am irate when the reply email is one terse "see spot run" sentence without subclauses or complex objects. "The problem was in code A. I have applied a hotfix. There will be a performance cost until the final fix can be applied."

    Zzzzzzzzzzziinnnnnngg!! Right over top of your head, buddy.

  • Buzzard (unregistered) in reply to rast
    rast:
    Just Some Guy:
    OK, I'm far from being a politically correct treehugger, but a picture of a bruised woman who had presumably been "beaten into submission" is pretty awful.

    She fell down the stairs.

    OMG too funny, my mouthful of coffee just exited via my nose when I read this comment.

  • dman (unregistered) in reply to Anon Cow Orker

    Now who said jokes about violence were never funny? That's a zinger! :-B

  • dman (unregistered) in reply to Anon Cow Orker
    Anon Cow Orker:
    I'd hit it!
    D'OH! I was referring to the above quote - which I failed to quote :(
  • bex (unregistered) in reply to ubersoldat

    actually... if I was fired because of this, that would be a wrongful termination lawsuit. If all 5 folks on that email chain didn't want to look like idiots on the stand because they can't frigging read, then they'd settle.

  • Jeff (unregistered) in reply to ZaM

    ... Tammie Burns must be lubricated and massaged until we can get it to fit in smoothly...

  • peter parker (unregistered) in reply to campkev
    campkev:
    As I read the part about his boss freaking out I knew it was going to be related to the "beaten into submission" part of his email.

    Really?? You figured that part out yourself did you?? So the name of the article didn't make it clear enough for you?

  • peter parker (unregistered) in reply to Dan Wiebe
    Dan Wiebe:
    Wow. My first submission, published. I'm surprised at the degree to which it was fictionalized.

    I should clarify, in case somebody who knows her reads this, that Tammie Burns was not the developer responsible for the problem. I don't know who that developer was. She was the manager of the group responsible for producing the data, and I was in the group responsible for consuming it. Between the two groups, it went into Never-Never Land and came back, and somewhere in Never-Never Land was the place where the CR character was helpfully being added.

    That's why I said "the code between us and Tammie Burns" rather than "Tammie Burns' code."

    Just sayin'...

    ATTABOY!

  • WTFiswithWTFreaders (unregistered) in reply to Dan Wiebe

    From the article: "Tamme Burns, the developer responsible for the loader, decided to add..."

    From your follow-up: "Tammie Burns was not the developer responsible for the problem..."

    Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

  • (cs) in reply to campkev
    campkev:
    If you have a problem with a co-worker, you should talk about it with THEM. If you talk to them and can't resolve the situation, THEN go talk to a supervisor. It's called acting like an adult. Few things in the workplace piss me off more than when people have a problem with something I do and aren't man or woman enough to just talk to me about it.

    I've worked in places where I tried that, and got dinged by management for being "confrontational". Talking to your own supervisor first is the option least likely to result in negative consequences for you.

    If your supervisor then says "Look, just go talk to X about it and work it out", then you have a defense if things go badly -- but you want to make sure your supervisor has talked to their supervisor first, and probably to all levels of management above them up to the person who both chains of management converge at, so that you and your manager don't get dinged by their management for "ganging up" on the other person.

    I have to play this game all the time where I work -- it's one reason a lot of people there are actively and openly hunting other jobs.

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered) in reply to Kazan
    Kazan:
    Matt:
    Kazan:
    a lot of people here don't know the difference between "Feminism" and "Feminazism"

    that's ok.. the Feminazis don't know the difference either... but BOY are the real Feminists ever pissed about it.

    (feminism was about gender equality, not about "omg men suck")

    Just like how Environmentalism was about the environment, but now it's nothing more than an excuse to be used against capitalism and for Statism.

    So when I tell people I'm an Environmentalist they react like I'm some Leftie. That's when it's helpful to say "I'm a REAL environmentalist. That means I actually do spend time in the woods and want to preserve them; not just stand in front of an EPA office with banners and slogans chanting about mother Gia."

    *sigh*

    your first sentence makes me thing you're a Climate Change Denier (The modern Flat Earther). Sad. A real environmentalist (like you claim to be) would realize that a 50% increase in what is the steady state of the carbon load in earths atmosphere since the industrial revolution, with no explanation except anthropomorphic sources, is a problem.

    And you sir are a genius. If it's one thing the Left is great at it's wordplay. No one gives a shit about a swamp, but call it a "wet land" and all of a sudden you don't mind using the police powers of the Imperial Federal government to steal it from it's land owner to "protect" it. You want to see a wet land? Go into my back yard after a storm, I'll show you a wet land. And no. It's not a swamp.

    It's not a jungle, it's a "rain forest". Jungle has a negative connotation, but start calling it a rain forest and everyone's on board with massive international government programs.

    About 1-2 years back the Left started calling climate change skeptics "deniers". This was a blatant attempt at tieing them in with holocaust deniers. The intended effect being to absolve them of their rightful claim to be skeptical of current scientific views (which is healthy and encouraged starting even in middle school science class). By calling skeptics deniers, the attempt is to say "Hey look, they're denying reality!" when in fact there isn't any scientific consensus on climate change. Granted, there may be a majority opinion, but that hardy makes for written-in-stone-fact as history shows.

  • Mad Bob (unregistered) in reply to Eric
    Eric:
    Jon Doe:
    Montoya:
    But Tammie Burns *did* need to be beaten into submission!

    Especially for bringing her claws out real quick and bringing the whole feminism stuff out. Especially when whe screwed up...

    Um.. I don't think that alerting your manager about a threat you believe someone made against you counts as feminism.

    Perhaps not, but the phrase "especially when it's directed towards women" should be grounds for disciplinary action. There should be absolutely NO distinction whether violence is directed towards men or women. This is indication that Tammy herself is a sexist.

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    hatterson:
    All I really want is to have people call the facts, observations and experimental results "science" call the extrapolations and simulations which are based on sound data "projections" or "theories" and call the random extrapolations based on virtually nothing "trash".

    The majority of what Al Gore proposed is under the "trash" category. "Global Warming is occurring" is the science category. The effects of this are either the theory category or the trash category, depending on the specific effect. "a 50% increase in what is the steady state of the carbon load in earths atmosphere" is the science category (I'm assuming that's actually a valid stat, I don't care enough to verify it) "no explanation except anthropomorphic sources" is, at best, theory. Go ahead prove that increased solar flares haven't caused a slightly higher temperature which has caused the ocean to retain less CO2.

    READ THE IPCC REPORTS

    Oh you mean the reports written by scientists working for the government who get their funding from the government?

    If a scientist came out with a report stating that religion is healthy for people, then you found out the Baptists funded it, would you be skeptical?

    But when it's a government funded scientist creating a report that puts government in the position of being the only savior of the world, people suddenly shut up?

    There was a quote in the NYT recently about how "Thankfully Obama is going to increase funding to the sciences. This will create more impartial, unbiased scientists." Oh really? Well, I say they'll be anything but unbiased. When your funding comes from the government teet, you'll know when to shut up.

  • (cs) in reply to peter parker
    peter parker:
    campkev:
    As I read the part about his boss freaking out I knew it was going to be related to the "beaten into submission" part of his email.

    Really?? You figured that part out yourself did you?? So the name of the article didn't make it clear enough for you?

    Ok, you're right, I wasn't very clear. Let me retry that.

    "As I read the part about his boss freaking out, although it could have had something to do with the problematic code being written by the owner's son, and the "beaten into submission" from the title could have been talking about how instead of the code being beaten into submission, Dan ended up being beaten into submission about who's fault it was and having to act like it was his fault instead of the owner's son, I knew it was going to be related to some misinterpretation of the "beaten into submission" part of his email"

    Wow, that reads much more elegantly. Thank you.

  • Kef Schecter (unregistered) in reply to lolwtf

    To everybody who's saying that "especially violence against women" is feminism run amok, you seem to be forgetting the point that, on average, men are stronger than women. Sure, there are some women who are stronger than many men are, but, in general, men are stronger, so women are at a distinct disadvantage in that area.

    Now, I'm not saying that you guys are completely wrong. Yes, violence against a man is just as bad against a woman. I'm just saying that demanding equal treatment presumes that men and women are equal, and in this respect, they simply aren't -- at least, not on average.

    lolwtf:
    Why did he even send this email to Tammie when it was Tamme who broke the code?

    If you had read the comments, you'd know that Tammie didn't break the code.

    WTFiswithWTFreaders:
    From the article: "Tamme Burns, the developer responsible for the loader, decided to add..."

    From your follow-up: "Tammie Burns was not the developer responsible for the problem..."

    Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

    Apparently your reading comprehension is on par with Tammie's managers. The whole point of Dan Wiebe's post was to point out that the article was fictionalized, so the answer to "which is it" is what Dan said in the comment, not what was said in the article.

  • Ambrose (unregistered)

    Just one more comment to say, yes, using the image of an injured woman in the context of this post was completely insensitive and inappropriate.

    You shouldn't even have had to think about it.

    You should have thought about the idea, and thought better of it a tenth of a second later.

    You should also remove the picture.

  • MaGee (unregistered) in reply to Rich
    Rich:
    Zapp Brannigan:
    Dan Wiebe:
    "the code between us and Tammie Burns"
    How about: the code between Tammie Burns and us?

    Then he would be reprimanded for atrocious grammar,

    us needs to be beaten into submission.

    Or for recommending self-flagellation.

    Or for imitating Golem.

    Tammie's mis-read of the email is typical not of females but managers in general.

    Amen! Many managers would attribute it to the shear volume of emails they get, though. I suspect mine get an order of magnitude more than I do... ok, maybe half an order.

    And occasionally they're useful (the emails - not the managers). Even more occasionally, they're work-related

  • Jack (unregistered) in reply to Kazan
    Kazan:
    a lot of people here don't know the difference between "Feminism" and "Feminazism"

    that's ok.. the Feminazis don't know the difference either... but BOY are the real Feminists ever pissed about it.

    (feminism was about gender equality, not about "omg men suck")

    In which case they should have called it "Gender Equality". The word feminism immediately implies that it is pro-female, not pro-equality.

    Refer back to someone else post about racism, sexism etc always tends to go one way....

    Frankly, I'm always amazed how many people confuse equality with balance. Equal Opportunity (in the workplace) means that every person is judged on their skills and merits needed for their job, not on race, gender, creed etc.... This does not mean that there will be 50% male, 50% female in every occupation (nor 49.2% vs 50.8%). Aside from all else, the imbalance would only slowly balance out if mean and women generally had 100% identical skillsets...In reality, people from certain demographics will always be more attracted to certain types of work, and will therefore more likely be found in those workplaces (people don't seem to complain about the ratio of male-female truck drivers or labourers or waiting staff or <insert something else here> - so why is an office environment different???)

    To become briefly political (because I can't think of a better example), it is much the same as the question on Gay Marriage. This is not an argument over equality, but rather an argument on creating a new case. Everyone has a right to marry a member of the opposite sex (provided both parties agree, of course) - that's equality. Allowing people to choose to marry a member of the same sex is also equality providing everyone has the same right to do it (again if they so choose), but there is none of the (implied) inequality at the moment. Equality already exists, people just want new rules, and arguing (in)equality seems to be the most effective way to get a point into the media's attention, and hopefully have the changes implemented.

    Gender equality has slightly different issues, because for a long time roles people were allowed to play in society were affected by their gender. This (theoretically at least) has been remedied (at least a little). Now people are (theoretically) hired on their merits not on their gender. Unfortunately (or not, perhaps), because men and women are different, they are seen to be better or worse for different roles - in some cases this may be skill based, while at other times it may be based on persons physique (be it strength for some labouring jobs, or looks for some hospitality jobs). There is nothing I would hate more than being overlooked for a job not because of a lack in skills, but because a company believes balance is equality and hires someone from a particular demographic because they are in that demographic, not because of their abilities and it gives the appearance of equal opportunities (and I would think someone being hired on that basis would be a little offended if they knew that too).

    (Note: I don't mean to be anti {or pro} Gay Marriage {or not here, anyways}, but I think the claims of inequality there best illustrate my point that people do not understand what equality actually means)

  • Jeremy (unregistered) in reply to Jack
    Jack:
    To become briefly political (because I can't think of a better example), it is much the same as the question on Gay Marriage. This is not an argument over equality, but rather an argument on creating a new case. Everyone has a right to marry a member of the opposite sex (provided both parties agree, of course) - that's equality. Allowing people to choose to marry a member of the same sex is also equality providing everyone has the same right to do it (again if they so choose), but there is none of the (implied) inequality at the moment. Equality already exists, people just want new rules, and arguing (in)equality seems to be the most effective way to get a point into the media's attention, and hopefully have the changes implemented.

    I'm not sure if you are arguing against gay marriage, or just the application of the word 'equality.' But if you rewind a few hundred years, everyone had the 'right' to marry someone of their own social class, of their own race. Just because this interpretation is 'equal' does not necessarily mean that it is the most ethical or just.

    I can see where you are coming from, but I would argue that the love between two human beings is equal, regardless of age, gender, race, IQ, or any other metric we care to measure them by. Realistically, we recognize that the interests of the majority will always infringe upon the rights of the minority to some degree. However, I do believe that the evolving ethical standards of our society will come to recognize the injustice of the current demarcation.

  • eyrieowl (unregistered) in reply to A. N. Mouse
    A. N. Mouse:
    Why are we offended and disturbed so easily? Are you this offended when you see men battered and bruised? How about when you see it in a movie? In a comedy?

    I can speak for one of them. I didn't say I was offended. I said horrified. My initial reaction when the page loaded this morning with a story title of "Beaten Into Submission" and that photo next to that title was, "Holy crap! How is that going to be funny after I read the story?". Not, "That looks hilarious!". Yes, it is pretty clearly make-up. That doesn't make it funny, it just keeps it from being patently offensive. When I see people battered and bruised in a movie, especially in a "serious" (non-comedy) film, I don't usually think, "You know, that vignette is comedy gold!" Unless, of course, it's done comedically...and even then it's often cringe inducing more than a laugh riot. Yes, I've spent plenty enough time on /b to know that some people actually do get their jollies from seeing photos of people hurt, maimed, and killed, but they are generally called sick bastards...or btards. My point, though, wasn't to take anyone to task for using the photo, but pointing out that it's an incongruous choice. The photos usually add to the humor a bit, or at least are neutral. This one distracted a bit from the humor. It's not my site, Alex is free to use Whatever photo he wants, but in my opinion, this photo didn't help him advance his goal.

  • Ambrose (unregistered) in reply to Jack
    there is none of the (implied) inequality at the moment.

    The inequality people talk about is between two groups of people: people who want to marry people of the opposite sex and people who want to marry people of the same sex.

    Surely you don't believe those two groups are equal?

    In previous centuries only white men were allowed to own property.

    Presumably you feel that the state made something (being born a man and owning property) available to all who wanted it and that was equality.

    It's just that the group of people who wanted a special case added to the law (being born a woman and owning property) weren't catered for.

  • (cs) in reply to Herby
    Herby:
    This reminds me of two guys looking out the window and saying: "Boy, the headlights on that one are special" and the reply by the other guy: "Right, and the bumper is interesting as well" And the female that overhears the conversation says: "You two are a bunch of sexist pigs, I'm going to report you!"

    And they really were looking at a classic car on the street!

    That reminds me of the story of two guys sitting in a fish bowl. Suddenly one guy says: "And now it's my turn to sit a the window!"

  • Phil (unregistered)

    I think this situation could have been avoided entirely with some simple, more direct rephrasing:

    "The code between us and Tammie Burns needs to be seriously reconsidered. In addition, it may be time to beat Tammie Burns into submission."

  • Doesnt matter (unregistered) in reply to Herby

    Well that's because women communicate on a relationship/self expression and men on the information/command level. So the first thing she associates with words is related to her or females in general. Hence the whole misunderstandings. "there is a red light ahead" information - there is red light ahead relationship - you're a lousy driver, dont miss it again self expression - hey look i see a red light! command - slow down!

    same line different meanings :)

  • (cs)

    Tammie Burns is an ugly hack that will work temporarily.

Leave a comment on “Beaten Into Submission”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #265845:

« Return to Article