A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
(guessing some of these are probably crossovers from Jack Bauer stuff we've seen)
It's really dumb when junior high kids do this Chuck Norris crap ... when adults participate in it .... well...
wow! did the Grinch already piss on your Christmas Tree or what?
Chuck Norris jokes are like Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky jokes. Never funny no matter how many times you repackage them. They're one step above bodily function jokes on the evolutionary scale.
Here's one you might like. "Hill, c'mon over here kid. Pull on my finger."
(guessing some of these are probably crossovers from Jack Bauer stuff we've seen)
all based on an American macho male perception of "badness" and aggressiveness, contrary to the tenets of the "art" form he practices. They confuse their fantasy of the tough-guy hero with the anti-hero.
Mr. Norris seems to me to be a gentle soul playing a role that does not reflect either his own persona or the training and philosophy of the art he practices. But the show goes on in the showbiz marketplace and that's what has "legs."
Last edited by jamese1045 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo wrote:.... Chuck Norris jokes are like Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky jokes. ...
If I had the vaguest idea who Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky might be I might get your point. I guess I don't spend nearly as much time in the schoolyard as you do.
malmo wrote:Chuck Norris jokes are . . . Never funny no matter how many times you repackage them.
I am NOT trying to be contentious here, really, but certainly you understand that humor (like beauty in the eye of the beholder) is TOTALLY dependent on the the receiver's unique nature and nurture and therefore far, far, far beyond ANYONE'S ability to 'criticize'. I HATED Borat and the Austin Powers movies, but I sure 'get' that other people found them hilarious. I good-naturedly kid them about their cretinous 'taste', but you sound serious in your dismissal of Chuck Norris/Jack Bauer jokes, which (and I'm sure this will be NO surprise to you ) I DO find funny!
malmo wrote:.... Chuck Norris jokes are like Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky jokes. ...
If I had the vaguest idea who Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky might be I might get your point. I guess I don't spend nearly as much time in the schoolyard as you do.
I'm not the resident ex-playground aide here.
[link removed by request]
Should you find the link patently offensive, you can go to Google then type in "Bill Brasky" then click on "video".
Last edited by malmo on Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo wrote:.... Chuck Norris jokes are like Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky jokes. ...
If I had the vaguest idea who Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky might be I might get your point. I guess I don't spend nearly as much time in the schoolyard as you do.
I'm not the resident ex-playground aide here.
Should you find the link patently offensive, you can go to Google then type in "Bill Brasky" then click on "video".
you know full well that youtubing of network TV is 100% verboten here; please quit being a serial offender.
If i gave a shit who Jason Rexing or Bill Brasky were I'd have goggled long ago. (Rexing as a thread title on letsrun is coming to mind though)
gh wrote:you know full well that youtubing of network TV is 100% verboten here; please quit being a serial offender.
I don't get this obsession with forbidden youtube links? I would think that youtube, owned by one of the largest corporations in the world would know a little bit more about copyright law, and hosting such content, than the publisher of a boutique sporting magazine? If you would be so kind, please explain the logic behind the rule? Why youtube links to broadcast media = BAD and links to other intellectual/creative properties = GOOD? At best, it seems like Animal Farm logic to me.
I'm not sure where the land mines are ... is this link OK or nicht sehr gut?
malmo wrote:[ I would think that youtube, owned by one of the largest corporations in the world would know a little bit more about copyright law, and hosting such content, than the publisher of a boutique sporting magazine? If you would be so kind, please explain the logic behind the rule?
As gh has explained before when I have raised the same point(i.e. - no legal exposure) T&FN would not appreciate it if THEIR material was used without their consent so they don't encourage others intellectual property being pirated here on this board.
malmo wrote:[ I would think that youtube, owned by one of the largest corporations in the world would know a little bit more about copyright law, and hosting such content, than the publisher of a boutique sporting magazine? If you would be so kind, please explain the logic behind the rule?
As gh has explained before when I have raised the same point(i.e. - no legal exposure) T&FN would not appreciate it if THEIR material was used without their consent so they don't encourage others intellectual property being pirated here on this board.
Then the onus is on them to prove the infringement. No different than some rube asking me for "artistic credits" to photos that are my personal property. If you don't know that infringement exists, then it's none of your goddamn business to ask.
since they became "commercial" it's obvious they've put their foot down to remove copyrighted vids, but seeing as they have substantially more vids being posted/day than they have the staff to remove/day, it looks like it will still take some time to reach an "equilibrium" & then into their favor when more copyright vids get removed then being put on/day
getting enough staff/smart enough software will get them there, but no point abetting a "crime" until they reach that
eldrick wrote:youtube is still a "pup" as an evolving business
since they became "commercial" it's obvious they've put their foot down to remove copyrighted vids,
That's not entirely true, as they are not required by US law to remove user-uploaded content unless they are asked by the copyright holder. Yes, they are quick to respond on such requests, but they do not remove content "on their own".
That of course is the key. Since they are not the content provider, but simply a "forum", they have no legal exposure unless they do not respond to copyright holders requests to remove content.
malmo wrote:I would think that youtube, owned by one of the largest corporations in the world would know a little bit more about copyright law, and hosting such content
All I know is that I frequently find youtube content one day, and it's gone the next. Just because it (and dozens of thousands of other videos) is ON youtube, does not mean they approve or even KNOW it's there! They certainly can't verify every video's 'legality' on a constant basis.
That said, the line is so blurry now that I have virually given up trying to understand what IS and what IS NOT OK. I wish the old www rule was in effect: "everything is free, because it's there!" I was a lot happier BEFORE I found out I was a Napster criminal!
malmo wrote:No different than some rube asking me for "artistic credits" to photos that are my personal property. If you don't know that infringement exists, then it's none of your goddamn business to ask.
It's a malmo post so of course he's being an asshole for no reason . . .
malmo wrote:No different than some rube asking me for "artistic credits" to photos that are my personal property. If you don't know that infringement exists, then it's none of your goddamn business to ask.
It's a malmo post so of course he's being an asshole for no reason . . .
Wrong again. (as usual) Rubes poking their noses where it doesn't belong are the assholes. (actually I don't even believe that)
Give it a rest.
You still refuse to actually participate in a thread.
malmo wrote:No different than some rube asking me for "artistic credits" to photos that are my personal property. If you don't know that infringement exists, then it's none of your goddamn business to ask.
It's a malmo post so of course he's being an asshole for no reason . . .
Whoa-whoa-whoa! Did you not see my post the other day regarding civility? This kind of name-calling WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
The only thing wrong with me is that I take offense to you coming on here with your typically rude and condescending posts. I don't care who you are pointing your barbs at, it sours just about every thread you enter, almost always without cause.
The photo credit thread was a great example. Some very rare poster wants to give some photog an attaboy for what he considered a nice picture, and you went off on him. And still are earlier in this post.
It is tiring and the boards would be better off without it, regardless of whatever slight glimmer of useful info you occasionally post here.
bad hammy wrote:The photo credit thread was a great example. Some very rare poster wants to give some photog an attaboy for what he considered a nice picture, and you went off on him. And still are earlier in this post.
I just looked back, seemed like a completely innocent comment. More trying to start a conversation than make any accusation.
bad hammy wrote:It is tiring and the boards would be better off without it, regardless of whatever slight glimmer of useful info you occasionally post here.
Malmo, this is about right. You bring good content to the boards but the barbs sour it, especially when unprovoked. How can you still be smarting over the photog request?
) I DO find funny!
