Self-pillowfacing (LSJ)

Does the action to burn an incapacitated imbued get +1 stealth if undirected? My intuition would be that it followed similarly to diablerie, but that doesn't appear to be the case from the rules card. Thanks, witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] is pillowfacing the image you get when an Imbued is eaten? i picture http://www.bloggerpals.com uhh VNSFW oscar

OrgPlay <org...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1165438200.5...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > witness1 wrote: > > Does the action to burn an incapacitated imbued get +1 stealth if > > undirected? My intuition would be that it followed similarly to > > diablerie, but that doesn't appear to be the case from the rules card. > > > > Thanks, > > witness1 > > is pillowfacing the image you get when an Imbued is eaten? > > i picture xxx uhh VNSFW > > oscar > It's official, oscar's id has taken over control of his e-mail account. Neil

> It's official, oscar's id has taken over control of his e-mail account. Hmm. the face is blocked out. do you think that could actually be Oscar?

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct, it does not get stealth for being undirected.

[ quoted text not captured ] Crappy. Thanks anyway. Witness1 -believe the lie.

OrgPlay wrote: > is pillowfacing the image you get when an Imbued is eaten? Oh, totally. The Imbued is in the hospital. Then KoKo sneaks in a puts a pillow over his head. We made that a verb (i.e. "To Pillowface") a while ago :-) -Peter

OrgPlay wrote: > i picture http://www.bloggerpals.com uhh VNSFW Well. That was horrifying. Can I be blind now? -Peter

> OrgPlay wrote: > > i picture http://www.bloggerpals.com uhh VNSFW There REALLY needs to be a warning in that post.

[ quoted text not captured ] I am bleeding out of my eyes! I can't scrub my brain! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] VNSFW = Very Not Safe For Work. Assume people hanging from chains with plungers in their nether regions and lots of shiznitt all over the place. Or maybe molasses. best - chris

librarian wrote: > Wookie813 wrote: > > > > There REALLY needs to be a warning in that post. > > VNSFW = Very Not Safe For Work. That's good to know NOW, after I already looked at it. I mean, I can't UNLOOK at it!! Thankfully, I was at home.

[ quoted text not captured ] That won't work, since the image is already burned into my mind. I really don't want to know why Oscar knew about that site. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] You needed some special 'alone time' after looking at that, huh? ;) -- salem (I think i need to sandblast my eyes now)

[ quoted text not captured ] It's his job to promote the game....to EVERYONE, regardless of their plunger position.... -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

"OrgPlay" <org...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1165438200.5...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > [ quoted text not captured ] Let this be a lesson to everybody. People, do NOT let a case of constipation reach this level of severity!!! Get some fiber in your diet, for crying out loud! Fred going for some oat bran at this very instant...

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4577c9f1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Kushiel wrote: >> I really don't want to know why Oscar knew about that site. > > It's his job to promote the game....to EVERYONE, regardless of their plunger position.... You gotta admit - it sure makes a great case for card sleeves, doesn't it? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I can just imagine the next Ultra-Pro marketing campaign... Actually, no, I don't want to imagine the next Ultra-Pro marketing campaign off that idea. I really don't. [ quoted text not captured ]

OrgPlay schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] is that why you are looking for an "intern"? :-)) -- johannes walch

Kushiel schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] It's because he "knows" the EC-champion. They spent some time together in the UK recently. This, more than once, left Oscar exhausted/comatose on Anthony's couch. They can corroborate all these facts. ;) B

On Dec 6, 10:50 pm, "OrgPlay" <orgp...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > witness1 wrote: > > Does the action to burn an incapacitated imbued get +1 stealth if > > undirected? My intuition would be that it followed similarly to > > diablerie, but that doesn't appear to be the case from the rules card. > > > Thanks, > > witness1is pillowfacing the image you get when an Imbued is eaten? > > i picturehttp://www.bloggerpals.com uhh VNSFW > > oscar In future, if anyone puts a link like this on a page, please be a little bit more considerate. Do not use acronyms that are not guaranteed to be understood by EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO READS THE POST. And seeing as VtES has a very varied international audience, and especially as the Google group tends to draw a wide range of nationalities, it would just be polite not to include something as totally obscene, without at least a very easily understandable, unmistakable warning. If this was Oscar himself posting that link without due warning, and not someone using his account, I would consider this a highly unprofessional and totally unacceptable course of action. I know that some people get their kicks and giggles out of this kind of thing, but not everyone who plays VtES is this perverse, sick or twisted. While this might come across as funny to some, or even arousing, I cannot see how exposing a potential audience to images of this kind, especially an audience that could potentially include minors, is at all even a vaguelu intelligent move. Sorry for the rant, but this is totally, utterly unacceptable behaviour on the part of someone who is suppossed to represent the game on an international, as well as corporate level.

"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165664319.8...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > While this might come across as funny to some, or even arousing, I > cannot see how exposing a potential audience to images of this kind, > especially an audience that could potentially include minors, is at all > even a vaguelu intelligent move. (spelling? "vaguely"? I assume) > Sorry for the rant, but this is totally, utterly unacceptable behaviour > on the part of someone who is suppossed to represent the game on an > international, as well as corporate level. Granted, a reference to the link probably didn't belong in the newsgroup due to the wild sexual nature of the content and the tendency to be shocking, which isn't the subject matter for a game discussion group. I think few people who tend to hang out in this group found it that offensive because the population is clearly accustomed to more mature subject matter than is probably typical for most Usenet discussion groups. Your objection to the type of content, considering its lack of applicability to the newsgroup topic, is well-taken. Still, you might want to consider if there's a reason your reaction to it is so different from so many others. Fred

On Dec 9, 4:01 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1165664319.8...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > While this might come across as funny to some, or even arousing, I > > cannot see how exposing a potential audience to images of this kind, > > especially an audience that could potentially include minors, is at all > > even a vaguelu intelligent move.(spelling? "vaguely"? I assume) > > > Sorry for the rant, but this is totally, utterly unacceptable behaviour > > on the part of someone who is suppossed to represent the game on an > > international, as well as corporate level.Granted, a reference to the link probably didn't belong in the newsgroup > due to the wild sexual nature of the content and the tendency to be > shocking, which isn't the subject matter for a game discussion group. > I think few people who tend to hang out in this group found it that > offensive because the population is clearly accustomed to more mature > subject matter than is probably typical for most Usenet discussion > groups. Your objection to the type of content, considering its lack of > applicability to the newsgroup topic, is well-taken. Still, you might > want to consider if there's a reason your reaction to it is so different > from so many others. > > Fred Yeah, I do consider coprophilia being shown to me without warning or any chance to avoid it, objectionable. I don't have a major issue with it, but the fact that my little cousin is sitting with me while i read about VtES, especially seeing as he is 9 years old, and then sees that link, has totally and utterly enraged me. I don't care if that's how the person who posted this gets his kicks, but, again, I don't shove my predilictions down his throat without him having any kind of warning, and I honestly believe the same kind of respect would be warranted. You realise my cousin has been in tears for nearly an hour now, and I have no idea how I'm gonna explain this to his mom? The fact that it is joke is understood, but if you go to a stand up show, at least you know up front that the comic is crude, or uses obscenities, or whatever. Warning, you know? Just a hint, not an apocryphal acronym, blurted out, without any care as to whether the potential audience get his warning. Feel very strongly that next time, if there is a next tiome, just put an appropriate warning. Something someone who is not a nethead will get. In English. Full words. So I don't have to spend a Saturday evening explaining to my sister that I am not some kind of perverted sicko who goes around showing really sick things to underage kids, which is a crime. Is that enough consideration for you as to why I am having such a "different" reaction to so many others? Seriously Fred, get real. You are normally the first one to say something to anyone getting rude on the forum or group, yet this kind of obscenity is thrust upon people, and you defend him? unreal...... :( If you are trying to insinuate that I have some kind of immature response to the fact that an act of coprophilic sadistic sodomy was used for a joke, whatever. Tell you what. How about we go find some pictures of mutilated human bodies being used as kindling by some sicko, and post a link to the news group, and as a warning we just BPFO? Sounds like a great plan. What do you say? Freedom of speech and being is great, but there is a flip side, and that is that those who do not wish to expose themselves to filth (no pun intended) like this, can usually keep away due to there being adequate warning. So if you consider me to be over reacting, again, whatever. You want to know what i would consider over reacting? Because in this case I cannot actually imagine what i would consider over reacting.

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with all the points of your posts. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] > > no idea how I'm gonna explain this to his mom?I agree with all the points of your posts. > > best - > > chris- Hide quoted text - Thanks. Got him calmed down. Amazing what 2 litres of ice cream and as much cartoons as you wanna watch does to kids attention spans. But please guys, if potsing something like this, just a big warning sign. something like, you go thru this link, you'll be mentally scarred for life. Cool? No harm, no foul. But lets not have it happen again. Please?

"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165676265.2...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > The fact that it is joke is understood, but if you go to a stand up > show, at least you know up front that the comic is crude, or uses > obscenities, or whatever. Warning, you know? Just a hint, not an > apocryphal acronym, blurted out, without any care as to whether the > potential audience get his warning. Sure. I agree that's a pretty good suggestion. > Seriously Fred, > get real. You are normally the first one to say something to anyone > getting rude on the forum or group, yet this kind of obscenity is > thrust upon people, and you defend him? unreal...... :( Oh, I don't know that I'm always the first one. I'll cop to the fact that certain things set me off and sometimes I go overboard when I shouldn't. But I ignore stuff I object to a lot as well and I think if you hang out here long enough, you'll find that different personalities will be more or less sensitive to different provications depending on what the latter is. But I think if you reread my previous post, you'll see that I wasn't defending him. I was minimizing the affront, but not defending it. Strictly speaking, I know you're right. But I don't see the newsgroup as being so tight that people can't go a little bit off topic in pursuit of a sense of humor. In this case, I can definitely see your point about wanting some warning. > If you are trying to insinuate that I have some kind of immature > response to the fact that an act of coprophilic sadistic sodomy was > used for a joke, whatever. Not so much immature. I just notice that different people have vastly different toleration levels to the same stimulus. I think it's usually a good thing to do a reality check whenever you notice so many others having a greatly different response than you do. I am not saying you're wrong, though. Sometimes the one person is right and the crowd is wrong. Fred

Blooded Sand schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] If you're going to be clicking links people post on the web, you have to know the acronym NSFW (which is a warning to prevent people from getting fired for having that link up.) I understand you didn't, and I understand your reasons to be upset, but it was nothing but a joke, and there's worse out there you might unwarily click. Especially if there's references to anal sex before it, you might want to think twice. I assume Oscar thought the acronym sufficiently well-known. At least, I'd personally consider it about as well-known as S:CE. ;) I agree the warning could've been a bit more obvious. ;) Cheers, B

"Bram Vink" <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in message news:1165698885.9...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > If you're going to be clicking links people post on the web, you have > to know the acronym NSFW (which is a warning to prevent people from > getting fired for having that link up.) I understand you didn't, and I > understand your reasons to be upset, but it was nothing but a joke, and > there's worse out there you might unwarily click. > > Especially if there's references to anal sex before it, you might want > to think twice. > > I assume Oscar thought the acronym sufficiently well-known. At least, > I'd personally consider it about as well-known as S:CE. That's a very, *VERY* poor assumption! (Not to switch sides deliberately but this sub-issue is something I feel kind of strongly about.) In Chris Anderson's book, _The Long Tail: Why the Future of Selling Less of More_, towards the end he includes an essay on the subject of internet culture and how it relates to "The Long Tail". ("The Long Tail" is the phenomenon of making a lot of money selling small quantities in market niches by selling in many niches.) The essay is the effect that - paraphrasing here - lots of people in the internet world seem to think that whatever part of the internet culture has been in their face recently is quote "WELL KNOWN" unquote - because that person personally well knows it. What many people do not seem to grasp is that other people may have never heard of something that they (and possibly a lot of internet friends and acquaintances whom they happen to interact with a lot) are very familiar with it. So they assume it's "famous". But it really isn't. Chris Anderson listed ten things he personally assumed everybody in the world knew about - and I was vaguely familiar with three of them and hadn't even heard of the others. According to Anderson, my experience with his list turns out to be quite common. Of course, (I was listening on an audiobook in my car at the time) I kept screaming "DUH!!! DUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhHHHHHH!!!" at the CD player because this point is rather obvious to me. But apparently, many people seem to think terminology they've picked up on the net ("Malk94" anyone?) is a lot more ubiquitous than it often turns to be. Anyway, bottom line is, don't leave something important to be said using only cryptic little initials or some weird phrase you've picked up from an internet clique. The other guy may have heard it or he may not. Often he won't have. By the way, before Oscar used it, I'd never seen "NSFW" in my life. I'd say that's "just me, I guess" - but it's really not. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > But apparently, many people seem to > think terminology they've picked up on the net ("Malk94" anyone?) Knowing full well that this made you insane, I'd like to plead my case here: A) "Malk94" is, given a second of thought, completely self explanitory to anyone remotely familiar with the context that the terminology showed up in--you are reading a VTES newsgroup, you know what a "Malk" is, and it doesn't take too much of a leap to figure out that "94" could refer to "1994", the year the game came out. B) "Malk94" wasn't terminology "picked up on the net", it was picked up in the same context that it was being presented in (i.e. this here newsgroup). It isn't *that* unreasonable to assume that someone who spends a lot of time in this here context would have run into the same terminology. Or be able to make the conceptual leap to figure it out, especially as it was presented a discussion. It wasn't being imported from a completely different context (i.e. it wasn't, like, a "common" term someone picked up off of, say, facebook or something :-) I mean, it isn't like the use of the phrase "Malk94" was akin to the use of a random string of capital letters meant to ward people off from some psyche scarring imagery or anything... -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1165764612.4...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> But apparently, many people seem to >> think terminology they've picked up on the net ("Malk94" anyone?) > > Knowing full well that this made you insane, BWAAAAaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (*rubs hands*; *checks operating status on his doomsday device*) > I'd like to plead my case here: > > A) "Malk94" is, given a second of thought, completely self explanitory > to anyone remotely familiar with the context that the terminology > showed up in--you are reading a VTES newsgroup, you know what a "Malk" > is, and it doesn't take too much of a leap to figure out that "94" > could refer to "1994", the year the game came out. Sure. But I would say it is "fairly" - not "completely_ self explanatory. For someone unfamiliar with the term, what they don't know is if the term connotes something additional that's not obvious in the name. Anyone who's ever had Welsh Rabbit can tell you that it's not necessarily a good thing to be confident about what a thing is just by assuming its name is "completely self explanatory". *Takes a sip from his Long Island Ice Tea*. Hmmm...pretty strong tea for 9 AM in the morning. Oh, well...tea is tea, right? > B) "Malk94" wasn't terminology "picked up on the net", it was picked up > in the same context that it was being presented in (i.e. this here > newsgroup). And in this newsgroup, we did a search - and found very few references to it over the course of the last 15 years. I get 10 when I do a Google Groups search - including this thread. I suppose multiple references contained in a single thread may be lumped together in that count, but still. The term really *isn't* in this here newsgroup. > It isn't *that* unreasonable to assume that someone who > spends a lot of time in this here context would have run into the same > terminology. In this newsgroup? Yes, my conclusion is that is sort of unreasonable. (Checks at his doomsday device status again. Goooooo-o-ood! Most of the yellow lights have turned to green. Just a few more.... ;-) ) Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:EhWeh.25369$HO4....@newsfe06.phx... > > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:1165764612.4...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> But apparently, many people seem to >>> think terminology they've picked up on the net ("Malk94" anyone?) >> >> Knowing full well that this made you insane, > > BWAAAAaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (*rubs hands*; *checks operating > status on his doomsday device*) > >> I'd like to plead my case here: >> >> A) "Malk94" is, given a second of thought, completely self explanitory >> to anyone remotely familiar with the context that the terminology >> showed up in--you are reading a VTES newsgroup, you know what a "Malk" >> is, and it doesn't take too much of a leap to figure out that "94" >> could refer to "1994", the year the game came out. > > Sure. But I would say it is "fairly" - not "completely_ self explanatory. > For someone unfamiliar with the term, what they don't know is if the > term connotes something additional that's not obvious in the name. Not that it disproves your original point about "NSFW," but I found "Malk '94" to be completely self-explanatory. I had actually never heard the phrase before Origins this year (June-July 2006) but knew what it meant immediately. I think maybe it was used by someone explaining that Ben's Legacy of Power deck was not Malk '94, but I don't recall for sure. - Pat

"Pat" <patric...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:L_KdnQFNMPI93uHY...@comcast.com... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:EhWeh.25369$HO4....@newsfe06.phx... >> Sure. But I would say it is "fairly" - not "completely_ self explanatory. >> For someone unfamiliar with the term, what they don't know is if the >> term connotes something additional that's not obvious in the name. > > Not that it disproves your original point about "NSFW," but I found "Malk '94" to be completely self-explanatory. I had actually > never heard the phrase before Origins this year (June-July 2006) but knew what it meant immediately. Now that I know what people mean by it, I would say so too. But that still doesn't mean it is to someone who's never heard it. For you to have had confidence in it when you first heard it is a bit of a risky leap to take. (See Welsh Rabbit and Long Island Ice Tea references in my previous post.) That's all I'm saying. If you want make those assumptions without bothering to check, fine. I personally don't care to, which is why I double-checked with Ankur that other time - leading to a bizarre series of confusing posts and counter-posts. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Anyone > who's ever had Welsh Rabbit can tell you that it's not necessarily a good > thing to be confident about what a thing is just by assuming its name is > "completely self explanatory". Sure, but again, context. "Malk94" was brought up in a discussion of VTES in a VTES forum among VTES players who already know what "Malk" means and, without much figuring, can determine what "94" refers to. Nothing in the phrase is arbitrary or non intuitive (i.e. Malk=Malkavian; 94=1994). Welsh Rabbit has nothing to do at all with Rabbit and is completely arbitrary (well, I think it is a bastardization of "rarebit", which also has nothing to do with rabbit...) > *Takes a sip from his Long Island Ice Tea*. Hmmm...pretty strong tea for > 9 AM in the morning. Oh, well...tea is tea, right? Also a totally arbitrary use of terms to mean something else, what with Long Island Ice Tea having nothing at all to do with Long, Island, Iced, or Tea. I mean, like, if I had used the phrase "Monkey Butler" to mean "Tradtional Malkavian Stealth and Bleed Deck", I'd be right there with you, but in this instance, not as much :-) > In this newsgroup? Yes, my conclusion is that is sort of unreasonable. Well, not unreasonable to have either run into it *or* be able to figure it out, as it uses easily understood component parts ("Malk" and "94") and is only being exposed to people who play VTES. And know what Malkavians are. > (Checks at his doomsday device status again. Goooooo-o-ood! Most of the > yellow lights have turned to green. Just a few more.... ;-) ) Yeah, how is that project going? :-) -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1165793418.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> Anyone >> who's ever had Welsh Rabbit can tell you that it's not necessarily a good >> thing to be confident about what a thing is just by assuming its name is >> "completely self explanatory". > > Sure, but again, context. "Malk94" was brought up in a discussion of > VTES in a VTES forum among VTES players who already know what "Malk" > means and, without much figuring, can determine what "94" refers to. > Nothing in the phrase is arbitrary or non intuitive (i.e. > Malk=Malkavian; 94=1994). Welsh Rabbit has nothing to do at all with > Rabbit ...as it turns out. But how would you know that if you didn't know what Welsh Rabbit was before someone made a reference to it? Likewise, how would one know that Malk94 is about the thing it sounds like it's about? You don't. Until someone actually confirms that for you, for all you know it could be a completely misleading name, like Welsh Rabbit or Long Island Ice Tea. Therefore, no matter how well Malk94 implies what it is, you really don't know a damn thing until someone helps you out at least a little bit. >> In this newsgroup? Yes, my conclusion is that is sort of unreasonable. > > Well, not unreasonable to have either run into it Um, did you understand the part I wrote about there being only ten threads using the term SINCE THE OF DAWN OF MAN? Maybe that part wasn't clear, I can't tell. As far as I know, Google has access to all posts that weren't canceled within about fifteen or twenty seconds of the poster pushing the 'send' button. And it showed only ten hits. Maybe I searched wrong. I don't know, Peter - you tell me. If I didn't search wrong, then given how many threads those are, that piece of your reasoning strikes me as being pretty thin odds. Just me, I guess. > *or* be able to figure it out, as it uses easily understood component parts See my top two paragraphs above. >> (Checks at his doomsday device status again. Goooooo-o-ood! Most of the >> yellow lights have turned to green. Just a few more.... ;-) ) > > Yeah, how is that project going? > > :-) The voices in my head keep saying, "PUSH THE BUTTON, FRED". Fred

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > By the way, before Oscar used it, I'd never seen "NSFW" in my life. > I'd say that's "just me, I guess" - but it's really not. It is such an utterly ridiculous statement that yes, it is just you, Fred. :) Kevin M. "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:YC7fh.21189$ej3....@newsfe16.phx... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> By the way, before Oscar used it, I'd never seen "NSFW" in my life. >> I'd say that's "just me, I guess" - but it's really not. > > It is such an utterly ridiculous statement that yes, it is just you, Fred. > :) Had you? Fred

I gotta ask...and if it makes me an idiot, so be it. Malk94 i'm assuming refers to a Malk deck circa 1994. Should I just assume it was the typical Dom-Sneakbleed using Bonding, Conditioning etc, or does it refer to anything else? Just curious because i'm an old school Jyhad player and my local group got sick of malk sneak bleed rather quickly after players just started ganging up on the quick bleeder and went on to other decks. I moved on to more toolboxy Malk decks. I guarantee you, for every person that knows the popular term for a commonly played deck, whether from 94 or 06, theres people out there, including some that have been playing the game for 10 years plus, that have no clue what Malk94, or many other deck names mean.

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>> By the way, before Oscar used it, I'd never seen "NSFW" in my life. >>> I'd say that's "just me, I guess" - but it's really not. >> >> It is such an utterly ridiculous statement that yes, it is just you, >> Fred. :) > > Had you? Of course. As I am a regular user of the internet, reader of my email, and generally an intelligent person, yes, I figured out what it meant years and years ago. I could give some leeway to someone much older -- like my parents -- or someone who doesn't get on the internet on a regular basis, and doesn't read much or know much about the internet, but that isn't you, Fred. Perhaps you don't read or receive much email, or read many newsgroups, or whatever it is that you don't do to remain ignorant of NSFW, I guess. This is the same reason that you saying you didn't know about MALK94 is absurd. You have simply been playing the game, been on the newsgroup, and aware of the community far too long not to know what it means. Obviously you didn't -- I do believe you when you say something -- but it is still absurd that you didn't. On the bright side, I find your isolation within (what I perceive to be your) mainstream media to be quite interesting, and I would like to discuss with you the possibility of a medical/technological paper with you as the subject. hehee;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > By the way, before Oscar used it, I'd never seen "NSFW" in my life. > > I'd say that's "just me, I guess" - but it's really not. > > It is such an utterly ridiculous statement that yes, it is just you, Fred. > :) I had no idea what NSFW meant. I don't have a play-on-the-internet-all-day kinda job. I guess neither do the peopple who e-mail me most frequently. I have received an occasional link that was tagged "Do Not Open At Work", but never NSFW. It was educational for me on so many levels.

[ quoted text not captured ] I do confess to providing Oscar with that link. However it's not a photo of anyone I know :O) Unlike this choice pic of you Bram: www.L33tHaxor.tk (NOT SAFE FOR WORK) Anthony

[ quoted text not captured ] A credit to you, indeed. The more time you spend on (or near) sites that have content that is not suitable for work, the more likely you are to see the acronym. That you hadn't seen it is an indicator that you don't go surfing near such sites, and that the people who email stuff to you don't email those sorts of links. I had never seen the acronym until I started hanging out with the riff raff that haunt the VTES IRC, myself. :-)

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Yl9fh.22813$B42....@newsfe12.phx... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>>> By the way, before Oscar used it, I'd never seen "NSFW" in my life. >>>> I'd say that's "just me, I guess" - but it's really not. >>> >>> It is such an utterly ridiculous statement that yes, it is just you, >>> Fred. :) >> >> Had you? > > Of course. As I am a regular user of the internet, reader of my email, > and generally an intelligent person, yes, I figured out what it meant > years and years ago. I could give some leeway to someone much older -- > like my parents -- or someone who doesn't get on the internet on a regular > basis, and doesn't read much or know much about the internet, but that > isn't you, Fred. Perhaps you don't read or receive much email, or read > many newsgroups, or whatever it is that you don't do to remain ignorant of > NSFW, I guess. So, folks, Kevin is the person Chris Anderson is talking about. Apparently has been exposed to something on the internet and assumes that everyone else has been exposed to what he has - even when confronted to evidence to the contrary. Thank you, Kevin, you have served well as a textbook case of a classic internet phenonemon. > This is the same reason that you saying you didn't know about MALK94 is > absurd. You have simply been playing the game, been on the newsgroup, and > aware of the community far too long not to know what it means. Obviously > you didn't -- I do believe you when you say something -- but it is still > absurd that you didn't. Cool. Thank you. > On the bright side, I find your isolation within (what I perceive to be > your) mainstream media to be quite interesting, and I would like to > discuss with you the possibility of a medical/technological paper with you > as the subject. hehee;) OK, Kevin. You've done your job just fine. You may sit now. Thank you... :-) Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:qCcfh.5711$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > Wookie813 wrote: >> I had no idea what NSFW meant. I don't have a >> play-on-the-internet-all-day kinda job. I guess neither do the peopple >> who e-mail me most frequently. I have received an occasional link that >> was tagged "Do Not Open At Work", but never NSFW. >> >> It was educational for me on so many levels. > > A credit to you, indeed. The more time you spend on (or near) sites that have content that is not suitable for work, the more > likely you are to see the acronym. > > That you hadn't seen it is an indicator that you don't go surfing near such sites, and that the people who email stuff to you > don't email those sorts of links. > > I had never seen the acronym until I started hanging out with the riff raff that haunt the VTES IRC, myself. :-) Perhaps we should initiate discussion in news.announce.newusers to abandon this group and create a new one, rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad.nsfw Fred

On Dec 11, 3:49 am, "Gomer" <TheMuppetPas...@gmail.com> wrote: > I gotta ask...and if it makes me an idiot, so be it. Malk94 i'm > assuming refers to a Malk deck circa 1994. Should I just assume it was > the typical Dom-Sneakbleed using Bonding, Conditioning etc, or does it > refer to anything else? It isn't really that important. Nor is that that specific. The discussion that is going on now is a reference to a discussion that went on a few months ago, where I used the term "Malk94" in reference to 1994 era technology Malkavian Stealth and Bleed decks. Which was just mostly short hand that I figured most folks would be able to figure out based on the context of the discussion. As that context is currently missing from *this* discussion (i.e. the term is being discussed in a vaccum), it makes sense that you don't really have a total understanding of the term. This whole spin off discussion is just me and Fred being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic :-) -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1165845585.3...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > This whole spin off discussion is just me and Fred being pedantic for > the sake of being pedantic :-) Hey, I resemble that remark! Fred

On Dec 11, 12:02 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > But how would you know that if you didn't know > what Welsh Rabbit was before someone made a reference to it? By context, see. If I brought up Welsh Rabbit in a discussion about, say, hot cheese dishes, it would stand to think that even if someone did not specifically know what Welsh Rabbit was, they could probably figure it out through the context (i.e., the discussion takes place on rec.food.hot-cheese and we were having a discussion about melting things on toast...) The Malk94 discussion came up in a discussion about getting bled to death. To be honest, I hadn't necessarily even read that term on the newsgroup before I used it (although thankfully, you did the research to discover that it had been), I had just picked it up in discussion, probably at Origins from Ben Peal or Xian or someone (who also did not explain it, but I gleaned from the context of the discussion that it was a reference to 1994 era Malkavian S+B technology). And I figured that, ya know, it was a funny and self evident term. Not 'cause I had heard it a million times and figured everyone else had too, but 'cause, ya know, it was completely self explanatory given the context (i.e. a discussion of VTES in a VTES forum among VTES players who were discussing, I think it was, a deck's weakness to being bled to death around, uh, bleed bounce vs bleed reduction maybe?) Mind you, I completely agree with you on the hurling about of lingo and assuming everyone knows what it means--that sort of thing drives me crazy as well. I had never seen the phrase NSFW or VNSFW before in my life. Had no idea what it meant. Had no idea that it was a warning (although given the material it was warning about, it probably should have read "RRRRRRRRRVNSFW. No Really. I mean it. Really. Really.") When people use lingo terms around me (which happens a lot, as I hang out with geeks), I'm often like "Uh, yeah. I have no idea what that means." Which often ruins their hi-larious ancdote. But I make them explain anyway. As I too am driven mad by people assuming that everyone knows what their "incredibly commonly understood acronym" or whatever means. But in this case (i.e. use of Malk94), I'm just completely unconvinced that the context and component parts of the term did not add up to "completely obvious, even if you had never heard it before". -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1165846348.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 11, 12:02 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> But how would you know that if you didn't know >> what Welsh Rabbit was before someone made a reference to it? > > By context, see. If I brought up Welsh Rabbit in a discussion about, > say, hot cheese dishes, it would stand to think that even if someone > did not specifically know what Welsh Rabbit was, they could probably > figure it out through the context (i.e., the discussion takes place on > rec.food.hot-cheese and we were having a discussion about melting > things on toast...) Sure. I think this is where we're talking past each other. I was assuming no context. Or maybe it's more accurate to say, I was assuming nothing about the context in which the reference came up. Obviously, if the context was someone saying, "I had a Malk94 deck, which is deck using Malkavians to stealth bleed pretty much the way they got used in the mid-90s.", I'd have to be kind of idiot not to figure out what he meant with my experience in the game. But if you don't know the context, my idiocy will have to remain conjectural (for the moment) rather than proven. > The Malk94 discussion came up in a discussion about getting bled to > death. Sure - but the immediate context still didn't make it clear whether the name was straightforward or if there might have been a misleading aspect to it, a la Welsh Rabbit. So I just asked for clarification. Then Ankur, who apparently doesn't share my attitude that sometimes it's a good idea to be very careful to ask for the meaning of a term they're not sure of, assumed I was joking and off we went. > To be honest, I hadn't necessarily even read that term on the > newsgroup before I used it (although thankfully, you did the research > to discover that it had been), I had just picked it up in discussion, > probably at Origins from Ben Peal or Xian or someone (who also did not > explain it, ...meaning that you didn't have to go through the experience of seeing it dropped into a newsgroup reference. The two situations are a lot different. You get a lot more context in a verbal conversation. And what context you do get in a Usenet thread is a lot harder to get (go and find every post and read it) and keep (you might have read the prior posts in the thread days earlier - not 20 seconds ago). > Mind you, I completely agree with you on the hurling about of lingo and > assuming everyone knows what it means--that sort of thing drives me > crazy as well. I had never seen the phrase NSFW or VNSFW before in my > life. Careful. Kevin Mergen will think you're a fogey. > But in this case (i.e. use of Malk94), I'm just completely unconvinced > that the context and component parts of the term did not add up to > "completely obvious, even if you had never heard it before". We'll have to disagree about that. I went back and looked and I'm sure I recall what I was thinking: "It _sounds_ obvious - but I want to make sure there's no twists that wouldn't be clear from the name." The context would not answer such a thing. Fred

On Dec 11, 9:35 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > We'll have to disagree about that. I went back and looked and I'm sure > I recall what I was thinking: "It _sounds_ obvious - but I want to make > sure there's no twists that wouldn't be clear from the name." The > context would not answer such a thing. Fair nuff. But come-on! That reference to rec.food.hot-cheese? Hysterical! I kill myself! -Peter

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > So, folks, Kevin is the person Chris Anderson is talking about. > Apparently has been exposed to something on the internet and > assumes that everyone else has been exposed to what he has - > even when confronted to evidence to the contrary. > > Thank you, Kevin, you have served well as a textbook case > of a classic internet phenonemon. And Blooded Sand (and his young charge) is the user who deserves everything he gets when he clicks on a link that he doesn't know the destination of. Now, his argument is "But it was a representative of a company I trust! It isn't my fault!" Well, now he knows better. And you, Fred, are the user who causes your PC to get hijacked and used as a bot to spread viruses that help slow down the internet and causes all of us to have to use antivirus software, when you click on a link that you doesn't know the destination of. Now, your argument will be "But I didn't know where that link went and/or what the text next to the link meant! How can I know the link is bad if I don't click on it?!" Well, now you know better. As long as we're calling each other out, let's be clear on who is what, here. I mean, if I serve as a textbook case of a classic internet phenonemon, then you guys *blindly* clicking on links that you doesn't know the destination of serve as a far worse problem in the system, and a much better example of user-based issues than I am of some phenomena. Not that we should be having this discussion anyway, as it is now totally off-topic and obvious to anyone over the age of 5 that length of (internet) life is directly related to caution, but maybe that is just me. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:DIjfh.38548$xM4....@newsfe07.phx... > And you, Fred, are the user who causes your PC to get hijacked and used as > a bot to spread viruses that help slow down the internet and causes all of > us to have to use antivirus software, when you click on a link that you > doesn't know the destination of. Now, your argument will be "But I didn't > know where that link went and/or what the text next to the link meant! > How can I know the link is bad if I don't click on it?!" Well, now you > know better. Hoonk-in shi-ite. I didn't know I could **GET** any more confused than I already. Thank you for posting something that demonstrates otherwise. > As long as we're calling each other out, let's be clear on who is what, > here. I mean, if I serve as a textbook case of a classic internet > phenomenon, then you guys *blindly* clicking on links that you doesn't > know the destination of serve as a far worse problem in the system, and a > much better example of user-based issues than I am of some phenomena. Ummmmmm. OK. I wasn't actually going anywhere with the point beyond just defending Blooded Sand for not know what the initials VNSFW meant. And, of course, risking a flare-up of last summer's Most-Confused-Flame-War- In-The-History-Of-Usenet(tm). And finding an excuse to complain about certain folks who conflate a failure to have web-surfed the exact same internet waves THEY happen to have web-surfed with being a total rube. But, no. When I clicked on Oscar's link, I was fine with it. At least, I was OK with the picture. I do think that silly falsetto singing something which sounded like "shake your dick" over and over was intended to drive people insane. Fortunately, with this crowd, I gather it's not a long trip. Fred

Kevin M. wrote: > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > So, folks, Kevin is the person Chris Anderson is talking about. > > Apparently has been exposed to something on the internet and > > assumes that everyone else has been exposed to what he has - > > even when confronted to evidence to the contrary. > > > > Thank you, Kevin, you have served well as a textbook case > > of a classic internet phenonemon. > > And Blooded Sand (and his young charge) is the user who deserves > everything he gets when he clicks on a link that he doesn't know the > destination of. Now, his argument is "But it was a representative of a > company I trust! It isn't my fault!" Well, now he knows better. > How can he know the destination of the link if he hasn't been there already? And following this convoluted logic, how can we surf _anywhere_? Are we supposed to sit on our homepages and not go anywhere? Apparently, now he knows better than to click on links...which is the entire point of the INTERnet: a series of linked pages of information. How can we put the cart before the horse? > And you, Fred, are the user who causes your PC to get hijacked and used as > a bot to spread viruses that help slow down the internet and causes all of > us to have to use antivirus software, when you click on a link that you > doesn't know the destination of. Now, your argument will be "But I didn't > know where that link went and/or what the text next to the link meant! > How can I know the link is bad if I don't click on it?!" Well, now you > know better. > Right, so no one should click on links. Ever. Unless they know what's on the other end...which they'll never know, because they can't click on links. Ever. Why did we even buy computers in the first place? > As long as we're calling each other out, let's be clear on who is what, > here. I mean, if I serve as a textbook case of a classic internet > phenonemon, then you guys *blindly* clicking on links that you doesn't > know the destination of serve as a far worse problem in the system, and a > much better example of user-based issues than I am of some phenomena. > I guess i need a definition of non-blind link-clicking to help me out here, so that i can justify surfing at all. This is where you lose me. Cooliris-like link-preview add-ins (which still display the page and so the problem isn't circumvented)? How can we kow to trust the (unsigned) add-ins? What are we to do?!?! Perhaps we should just stay at home and never leave, and be the apotheosis of the paranoia inherent to the current ideology. My bad. Got political. Strike the last. Merlin