Don't most advocates for the homeless agree on this? I know I've seen studies before claiming most homelss don't panhandle and most panhandlers aren't homeless.
I think there's some merit to that perspective that has almost nothing to do with anything seen at the above link...
Did you watch it? He mentions "charities and groups" that accept money to help the homeless as a better alternative.
it's hot to be a girl in gaming right now. and not hot in the sexy way, the bad way
I can't even imagine
you're referring to 'hot' in a 'i can parlay my gender into a career as a blogger as I complain about how I am treated by strangers at conventions' sense, yes?
I know the "booth babes" (hurf durf) probably get that shit but I doubt your random female on the con floor gets harrassed.
WELL
that DEPENDS
if you believe being addressed by a male at a convention as if he assumes you don't know how to play Quake is harassment, then E3 is basically a huge rape orgy
Are you saying he is making strawman arguments or that he does not have a brain
it's hot to be a girl in gaming right now. and not hot in the sexy way, the bad way
I can't even imagine
you're referring to 'hot' in a 'i can parlay my gender into a career as a blogger as I complain about how I am treated by strangers at conventions' sense, yes?
I know the "booth babes" (hurf durf) probably get that shit but I doubt your random female on the con floor gets harrassed.
WELL
that DEPENDS
if you believe being addressed by a male at a convention as if he assumes you don't know how to play Quake is harassment, then E3 is basically a huge rape orgy
Are you saying he is making strawman arguments or that he does not have a brain
it's hot to be a girl in gaming right now. and not hot in the sexy way, the bad way
I can't even imagine
you're referring to 'hot' in a 'i can parlay my gender into a career as a blogger as I complain about how I am treated by strangers at conventions' sense, yes?
I know the "booth babes" (hurf durf) probably get that shit but I doubt your random female on the con floor gets harrassed.
WELL
that DEPENDS
if you believe being addressed by a male at a convention as if he assumes you don't know how to play Quake is harassment, then E3 is basically a huge rape orgy
Are you saying he is making strawman arguments or that he does not have a brain
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
or is it the villains, nay, the TERRORISTS at E3 who are the real gooses
Reading your recent posts in this thread I genuinely feel like I've missed something, because I'm not entirely clear on what you're reacting to / against so strongly.
or is it the villains, nay, the TERRORISTS at E3 who are the real gooses
Reading your recent posts in this thread I genuinely feel like I've missed something, because I'm not entirely clear on what you're reacting to / against so strongly.
When I sit down at a computer, my left hand falls automatically into the inverted-V shape known well by all of you; middle three fingers arched across W, A, S and D. Pinky hovering over left-shift, my thumb resting lightly on the space bar. There’s a poetic comfort in this for me. I do it without thinking. These letters are the ones I always come home to.
So last week at E3, it wasn’t disappointing press conferences, my ruthless appointment schedule, not having time to eat, or even the nightly drinking that broke me. It was my forced separation from those four buttons.
It happened during one of my first appointments of the show, a half hour I’d booked to check out the sequel to a well-known military shooter franchise. I’d checked into the publisher’s booth as media and had been told to wait at a computer for the next available PR person to assist me.
So I sat down, fingers falling perfectly across the keyboard. Before me, yellow grass swayed in the wind, and leaning on the W, I began to move slowly through its blades, watching the brush give way to glimpses of crumbling buildings and battered vehicles. It was a meticulously detailed scene and I wanted to absorb all of it.
This was how the PR representative found me a few minutes later, though it seemed he mistook my marvel for a slow-witted lack of comprehension.
“Do you play PC games?” he asked, frowning.
One of the publications on my media badge was listed as PC PowerPlay. It shouldn’t have been necessary for him to ask such a question, but I answered. “Yes.”
“Well, OK.” I sensed a disbelief in the guy’s voice. “But do you play shooters?”
I remember the silence that filled this space beyond this question. I was horrified that anyone could even ask such a thing. Here I was, sitting with my fingers spread across WASD, admiring a game world — and somehow, for some obtuse reason, being assumed to be someone who didn’t know anything about the world or how to interact with it.
“I think I better play it for you,” he said finally, prying my hands away and turning the keyboard towards himself.
And so there I was, hands twisted awkwardly and uselessly in my lap as a guy walked me through his game. In laboured detail, he explained to me simple mechanics that any shooter player would be well-acquainted with. He avoided the gameplay due to some apparent strange belief that I was not there to learn about shooting things in a shooter game, that perhaps my delicate girl senses might be offended by killing with guns and missiles. He pointed out rabbits in the grass with all the condescension of an adult trying to distract a noisy toddler, as if my interest in this simulation-grade shooter lay in some wildly misguided assumption that it would be full of adorable, fluffy animals.
Don't most advocates for the homeless agree on this? I know I've seen studies before claiming most homelss don't panhandle and most panhandlers aren't homeless.
I think there's some merit to that perspective that has almost nothing to do with anything seen at the above link...
Did you watch it? He mentions "charities and groups" that accept money to help the homeless as a better alternative.
He also offered enabling addiction as a primary reason for not giving to people, which would be pretty different from your argument on relative destitution among begging populations. I don't think either is particularly pertinent to thrust of that segment, page description, or URL as items of purported journalism.
or is it the villains, nay, the TERRORISTS at E3 who are the real gooses
Reading your recent posts in this thread I genuinely feel like I've missed something, because I'm not entirely clear on what you're reacting to / against so strongly.
he's upset at this article
there are very important differences between "upset" and "amused"
0
Options
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
or is it the villains, nay, the TERRORISTS at E3 who are the real gooses
Reading your recent posts in this thread I genuinely feel like I've missed something, because I'm not entirely clear on what you're reacting to / against so strongly.
he's upset at this article
there are very important differences between "upset" and "amused"
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
or is it the villains, nay, the TERRORISTS at E3 who are the real gooses
Reading your recent posts in this thread I genuinely feel like I've missed something, because I'm not entirely clear on what you're reacting to / against so strongly.
he's upset at this article
there are very important differences between "upset" and "amused"
Don't most advocates for the homeless agree on this? I know I've seen studies before claiming most homelss don't panhandle and most panhandlers aren't homeless.
I think there's some merit to that perspective that has almost nothing to do with anything seen at the above link...
Did you watch it? He mentions "charities and groups" that accept money to help the homeless as a better alternative.
He also offered enabling addiction as a primary reason for not giving to people, which would be pretty different from your argument on relative destitution among begging populations. I don't think either is particularly pertinent to thrust of that segment, page description, or URL as items of purported journalism.
In a three minute segment he gave a single reason for not giving to people on the street which I don't think to be out of line giving the high rate of drug and alcohol addiction among the chronically homeless. The premise of his disguise stunt is obviously to prove that people are not very judicious with whom they give their spare change to and to add to the argument that panhandlers aren't necessarily needy.
You know I don't care for FNC at all but Stossel has done some decent work in the past (though I admit I have never watched his show on FNC only back his 20/20 days) and I really don't see anything wrong with what he is trying to say there.
Posts
Did you watch it? He mentions "charities and groups" that accept money to help the homeless as a better alternative.
Are you saying he is making strawman arguments or that he does not have a brain
Does he really have to pick just one?
What spring does with the cherry trees.
or is it the villains, nay, the TERRORISTS at E3 who are the real gooses
Nah you're worse.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Reading your recent posts in this thread I genuinely feel like I've missed something, because I'm not entirely clear on what you're reacting to / against so strongly.
if we DONT label them terrorists
the terrorists win
amen
he's upset at this article
and not for the reason everyone else is
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
He also offered enabling addiction as a primary reason for not giving to people, which would be pretty different from your argument on relative destitution among begging populations. I don't think either is particularly pertinent to thrust of that segment, page description, or URL as items of purported journalism.
there are very important differences between "upset" and "amused"
What spring does with the cherry trees.
Sorry about that, Jasc. Please continue.
That article has nothing to do with terrorists.
I am confused.
as a gamer,
In a three minute segment he gave a single reason for not giving to people on the street which I don't think to be out of line giving the high rate of drug and alcohol addiction among the chronically homeless. The premise of his disguise stunt is obviously to prove that people are not very judicious with whom they give their spare change to and to add to the argument that panhandlers aren't necessarily needy.
You know I don't care for FNC at all but Stossel has done some decent work in the past (though I admit I have never watched his show on FNC only back his 20/20 days) and I really don't see anything wrong with what he is trying to say there.
frothing at the mouth here