Off-Roading The Old New Thing


My friend ::Wendy:: decided that going off topic in the comments to this Web site was so much fun, she didn't want to let the Ground Rules stop her. So she created the Off-Roading The Old New Thing group, where people who get a thrill out of going off topic can do so without running afoul of this Web site's Ground Rules.

Have fun, everybody!

Comments (14)
  1. Kip says:

    What’s wrong with going off topic?  And what does everyone think of the economy and the election?  I like M&M’s but I hate Skittles.

  2. John says:

    This is pointless.  The thrill of going off-topic exists SOLELY because it runs afoul of the ground rules.  Where’s the fun in going off-topic if you’re not breaking the ground rules?  Is this your implementation of "Free Speech Zones"?

    In off-topic news, this morning I saw a local political campaign ad on TV that criticized the other guy for 1) wanting to raise taxes and 2) wanting to increase spending without raising taxes.  Literally, within a span of about 10 seconds:

    "John Jackson wants to raise your taxes."

    // some other criticism

    "John Jackson wants to increase spending without raising your taxes"

    (ominous music)

  3. Rick C says:

    Well, clearly, John, John Jackson can’t do both of those things at the same time.  So if he claims to do so, at least one of those statements is a lie.

  4. John says:

    I don’t know what he claims to be able to do, but it seems odd to me that that they would criticize him for two (seemingly opposite) things.  The strange thing was that they made no insinuation that he was lying or promising two different things; each statement was made matter-of-factly and neither was mentioned in relation to the other.

    I hate negative campaigning.  Don’t tell me why I shouldn’t vote for the other guy; tell me why I should vote for you.

  5. Mark says:

    I haven’t seen the Ad, but if the point of the Ad was the John Jackson is inconsistent in what he promises, the point could have been made better.

    Clip of John Jackson saying he won’t raise taxes.

    Clip of John Jackson saying he will raise taxes.

    Voiceover: Which is it, John Jackson?

    Of course, most Ads tend to puzzle me more then inform me, as they contain too much meaningless emotional content and lack any facts or figures, so I may not be the intended audience.

  6. Negative campaigning exists because it works. Based on my own discussions with a variety of people, if they are politically aware at all, they usually know which guy they are going to vote for before the campaigning even starts.

    If they are not politically aware then they are very likely not as motivated by the, often  mundane, things a candidate will do that they would like. They also don’t have a very large attention span for political ads. But, they are typically very motivated by the things they will do that they really don’t like and those things can usually be summarized in a few words. Take this positive messages for example:

    I promise to make sure that small businesses with gross annual profits  of more than 100K and less than 149K who also take advantage of the Brown, Smith and Jones Tax Reclamation Distribution Act will not be adversely impact by the 2008 Morgan Hughes consumer policy schedule in the next fiscal period.

    And compare it with:

    My opponent wants to raise your taxes, reduce your benefits, attack your friends, befriend your enemies, torture small animals and sell the statue of Liberty for 50K!

    Which one of this is more likely to penetrate the consciousness of the average disinterested voter?  

    In summary,  fear is a much better motivator than boredom 

  7. Mark says:

    Doesn’t matter. I’m voting for the one who forces Microsoft to follow the "Pay Raymond Chen 10 million dollars" Offical Policy (To get this thread back on track).

  8. Duke of New York says:

    Oh wonderful, Mark, more trickle-down economics!

  9. Fred says:

    So, how about that local sports team?

  10. Pi says:

    I hate the decisions that the Microsoft Games division made. They gave away games like Psychonauts, Stranger’s Wrath, Crimson Skies, and instead we get slow, boring, ugly Lionhead games full of features that noone wanted in the first place and slow, boring, ugly Rare games that only sold on Nintendo 64 because owners had nothing else to buy.

    Instead of Tim Schafer being paid to promote his game and spreading his awesomeness, we have to endure Molyneux promising (yet again) to change the face of gaming with his grand visions as if grand visions is something that we don’t already have in abundance.

    Raymond, do something!

  11. ::Wendy:: says:

    I don’t like google groups.

    Easy enough to set one up and send Raymond the link,  but just now I tried to ‘reply’ on each of the ‘Discussions’ and it didn’t post my reply.  I GUESS I replied to the individuals,  not my intention at all.  Pah.  

    Its all way too confusing for me

  12. Infinitesmal Speck says:

    Too bad, can’t use it… it is hosted by the Evil Empire.  

  13. Duke of New York says:

    They can’t be evil! I mean, they have a mission statement that says they aren’t! What more do you want?

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content