Nerd Pride Radio

Moxie Crimefighter Gillette

Malificent Calico Garibaldi

Aha! I have fooled you! Mine is the name of an actual human being and not just some fanciful creation of my own! I think that... means... I win?

Good game, good game. Orange slices and Capri-Sun for everyone!

Happy 22/02/2022 year anniversary

I was gonna be a smartass and say that I prefer 2022/02/22, but then realized that's not the same thing at all.

Happy oh-two two-thee two-oh two-three

Well shit. Tahlvin's gone, and now Kyle's run off with him. This may be the end of us.

I'm lurking. I just don't feel a compelling need to keep an unkillable thread alive anymore just for the sake of it. I have nothing to prove to anyone, there's no real sense of accomplishment anymore if I win, and I'm busy with work and that makes me tired of trying to come up with some new theme to post about, like song lyrics in Welsh. But you keep going.

Back to winning then!

You and me both!

I have no interest in winning, I was just here for the Welsh lyrics and now there's no point. Chat GPT had just explained to me all kinds of complex things about how enzymes function on different levels and then through a failure of cut and paste I lost that particular response. Boo.

Aw shit! I was travelling for work (and watching the Day After Tomorrow at the hotel) and I missed everything! Are there any Capri Suns left?

One? Maybe two. Tahlvin kind of took the balls though. So we're definitely done with the game.

Fine. I'll just take a Capri... oh come on, dude! Did he really take all the pokey straws too? How am I supposed to drink my Capri Sun now, Tahlvin?

Do you have some type of camera in my home?! If so, you will recall the Capri Sun "incident" from a few days ago. Eerie.

I never said I don't have cameras in your home. So...

... Yes?

So wait... that Short Cello Long Dong OnlyFans page... KYLE'S responsible for that? Jesus, I feel dumb. I'm unsubscribing immediately.


I only went there for the articles.

... Yes?

This is really what you called your OnlyFans?! That doesn't even make sense - short cello?

No, not short... Short.

And besides, he didn't create the account--Kyle planted cameras in Eliahad's home, and KYLE created the OnlyFans page for his own profit.

I'm curious what the going rate is and how it arrives: per monthly subscription, per subscriber level, per hour, year???

Phoebe wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:46 pm I'm curious what the going rate is and how it arrives: per monthly subscription, per subscriber level, per hour, year???

Your husband subscribes. Just ask him.

ZING! SICK BURN!

But seriously folks, I'll be here again tomorrow for two shows. Tip your wait staff.

Cellists self censor.

Good morning!

This is not morning... Yet.
?

Good morning?!?!

I stopped reading Scott Adam's comic back during the Trump era, and this latest bit with him just makes me that much sure it was the right decision. And Random House, is it really necessary to edit Roald Dahl's books?

The Dahl revisions are weird and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Kyle wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 5:50 am The Dahl revisions are weird and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Luckily I am here to tell you how you should feel: You should reject these stupid revisions. At the same time, here's what the inestimable Maurice Sendak had to say:

Roald Dahl: "The cruelty in his books is off-putting. Scary guy. I know he's very popular but what's nice about this guy? He's dead, that's what's nice about him."

I'm fine with the revisions. Both versions are available. They can do what they want. Some families will find these versions valuable. I often censor books I read to my kids, most often say saying silly instead of stupid. A book that does that for me? Fine.

Tahlvin wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 4:41 am I stopped reading Scott Adam's comic back during the Trump era, and this latest bit with him just makes me that much sure it was the right decision. And Random House, is it really necessary to edit Roald Dahl's books?

I like it when the racists just come right out clearly with their evil so we can all see it for what it is. Until they give you some honesty, everyone can pretend that the embrace of BS racist ideas is just some harmless ideological difference. People have the learning experience that people who believe those things don't do it by accident or because they stumbled across some compelling red pill or other; they do it because they hate other people and that's really what's in their heart. Maybe now the people who took him to be a healthy representative of conservative thinking will experience a tiny moment of reckoning, a tiny firework going off internally that might make them wonder if their BS is okay after all.

Phoebe wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 7:52 am "The cruelty in his books is off-putting. Scary guy. I know he's very popular but what's nice about this guy? He's dead, that's what's nice about him."

Dahl's conception of childhood is that all adults (with only one possible rare exception) are at best callous, uncaring, cruel monsters, and at worst sadistic demons capable of unthinkable cruelty.

I can only imagine the man did not have a happy childhood.

poorpete wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 8:55 am I'm fine with the revisions. Both versions are available. They can do what they want. Some families will find these versions valuable. I often censor books I read to my kids, most often say saying silly instead of stupid. A book that does that for me? Fine.

I think this is how I feel about it. If this is what his estate wants to do, then why do I care? I don't even like his books that much, and I don't think there's anything sacred about them. Do I think some of these revisions are stupid? Sure- but they're not for me. They're for a totally different audience that might appreciate that. And if people are so offended by it, then go read the originals. They're still there.

I think what bugs me is that the outrage about this seems to be telling people that they have to read something a certain way. And I guess that bothers me.

There have been sanitized, dumbed-down, translated, modernized, and otherwise adapted versions of treasured classics forever. And as was pointed out, the originals are always still available. No one complains when recent movie versions of Huckleberry Finn aimed at kids shorten one character's name to just "Jim".

(bump)

I was going to object to these truncated and watered down tame versions of the wicked classics because you know, All or nothing baby!!! Purism! But then I realized I have a truncated Bible. I actually have more than one - like the super simple one for toddlers and small children and then a slightly more advanced one for the middle children... So ... Hm

Hmmmmmmmmm!

Alimentary, my dear Watson!

Also, didn't none of us have a problem when they did this same thing to eliminate Seuss's racist stuff?

But I understand that it feels different. Seuss was about removing obviously racist caricatures, which feel different from altering the words "fat" and "crazy".

But I don't think it's actually different except by matters of degrees. By how acceptable it still is in common usage and by which groups of people are condemning and defending use of these terms/ideas.

But also- what do we really care about preserving the integrity of Dahl's work? If you care, do you really? Or is it "what's next? This is a slippery slope." Because I get a weird feeling about people upset about these revisions that it's a lot of the same logic that people use to justify keeping up civil war monuments. NOT to suggest that there's an overlap between the two groups at all (maybe some- but not anyone on these boards), but it's really similar logic.

On the other hand... Cocaine Bear! What a masterwork of cinema this was!

Cant wait to see it.

I haven't followed the debate about Dahl but my reason for not wanting it adulterated is that that's how he wrote it. If that makes it a bad book for little kids, so be it. Just like Huck Finn, they'll have to read it when they're older if it still has value then. I feel the same way about things like not sanitizing Aristotle, though you often see people wanting to present his ethical or political ideas scrubbed free of the essential point that some people are naturally suited to slavery and some people are accidentally doomed to struggling harder for happiness because of things like being ugly or deformed. That's the truthful-content issue, and then the adult response is like my dad made a judgment call about when I was old enough to read Rise and fall of the third Reich.

Yeah, but its his estate that wants to offer the revised version. They control it. Why do you (or anyone else) get to tell them no?

I get that you'll gatekeep when your kids get to read the original. As you should. But why do you (or anyone else) get to take away the option of other parents to offer the revised versions?

The question stirred up another point that concerned me: The reason I wanted to read the rise and fall of the third Reich was purely because of the way the book was packaged. It stood out from other books on the shelf by being shiny gleaming black with its big eye catching symbol. I didn't know what any of that meant at the time, but in hindsight I don't think they should package it that way.

Anyway my criticism here functions on the same level. I can't tell them how to package the book or whether to sell an edited book to buyers with poor taste. My level of control extends to saying I don't like it or maybe encouraging other people not to buy such a useless product? People are still free to go on doing it, alas, because although they should be listening to me, they often don't. Distressing discovery of older age!

You lose me at the point where people who disagree with you on matters of taste are inferior people.

But Cocaine Bear... holy crap this was fun! It is a bit slow in the beginning as they build characters and put all the pieces in motion, but then it's a bear!... and it's on cocaine! This movie is absolutely a horror movie. There are genuine scares and horrible bloody gore. There are slow scenes of building tension that are very effective... moreso, because you are scared with anticipation but also giggling because you know it's gonna be funny as well. Plus, there are some very solid belly laughs in this film that are intensified by the horror tension underneath it.

Yes, this movie was Ray Liotta's final film, but the true star for me was Margo Martindale.

Don't let me hype it up too much. It has issues, but for my money, the blend of horror and comedy worked better than I've ever seen it, and these visceral emotional reactions made up for any other flaws in the film. 95 minutes well spent.

Bears... On cocoaine? It'll never sell!