Support NeoGAF

[Nealand Liquor]

You think so?

Well the thread wasn't titled "Your least offensive opinions"
But yeah. Older dudes playing pokemon (or anything really) with children they're not related to in anyway is, uhhhhh, odd to put it nicely.

Anyway I have some baggage regarding the subject. Admittedly, it in no doubt it clouds my judgment.

 

[CornBurrito]

Well the thread wasn't titled "Your least offensive opinions"
But yeah. Older dudes playing pokemon (or anything really) with children they're not related to in anyway is, uhhhhh, odd to put it nicely.

Anyway I have some baggage regarding the subject. Admittedly, it in no doubt it clouds my judgment.

Odd isn't the same as pedophile.

 

[terrisus]

But yeah. Older dudes playing pokemon (or anything really) with children they're not related to in anyway is, uhhhhh, odd to put it nicely.

Gee, it sure is swell trying to get a teaching job at the Elementary level as a male.

If I ever do, I should tell all the students they have to stay in their seats the entire day and copy in notebooks while I write on the board, lest someone think that it's "odd."

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Well the thread wasn't titled "Your least offensive opinions"
But yeah. Older dudes playing pokemon (or anything really) with children they're not related to in anyway is, uhhhhh, odd to put it nicely.

Anyway I have some baggage regarding the subject. Admittedly, it in no doubt it clouds my judgment.

What?

So me playing with my mate's kids is creepy?

WTF dood...

 

[Yado]

What was that thread where the guy took a photo of the shadow of his dick?

 

[Rest]

Who was that guy who was obsessed with Natalie Portman? I also remember Risky Chris, what a useless piece of crap, ruining any thread because she just wanted to. I can't say it's ever happened to me though.

I've never seen this before... I can't scroll away...

 

[JaseC]

Who was that guy who was obsessed with Natalie Portman?

Fistful.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Who was that guy who was obsessed with Natalie Portman? I also remember Risky Chris, what a useless piece of crap, ruining any thread because she just wanted to. I can't say it's ever happened to me though.

Oh god, that Natalie Portman dude was super creep level. I mean I have a few Hayley Williams gifs saved in my phone as reaction gifs and such, but his categorised folders of when and where she was at any given time was just crazy.

And yeah, Risky Chris was the worst.

Edit: nice one Jase. Lol, that dude man...

 

[tapedeck]

Fistfulofmetal thread?

Definately.

 

[strafer]

Fistful.

No words.

The responses are hilarous tho

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Great gif and great thread, major respect for his post

 

[Tesseract]

curtisaur is satan, i can feel it.

 

[Coreda]

Fistful.

It's threads like these I wish the Wayback Machine wasn't blocked by GAF so the OP's screenshots could be seen, although the replies have always been great in that thread

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yes, Plenty of times. SMH

 

[terrisus]

Yes,

12-12-2005:

One of them was 27 and married, so she was off limits. The other was 19 (one year older than me)

Here's where you realize you're now as old as that other woman was (or possibly a year younger)

 

[JaseC]

It's threads like these I wish the Wayback Machine wasn't blocked by GAF so the OP's screenshots could be seen, although the replies have always been great in that thread

They're still up. Replace the asterisks with the domain name of a certain tiny image hosting service. It was added to GAF's shit list as URLs were being recycled and so previously-safe images were suddenly turning into porn and such, but the OP's images are still a-okay.

 

[NateDog]

This thread is glorious, this backlog of subscribed threads is already about 10 times worse than my gaming backlog and it is never going to stop growing I think.

 

[Coreda]

They're still up. Replace the asterisks with the domain name of a certain tiny image hosting service.

Haha, great. Thanks. It's funny, when organized into sub folders it disguises just how many photos he had in there.

 

[Gildarts]

Love when people take people over the internet serious.

 

[terrisus]

They're still up. Replace the asterisks with the domain name of a certain tiny image hosting service. It was added to GAF's shit list as URLs were being recycled and so previously-safe images were suddenly turning into porn and such, but the OP's images are still a-okay.

Yeah, the OP's images are still a-okay

Spoiler

since they were porn to begin with

 

[PhoenixDark]

12-12-2005:



Here's where you realize you're now as old as that other woman was (or possibly a year younger)

Yea, I'm 27....sheeit. She's nearly 40 now, probably has kids.

I actually saw the younger one at Sam's Club a few years ago. She was with some older guy who I could tell wasn't her dad. I waved from across the parking lot and she gave me this confused look. I kinda just pulled out my phone and pretended to get a call, then walked away.

 

[ConradCervantes]

The Vasper one will always stay with me. Fantastic thread and a contributing factor to me signing to GAF.

As far as the topic at hand, nothing really. No one has ever gone detective on me to disprove a claim of mine, and I'm generally a far less interesting online than I am in person.

 

[Wazzy]

I can't think of anything that would follow me thread to thread.

Greatness Gone was a member that had a shit reputation but I thought some of his posts were hilarious.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Gee, it sure is swell trying to get a teaching job at the Elementary level as a male.

If I ever do, I should tell all the students they have to stay in their seats the entire day and copy in notebooks while I write on the board, lest someone think that it's "odd."

No but I hope you don't think playing pokemon during class hours is appropriate curriculum.

What?

So me playing with my mate's kids is creepy?

WTF dood...

WTF dood... I said "related to in anyway".

Odd isn't the same as pedophile.

I can see you guys are getting all worked up so I'll just remind you:
A) it was a thread based on offensive opinions.
B) I felt poorly and apologized.
C) Was banned for it.
D) It was three years ago.

Calm down, it'a ok.

 

[BuggyDClown]

Fistful.

This was the thread that got me to start lurking and ultimately register on GAF. I decided to look at OT instead of just gaming, and found this amazing thread.

 

[illmatic22]

Italian fooooooooooooooood

 

[terrisus]

No but I hope you don't think playing pokemon during class hours is appropriate curriculum.

Older dudes playing pokemon (or anything really) with children they're not related to in anyway is, uhhhhh, odd to put it nicely.

"Or anything really" would imply that things such as Baseball, Scrabble, or any of a variety of other things would fall under that as well.

And, I did a presentation during one of my Master's courses on the educational benefits of video games, and the topic I had planned for my PhD dissertation had involved video games in education as well.

I can see you guys are getting all worked up so I'll just remind you:
A) it was a thread based on offensive opinions.
B) I felt poorly and apologized.
C) Was banned for it.
D) It was three years ago.

Calm down, it'a ok.

So do you accept that you're wrong now?

 

[velociraptor]

Yea, I'm 27....sheeit. She's nearly 40 now, probably has kids.

I actually saw the younger one at Sam's Club a few years ago. She was with some older guy who I could tell wasn't her dad. I waved from across the parking lot and she gave me this confused look. I kinda just pulled out my phone and pretended to get a call, then walked away.

Did you get any girls since then?

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Huh, now?
I accepted I was wrong three years ago.

Like I said years before, even though I find it very stange and extremely concering when I've seen older men seeking out children to discuss childlike activities, yes I was wrong to have generalised pokemon in particular.
It was a poorly worded smaller example of a bigger picture issue.

 

[terrisus]

Why would anyone use Wikipedia as a reference?

It truly is. Why anyone would use it as a valid source is beyond me. Unless you use it purely as an aid.

Just since this discussion was only 2 days ago, and to provide an example, is this post

Allegedly? He admitted to it, and even bragged about it. Perhaps we should post the entire thing so that everyone has full perspective:

After her 1990 interview with Ice Cube in which the rapper discusses his leaving N.W.A. at the height of their feud,[2] the group, feeling they had been negatively portrayed, sought retaliation. On January 27, 1991 Dr. Dre would encounter Barnes at a record release party in Hollywood. According to Rolling Stone reporter Alan Light:

He picked her up by her hair and "began slamming her head and the right side of her body repeatedly against a brick wall near the stairway" as his bodyguard held off the crowd with a gun. After Dre tried to throw her down the stairs and failed, he began kicking her in the ribs and hands. She escaped and ran into the women's rest room. Dre followed her and "grabbed her from behind by the hair again and proceeded to punch her in the back of the head."[3]

N.W.A.'s MC Ren later said "bitch deserved it", and Eazy-E "yeah, bitch had it coming." As Dr. Dre explained the incident, "People talk all this shit, but you know, somebody fuck with me, I'm gonna fuck with them. I just did it, you know. Ain't nothing you can do now by talking about it. Besides, it ain't no big thing-- I just threw her through a door." Barnes sued in February 1991, telling reporter Alan Light: "They've grown up with the mentality that it's okay to hit women, especially black women. Now there's a lot of kids listening and thinking it's okay to hit women who "get out of line.

Notice how there's no mention of even where the information came from. But, it's obviously quoted directly from a Wikipedia article. And while there are the in-line citation numbers (with no mention of the sources, of course), nothing provided other than a straight copying and pasting of a Wikipedia article as a response to someone else's point, as if Wikipedia "proves" something or is some "definitive source" or anything.

It's not that there's necessarily an issue with the information itself (the sources cited are a published book and a Rolling Stone article), but obviously the wording of the article is completely at the discretion of the person or people who edited that particular article, and, as with anything on Wikipedia, could be changed around at any moment. And yet it's quoted as-is as some sort of "source."

 

[terrisus]

Huh, now?
I accepted I was wrong three years ago.

Like I said years before, even though I find it very stange and extremely concering when I've seen older men seeking out children to discuss childlike activities, yes I was wrong to have generalised pokemon in particular.
It was a poorly worded smaller example of a bigger picture issue.

The issue being people's improper perception of others' activities, right?
Since, the error isn't in generalizing Pokémon, but with how you are judging others.

 

[theJohann]

Notice how there's no mention of even where the information came from. But, it's obviously quoted directly from a Wikipedia article. And while there are the in-line citation numbers (with no mention of the sources, of course), nothing provided other than a straight copying and pasting of a Wikipedia article as a response to someone else's point, as if Wikipedia "proves" something or is some "definitive source" or anything.

It's not that there's necessarily an issue with the information itself (the sources cited are a published book and a Rolling Stone article), but obviously the wording of the article is completely at the discretion of the person or people who edited that particular article, and, as with anything on Wikipedia, could be changed around at any moment. And yet it's quoted as-is as some sort of "source."

I would agree if that portion of text had some tonal cues that indicated a sort of bias, as some Wikipedia articles do indeed have, but most articles seem to present their cited information in a mostly impartial manner. Plus, the articles I've come across that do have stylistic issues also have these issues highlighted and asked to be improved upon.

I do agree that a Wikipedia article is not by any means the definitive concretisation of some information or idea, but it's still a mostly innocuous concept and quite an achievement, I would say.

 

[terrisus]

I would agree if that portion of text had some tonal cues that indicated a sort of bias, as some Wikipedia articles do indeed have, but most articles seem to present their cited information in a mostly impartial manner. Plus, the articles I've come across that do have stylistic issues also have these issues highlighted and asked to be improved upon.

And when said highlights and requests have often been sitting there for 5+ years, it just looks comical.

Anyway, the fact that one may not take issue with that particular passage of text doesn't invalidate the issue in general.

 

[theJohann]

And when said highlights and requests have often been sitting there for 5+ years, it just looks comical.

Anyway, the fact that one may not take issue with that particular passage of text doesn't invalidate the issue in general.

I wasn't at all referring to that particular passage of text. I also believe that it only becomes an issue when the website is cited in a scholarly context, such as in an academic paper, whereas in a discussion board it is functional as a means of delivering simplified information, specifically, in threads that do not require such stringent levels of accuracy and formality. Of course, your idea that it's an issue still remains valid, I just disagree that it can be applied so broadly.

 

[terrisus]

I wasn't at all referring to that particular passage of text. I also believe that it only becomes an issue when the website is cited in a scholarly context, such as in an academic paper, whereas in a discussion board it is functional as a means of delivering simplified information, specifically, in threads that do not require such stringent levels of accuracy and formality. Of course, your idea that it's an issue still remains valid, I just disagree that it can be applied so broadly.

Fair enough. As you said, it's not like discussion boards have citation guidelines and such. Still, even in a less stringent field such as a discussion board, I feel that appealing to Wikipedia as some sort of "authority" is absurd. Just because we're not being published or graded here doesn't mean that we should use bad practices.

 

[blame space]

what's this thread about

 

[NinjaBoiX]

what's this thread about

What's your head about

 

[nullset2]

I can think of three members who have, the mullet dude (SpartanForce), taylor swift lyrics dude (Kopite) and I have a North Korean sugar mama dude (BladeoftheImmortal).

Ahahaha.

Been there for each of those moments, and the sister headphoneless jackagate, that's why I love this board.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

This has happened a couple times with me. I generally say some crazy shit without thinking how it sounds, so I've had stuff follow me, but nothing major.

The biggest thing was when I said I lost respect for the opinion of anyone who likes dubbed anime. But that was only like, two threads.

Other was when I expressed shock at finding out Clementine was not an Asian girl. This was made worse by the fact that my friend made the thread and made me sound way worse.

 

[yencid]

Im also recognized as one of the original posters of the hispanigaf thread that then spawned all those other threads and then sadly got all of them shut down

 

[Easy_D]

no never

Like anyone could actually forget the Timedog vs. blame space poll.

 

[anonymous_abc]

subscribed for future reading pleasure.

 

[Mistel]

As if Wikipedia "proves" something or is some "definitive source" or anything.

Exactly its very nature prevents it from being a definitive source for anything. It shouldn't be used like that.

 

[Easy_D]

Exactly its very nature prevents it from being a definitive source for anything. It shouldn't be used like that.

This is great because one of my uni professors basically said Wikipedia can be cited as a valid source because they have a very tight quality control on articles. My personal opinion has always been that you can read it sure, but always check the sources used in the article to determine its quality and then use those sources rather than the wiki article.

You gotta do some reserach mayun.

Edit: What about the guy who had the Natalie Portman folder?

Edit #2: Upon closer inspection, this was already mentioned. Good golly fellow GAFers, you guys really think of everything.

 

[Mistel]

This is great because one of my uni professors basically said Wikipedia can be cited as a valid source because they have a very tight quality control on articles. My personal opinion has always been that you can read it sure, but always check the sources used in the article to determine its quality and then use those sources rather than the wiki article.

You gotta do some reserach mayun.

Exactly if you can't source it don't use it should be a general rule of thumb for wikipedia based research.

 

[terrisus]

Here are more people quoting Wikipedia from this morning

It is from this 〈uu〉 digraph that the modern name "double U" derives. The digraph was commonly used in the spelling of Old High German, but only sporadically in Old English, where the /w/ sound was usually represented by the runic 〈Ƿ〉 wynn. In early Middle English, following the 11th-century Norman Conquest, 〈uu〉 gained popularity and by 1300 it had taken wynn's place in common use.

There. That took me under 30 seconds.

The greatest symbol:

Traditionally, when reciting the alphabet in English-speaking schools, any letter that could also be used as a word in itself ("A", "I", and, at one point, "O") was preceded by the Latin expression per se ("by itself").[3][4][5] It was also common practice to add the "&" sign at the end of the alphabet as if it were the 27th letter, pronounced and. As a result, the recitation of the alphabet would end in "X, Y, Z, and per se and". This last phrase was routinely slurred to "ampersand" and the term had entered common English usage by 1837.[4][6][7] However, in contrast to the 26 letters, the ampersand does not represent a speech sound—although other characters that were dropped from the English alphabet, such as the Old English thorn, did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampersand

I'm not going to keep a running record of this stuff or anything, but the point is it happens all the time.

And, yes, grammatical questions aren't exactly life-or-death, and it's not that the information is necessarily incorrect, mispresented, lacking, or such.
But, people "quoting Wikipedia as a source" is just absurd.

 

[Ahasverus]

Im also recognized as one of the original posters of the hispanigaf thread that then spawned all those other threads and then sadly got all of them shut down

I don't know that story, care to explain please?

 

[hateradio]

Here are more people quoting Wikipedia from this morning



I'm not going to keep a running record of this stuff or anything, but the point is it happens all the time.

And, yes, grammatical questions aren't exactly life-or-death, and it's not that the information is necessarily incorrect, mispresented, lacking, or such.
But, people "quoting Wikipedia as a source" is just absurd.

Why are you terrisus-ing yourself more?

 

[yencid]

I don't know that story, care to explain please?

From the black culture thread

What happened was that if i remember correctly the user goya started a thread talking about something that a lot of hispanic/latin gaffers related to, and that thread kind of kept going into how a lot of us from different countries had similar childhoods and customs.

So we decided to make a culture thread following that one and then the above happened.

the users i recognize the most around gaf are the ones from that thread and the creepygaf thread

read through this

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=394268

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Here are more people quoting Wikipedia from this morning







I'm not going to keep a running record of this stuff or anything, but the point is it happens all the time.

And, yes, grammatical questions aren't exactly life-or-death, and it's not that the information is necessarily incorrect, mispresented, lacking, or such.
But, people "quoting Wikipedia as a source" is just absurd.

But what if the part of the wikipedia entry being quoted is itself cited from 1 (or several) real source(s)? That's often the case. It's just more convenient to link to wiki since it's a fast website with a clean interface and has additional information on the topic.

For example, the part of the wiki entry about ampersand that you quoted has 6 citations within it alone.