Autumn Winds

Humpback Whales Do It Doggy-style

2009-12-09T05:50:36Z

So I'm going about my business trying to post a review of a watercooling system on Newegg, but it won't let me because one of the words I used triggered its naughty language filter. Apparently a word that grade-school kids titter about as giggly kid-code for "you know...doing it" is now considered unusably obscene and offensive.

So I wrote a letter to Newegg's service department:

Greetings,

As part of a review of a watercooling system, I wrote the following, which your system tagged as un-postable due to the inclusion of the word "hump":

-----

Cons: The included directions and the directions on the company's site are terrible. Toss them out. But don't worry, if you have any clue at all what you're doing on the inside of a computer, you can easily figure out on your own how to attach everything.

The fan/radiator combo only fits one very specific way, all other positions kink the tubes. This also meant I could not secure the radiator on all four points in my HAF 922 case, as a small hump where the tube enters the radiator catches on the rim of the case around the card slots below.

-----

Seriously, folks? "Hump"?

I assume we're all out of grade-school and words like "nipple" and "screw" and "plug" and "taint" and "wet" don't make us get all embarrassed and think wrongbad thoughts about boy parts and girl parts. Or should I be writing reviews with an eye towards dirty-minded fourth-graders as the core audience?

There's a certain point at which you have to say "is this word really so obscene that its only utility is in offending sensible adults?"

I've gone and changed the text in my review to the less accurate "protrusion" so I could post, but seriously, if the only reason the word is proscribed is contextual, please update your filters -- because there are a whole LOT of contextually dirty words that have plenty of utility outside of cheap giggles for ten-year olds.

Thank you.

-Raven Daegmorgan

Because, really, we are not talking about cunt, ass, fuck, shit, nigger, kike, twat, dick, or fag...

Now to await the potentially bullshit business-speak response about why its super-duper and actually rational that they're flagging words based on potential contextual usage by children whispering supposed taboos on the playground.

But we'll see.

Paizo Editor Opening

2009-11-29T19:30:01Z

For any of my friends in the Seattle area who haven't heard yet: Paizo is looking to contract an editor. Might be a good break for someone.

Appropriating Cultural Appropriation

2009-11-29T03:53:09Z

Apparently, accusing everyone and their mother of "Cultural Appropriation" is the new hawtness, as is looking like you give a shit about it and being seen therefore a "Wise, Caring, Human Being"(tm) in certain extreme left-leaning crowds.

But from what I've seen, the only people who can be guilty of appropriation are that apparently monolithic cultural entity known as "white people".

Neat, that. Because I'm pretty sure "white people" have a whole ton of different cultures that constantly get borrowed from and misrepresented or stereotyped, both by other "white" people and by "non-white" people (an equally preposterous dichotomy to the monism of "white people").

That was something I was thinking about the other day while wondering why the Japanese have such a hard-on for borrowing the shit out of Norse mythology, at least in name, and ass-raping it for their own use in mangas and CRPGs?

Seriously.

Similarly, one can find this idea of European cultural identity distilled down to nonsense in D&D class archetypes: a smorgasbord of various European cultures and disparate time periods, all of which apparently represents "white fantasy" or "white culture" or something like that, when its really nothing but the American appropriation of numerous mother-cultures.

Let's say you actually know anything about real oriental cultures and their peoples, and you think L5R is aggravating because of this...have you looked at D&D as a representative of European history or culture or society?

You run into the very same problems.

Examples: the Druid is a fucking New Age hippie worried about the balance of nature and protecting the animals and plants. Seriously?! Bothered asking a Celt descendant or Celtic reconstructionist if that's what the Druids were all about?

And we all know the Barbarian is the stand-in Berserker/Viking/Norse stereotype...yep, some of the world's best explorers and traders with one of the most socially progressive system of laws to be found (including equality of the sexes) are presented as the the froth-mouthed illiterates with big weapons who want to kill shit.

Everyone focuses on the bloody raider and savage warrior idea and forgets the Vikings arose only during a particular historical period as part of a guerrilla force to wage war against the encroaching Church (not a bad idea, given that the later Christian leaders and "saints" of Norway slaughtered thousands of their own unarmed people for refusing to convert), and so they become the distorted mascots of an entire set of cultures.

Textbook appropriation.

Of course it isn't just D&D that misrepresents "white culture": a number of years ago, and perhaps even today, the Germans (among others) thought of all Americans as cowboys, wearing ten-gallon hats and riding horses. And they had some weird ideas about what Americans eat (WARM milk in cereal, guys? I shudder).

No weirder, I'm sure, than what Americans think about Germans, or the French, or Italians, etc. And likewise vice versa as well. When's the last time you watched a movie that had an Italian in it and you knew they were an Italian because "they acted Italian"? Yeah. And the whole movie was written about Italians acting Italian?

Except if you're white you can't be appropriated from...likely due more of the "people of color can't be racist" anti-logik used to shift definitional goalposts in discussions of racism by certain activists.

"Cultural Appropriation" is another of those big academic ideas--ironically, developed by white American academics--whose small bit of use in understanding volatile cultural dynamics has been twisted all out proportion, and turned into a weapon of by the modern politics of the personal.

In most cases, it is the equivalent of Some Very Wise Old Priests(tm) sitting around bitching about how secular culture treats Jesus and the Church disrespectfully, or how it co-opts Christian myth to tell stories the Christian culture doesn't believe in and how That Isn't Right(tm).

Which is interesting, because that is similar to the way certain PoC act like they are the voice of PoC everywhere, and in doing so set "PoC" up to be viewed as a monolithic entity instead of a highly diverse group of individuals with vastly differing opinions, attitudes, and cultures.

I suppose it is harder to sell an argument if you're saying "some PoC are behind this" instead of "all PoC are behind this"...and presenting yourselves as a unified whole instead of Africans, Asians, Europeans, etc. then further broken down into regional, national, and tribal affiliations. Just easier to have it be "Us" (PoC) and "Them" (whites).

But that's the very problem: demanding to be seen as individuals while presenting oneself as a monolithic group, as well as presenting others as a monolithic group.

But that's nonsense.

In Asatru the gamut runs from "Who the fuck cares if they use our gods?" to "It is sacrilegious for people who are not of our blood to lay claim to our gods!" And there are huge, furious arguments between these groups and have been for years. But the Folkish sure lobby hard for the presentation of their view of the religion being the correct, accurate, rational, just and central view.

Myself, I don't actually care about the appropriation of European cultures, including my own. I'm not Butthurt by it at all. But guess how many Finns or Norwegians, who are pretty much as white as you can get, bitch about how white American Wiccans borrow traditional religious ideas?

Seriously, do you have any idea of the absolutely asinine pagan wars that go on between Wiccans and Asatru over this subject and have gone on for years and years and years and years?

But the way the appropriation activists speak and act, you wouldn't know about those at all, because there's this thing called "white culture" and this thing called "white people", and the REAL problems and emotional injuries and so forth are done by "whites" towards "non-whites".

Never mind all the same nonsense and butthurt that goes on between groups of "whites" when they borrow from or misrepresent or typify one anothers' cultures and then fight loudly and angrily over it.

Myself having been both Wiccan and Asatru, I happen to think the whole argument about Wiccans "daring" to use Norse gods or non-Norse descendant people "daring" to worship the Asa is a bunch of pud-pulling, self-masturbatory, sympathy wank, that at its worst legitimizes the racism of Folkish beliefs. Because these arguments boil down to "You're not using that the RIGHT way" or "You're not using that the way I want you to!"

Control. Power Over.

And yes, I did just call folks who buy into "Cultural Appropriation" racist, because the same behavior over on this side of the imaginary "white/other race" fence is very much promoted and informed by racism: racial separation, Us and Them thinking, Othering and all the other bad things that make humans into little self-absorbed monkey tribes.

The accusations that people make about "Cultural Appropriation" and the logic used to support that entire view is what the Asatru call "Folkish", which at its too-often chosen extreme is one of the hotbeds of racist ideology and belief in the religion.

Regardless, many of the complaints and arguments seem to be by people who know just enough to be dangerous, and use such to support Folkish racism, or something that looks remarkably like it on the other side of the dualistic fence.

For example: you know what's laughable about certain African Americans accusing whites of appropriating African culture by wearing their hair in dread-locks and running around miffed when they see a white boy with dreads, or spewing nonsense like "Whenever I see a white boy with dreads, I want to just run over and cut them off!"?

Guess who else wore their hair in dreads? My Norse ancestors, as well as many other Anglo-origin peoples. And we're as white as you get.

The truth is that people of all racial origins have worn dreads throughout history. It wasn't invented in Africa or by African-Americans and it isn't theirs to claim. It's NOBODY'S to claim, because where that hairstyle actually arose is long-lost in the mists of history.

Similarly, the fact is many of the supposed champions "speaking out" against claimed cultural appropriation have no qualification to do it: they speak for peoples they are not even a part of. Like an Asian-American kid who grew up in urban USA talking about how the Inuit are deeply hurt by the use of their art or culture by non-Inuit, or the whitest male motherfucker you know talking about how "the African-American women" feel (and then telling an actual woman who speaks up to disagree to shut-up because she's ignorant)?

Seriously? Assuming to speak for an entire people you aren't remotely a part of, nor have any real contact with or understanding of as though you are a spokesman for that entire group? Now who is appropriating?

Especially if your claim to such a position is because you took a class at Uni or read some shit on-line and talked to a dozen people on LiveJournal, and so you think you GET IT now and have that right because you're jiving with the groove of the masses (instead of just to the tune of your specific group).

Truth is, you can't get two actual members of the same anything to agree to shit, so don't pretend an outsider can waltz in and claim to speak for all whatever or even the majority/most/many of whatever (and that isn't even looking at the perspective of the problem of basing one's attitude and beliefs on the bandwagon).

Again, look at the gamut in Asatru: someone coming out and trying to claim, "It is INSULTING for you to use OUR gods! Thieving New Ager!" is contradicted by someone else coming out and saying, "What's between you and the gods is between you and the gods, and that guy is a twink."

You know which other banal, racist-supportive argument Folkish Asatru use? "Why don't you embrace and celebrate your own people's culture instead of mine?"

I'm sure you've heard appropriationists say: "Why don't you embrace and celebrate your own white/American culture instead of mine?"

Hopefully, you see the parallels.

But that is even more interesting, because have you SEEN American culture? A bunch of white men stealing people's shit and shooting them if they won't give it over, drinking, football, guns and cars, stupid-ass patriotism, nationalism, and individualist anti-collectivist attitudes, plus a mindless sort of fundamentalist Christianity and herd morality?

Whites are supposed to embrace that? Really?

Are you kidding me? They are to just mindlessly give in to a culture they may find no resonance with or interest in whatsoever? That in many ways they may actively despise or find aesthetically displeasing? And more to the point, the very reason many educated white liberals go looking elsewhere for a culture: because they've been told their culture is, itself, bad and wrong (and very well may be).

The appropriationists created that story about white culture and have had it disseminated amongst the masses. Then they tell them, "Nope. Not here. Don't you have your own?"

So ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

"Your culture is foundationally and subconsciously racist and that's bad! Whoops, don't come over here. Go back and join your bad racist culture!"

Talk about an abusive relationship.

Sorcerer Insanity

2009-11-26T01:44:19Z

I've been having a lot of trouble sleeping lately due to stress-resultant anxiety. Last night, while trying to sleep, I had an idea for a Sorcerer mini-supplement that breaks a number of the rules of the game, especially the BIG rule: that sorcerers must intentionally summon demons.

The mini-supplement is called "Insanity". Because that's what I wanted to represent, real motherfucking crazy and what it puts a person through.

Demons are literally the above title. They are whispering voices, talking dogs, people only you can see, objects you think have some dark supernatural quality, and so forth. And they hate you. Demons don't like sorcerers at all, they want to destroy the sorcerer and everyone around him.

All demons have Taint for free. Many of them can Possess as well, or Shapeshift from one thing into another, jumping from host to host and object to object.

Demons Need terrible things. Not necessarily murder and torture and mayhem. They want terror and harm: you to believe what they're telling you, to hurt you or those around you, to frustrate and upset you. They want to destroy you slowly. They will use their Wills against you, causing you penalties for things, or forcing you to give in and do things.

You can appease them (Need), or distract them, or sic them on someone else briefly, but they always come back. They don't talk to you nicely, they're always saying bad and wrong things, they don't leave you alone.

Sometimes, you can do rituals to get rid of them for a bit, which may involve literal rituals, or illicit drugs, or medication, or therapy.

Sometimes you can use them to your own advantage, convince them to do something you want them to do, against someone else. Send the bad mojo to someone else, or maybe make you stronger in some twisted way. But they still aren't ever your friends, and using them like that is a terrible thing to do.

At Humanity 0, you become catatonic, psychopathic, gibbering, or gallionic.

Most sorcerers use Punishing and Banishing rituals, rather than the other rituals.

The other rituals don't really function the standard way because you're not going to mentally torture yourself...but you may do it to someone else. Contacting is learning how to break someone. Summoning is the act of trying to break someone. Binding is finally breaking someone. And by "break" we mean "drive insane".

Since these rituals incur Humanity loss, I wanted them to be really foul things to do.

When you give in to your demons, too, that triggers those rituals. Every time your Humanity drops, every time you give in to your insanity's demons, one of your existing demons can Summon another demon to inflict upon you, or make itself stronger, increasing its own Power. However, you gaining Humanity does not decrease any existing demon's Power, nor Banish any extant demon.

Banishing rituals are very difficult: they require months of therapy and proper medication. A failed Banishing ritual may instead become a Punishing ritual, sending the demon into a brief quiet before it re-emerges angry and hateful. Punishing rituals are easy by comparison.

Nobody asks to be insane, but what you do once you are is what counts. Do you give in to the demons or fight them; do you even turn them to your advantage, and in what ways?

That's all a pretty rough outline, and I'm sure it needs tweaking.

How Not To Treat Your Artists

2009-11-20T05:01:13Z

None of my clients, thankfully, have ever done this to me, but there is at least one PDF publisher I know and whose blog I used to read who openly and repeatedly ADVOCATES doing this to artists (which is why I don't read his blog any longer).

Forge Falling Apart Frustrating

2009-11-17T00:35:58Z

I have about had it with the Forge from a technical/usability standpoint. The vast majority of the time I try to log on to read posts or reply, I am confronted with 503 errors and timeouts.

It gets fixed for a couple days, then has issues again for weeks, which I find personally ridiculous. And the users are never told what's going on with the problems, why they keep cropping up, if anyone is actually doing anything about it or trying to get to the bottom of it.

So I'm pretty close to just removing it from my reading/posting list, given it took me fifteen minutes tonight to make one two sentence post.

Are there any other decent tabletop discussion forums out there (NOT Story-games, thank you) that might serve as a decent replacement for game and theory discussion, and who might host independent forums for small presses?

SG:U Earth & Time

2009-11-16T08:10:26Z

More plot holes. You're telling me the Air Force doesn't have some serious protocols and rules involved with their super-secret deep space program, especially regarding Ancient body-switching technology and the people using it?

Such that anyone can just go running around in someone else's body without someone else from the Air Force keeping a close goddamn eye on them, let alone being allowed to go off-base? Seriously?

I call bullshit.

All the lack of such makes for is cheap drama (and bad writing).

We watched "Time" as well. And, well, still waiting for SOMETHING to happen. I like Stargate. I do not like Stargate the big human drama soap opera. This is not what I watch Stargate for. Seriously. Character arcs. Yes. Mindless crap straight out of daytime television?

BORED NOW.

This is not science fiction. This is a contrived soap opera with spaceships. It is like watching the worst episodes of BSG. And "contrived" is the word I keep returning to most when thinking about the show.

The crew is aboard a ridiculously vast alien spaceship of Ancient design flying through galaxies billions of light-years from home, and we are constantly treated to trite, drawn-out bullshit Earthside, or overly-long (they're more "dramatic" that way, I assume) off-ship missions. All tied up with nonsense on why they can't make the ship work.

Right, the amount of Ancient technology the SGC has retrieved, cataloged, and figured out how to work (the whole city of Atlantis, anyone?) and these folks have barely been able to figure out how to turn the light-switches on?

I would buy that, if the group weren't in constant contact with Earth, and the brains aboard their ship just weren't ones all that knowledgeable about Ancient technology, language, etc.

But given the two-way communication, that is simply completely implausible.

For me, SGU has this season to rescue itself, unless it just keeps crawling along doing nothing, pretending to be dark, and complex, and interesting while actually being dull, banal, and thin, in which case it may not even have that long.

Conversations with Libertarians

2009-11-14T01:14:12Z

"Only science idiots believe black is not a color."

"Except black is not a color, it is the absence of color."

"Once again, you show how ignorant you scientists are: we SEE it as a color, so it is one."

"No, it is still the absence of color. There are no black photons. It doesn't have a wavelength. Any scientist or science text can show you this."

"In 1949, Penderton showed in a renowned study that perception is reality. We see black, we perceive it as being a color; so it is a color. There's even a simple test found in art schools worldwide: they have 'black' crayons in boxes of coloring crayons. But clearly you've never seen a crayon box, or are you going to argue 'black' is the absence of a crayon?"

"Don't be stupid! Honestly, I don't even know where to start taking that nonsense apart."

"Don't call me stupid! Once again you scientists resort to calling people names to dismiss their arguments. You can't even refute me, which just showcases your willful blindness to the truth of the issue."

"Wait a minute, you've been calling me names since this started! You called everyone idiots. And you've been making patently absurd statements that contradict known facts, quoting fringe psychologists no one takes seriously except for colorists. Knock it off with the insults."

"I am not calling you names because you keep proving how pointless it is to argue with you and how ill-informed you are. All artists know that 'black' is a color, but none of the scientists you run to for 'facts' want to admit to it and the broken 'color' model you have been brainwashed into buying."

"Oh brother. What about wavelengths and photons? These and how they work are well-known ideas, long-supported and agreed to by peer review."

"Anyone who knows basic color theory can tell you that's garbage. Crayons have mass, so they exist, there's no 'absence' of them. And black crayons color black, which they couldn't do if there were no black photons, they would leave behind no marks at all if it were an absence! It is a color, but you just want to foolishly keep ignoring the truth. I've been an artist for fifteen years. I know what I'm talking about!"

"Look anywhere! Scientifically supported color theory shows black is not a color, but the absence of it. And that is not how it works. Check out Hodges or Micks on the subject, not discredited wackos or fringe colorist arguments."

"Those colorists you dismiss built the world of color and art! Without them you would be living in a gray, ugly world."

"The original artists were not colorists. They were all sorts of people, heck, colorists didn't even exist back then. Again, actually read Hodges and Micks on the subject. And Hodges, as a colorist, even argues that he only sees black as a color semantically."

"I have read about them, but clearly you haven't. They might not have called them colorists, but that is who they would align with today. And I can't believe you're calling me ignorant about the subject when you don't know Hodges recanted his claims. I wouldn't expect the garbage the scientific establishment to report on that, though. You need to read better books."

"Oh, bloody hell..!"

I had this exact argument. But about economics.

It was with a Libertarian.

(Big surprise.)

Now, I haven't been in personal conflict with right-wing nuts for some time. Been keeping away from them and their hangouts; enough left-wing nuts out there right now. Unfortunately, I did not realize this person was part of that distinct group until too late.

One of the reasons I didn't is because I'm dumb and take people at their word. Because the nuts still make the argument (and I'm surprised at this?) not all conservatives are the same and all those criticisms of them out there are unwarranted and mistaken...and then go right on to prove that--if that's true--they are the exception to their own rule, as well as how frighteningly accurate those criticisms and caricatures are, at least of them.

And the above is an illustrative example of how it works, which I'll detail for you below.

I. For example, one criticism is that their baseline tactic is to intersperse their arguments with condescending personal insults and accusations to denigrate their opponents--that their opponents are either ignorant idiots or part of the vast "liberal" (or what-have-you) conspiracy--then use apologetics and thin justifications for why that abuse isn't really abuse.

IE: liberals really are ignorant/stupid/evil/baby-eating atheists, etc. so it is OK for them to sneeringly and condescendingly refer to them--ie: you--in such a manner during any argument, because it's "true". To see this turned up to 11 on a daily basis, just take a look at FOX, what its pundits say, and how they defend it: that wasn't racist; that wasn't sexist; that wasn't inciting rebellion; that wasn't a falsehood; etc.

II. Another is that they only accept the arguments and statistics of their own carefully selected pool of "experts", and advance those individuals as well-regarded and accepted leaders in their field, regardless of how those experts are actually viewed in that field* and everyone else is mistaken, wrong, blinded, ignorant, lying, and so forth.

* which is, if they are known at all, often dimly or as discredited hacks. See "Creationists" for great and regular examples of this: real scientists with degrees and years of practice in their field are ignored and dismissed, but some pastor who picked up a "degree" in "Theistic Biology" from a non-accredited "university" run out of someone else's basement is cited and referred to constantly and as if they were an equal to the demonized guy with the actual PhD.

III. A third is that if they can't win an argument with facts, they'll quickly change the subject, often by calling their opponent more names, suggesting they don't really know what they're talking about, demanding the accuser defend their right to argue on the subject, or whatever -- but somehow subtly distracting everyone (even themselves) from the fact the facts don't actually support their view or that there is something wrong with their argument. But they won't engage on those facts because they know that would show the lie to them. Often they'll just outright change the facts, even make them up wholesale.

See above, "the accepted theory penned by my well-known expert in the field has conclusively proven..." and you find out their expert is not, is barely known or known as a crackpot, may in fact have a degree from the back of a cereal box or its equivalent, is spouting opinion and not accepted fact as the theory or paper or whatever is not even remotely an accepted standard as claimed, and they're using numbers pulled out of their butt or from a highly biased, questionable, ill-regarded source.

IV. They play "turn-about", if you have a valid criticism of them or their sources or facts, they will twist that criticism to argue it applies to you or your sources or facts, so that the facts (or your facts) don't really matter or seem not to.

For example, if you don't accept their guy's credentials as valid because he's a known quack, it's because you're being unfair, there's no reason to accept your guy's credentials, either, because it all comes down to belief, really, and that of course the establishment would reject your credentials. But they're WRONG so why should they listen to your guy? Anything to try and seem to put their claims and experts on "equal footing", with word games to make your facts seem not as strong, etc.

Sometimes they strike pre-emptively with this: like when they broadly label and dismiss everyone who isn't part of their group in a negative and derogatory manner, while insisting that their group is a fractious and diverse lot who can't be summed up with demeaning stereotypes and criticisms (but yours can). That is, they start with a fucked-up premise and argue a fucked-up conclusion, so just WHERE do you start? Especially when it starts running in circles and the conclusion becomes the premise and vice versa.

So, you have these people who make claims about something, using important sounding names and figures to back themselves up. A little digging and you discover that they're talking through their blowhole. You point out their expert isn't, their figures are flawed, and their case is overstated...and next thing you know, you're defending your right to speak in the discussion, your "honor" (if we may call it that).

And everyone has completely forgotten that you were just talking about how their argument was provably not as factual or valid as they presented...because they shifted the discussion to put you on the defensive before anyone noticed. Changed the subject, deflected the criticism and examination elsewhere.

Of course, they don't get that or won't admit to it, and after calling you names and smearing all liberals everywhere as evil socialists and conspiratorial liars or blind idiots and so forth while sagaciously quoting questionable figures, and doing everything they regularly get pegged for doing, will then howl and scream when that tactic is pointed out, and claim YOU are the one who is actually tarring everyone with an overly-broad brush, claiming unwarranted expertise (see distraction techniques and ad homs above), and are completely ignorant and pompous.

Rinse. Repeat. Ad infinitum.

It's a baffling game of intellectual keep-away.

They're constantly switching among these tactics, making their claims confusing and multi-layered. You're trying to deal with one angle, and they're suddenly coming at you from two more. You're trying to confront one falsehood, but then they're throwing down with the name-calling to make it look like you don't know what you are talking about while dropping questionable names and ignoring the criticism you actually raised.

And it's difficult to deal with, because it requires you spend a lot of time untangling the mess and decoupling the mutually-supportive false axioms the whole house-of-cards is built on. Just take a look at the example above, this is exactly how it looks and work, and that is why most people say "Oh, Christ. Fuck it" and just wisely walk the hell away.

And if you don't walk away, you're left in the bear pit: What about this? Bam! They swipe it down. Another thing? Bam! Swipe! Another! Swipe! Swipe!
It gets to the point where you can't really even deal with it any longer, because they've built up this complex web of lies and half-truths and social manipulations that it would take hours longer to take apart than it took to put together, especially when they bounce back and forth between all the different complex-but-subtly-broken mutually-supportive axioms and keep shifting ground.

It's the old problem of someone using algebra to prove 2 + 2 = 1. Unless you're willing to sit and dig through each specific, separate procedure in the equation, writing out the steps, and teach some complex algebra while you're at it, you can't pull the argument apart to show the lynch-pin flaw without spending a lot of time to do it. Otherwise, they're just going to say, "Oh, clearly you don't know basic MATH! I can SHOW 2 + 2 is 1. See?"

And the thing is: they are interested in converting you or cutting you down. Those are the options. Not dialogue. So you have to walk away feeling a bit dirty and unfulfilled, because the only thing you learned was some people are frighteningly, irrationally unstable and there is shit all you can do about it. Which is still worrisome, because you have live in the world with them and what they're trying to make of it.

That's the scary part. We're living in an interconnected society, and they couldn't blow themselves up without affecting you...but they want to and they think it is their most fundamental right to be able to (and fuck everyone else if it gets in the way of their "rights" -- which is also exactly how they view YOU).

(Worse, some of them think blowing YOU up is their most fundamental right. Those guys aren't just fucked up, they're fundamentally screwed up in their heads.)

...

Of course, if you know people, you know not all right-wingers and conservatives are like this.

But then you run into someone who is the absolute caricature of the above--who ironically argues they really aren't while in the midst of proving the caricature--and you realize this is the very person all those caricatures are meant to skewer, and do so very, very well.

You realize with a sinking feeling you in fact actually know THAT guy. Not just bits of that guy, but indeed THAT VERY GUY.

Anyways...

There's an old chestnut used by the right-wing to decry welfare and other free, public services as the most evil thing ever, which can be summed up in a quote by Tolstoy some of them like to use: "The more is given the less the people will work for themselves, and the less they work the more their poverty will increase."

"Giving is bad, make people work for what they need, or else it will be worse for them!" is the attitude (or sometimes, "Why should I care if YOU starve? Sounds like your problem and your fault."). I'm fairly certain it arises from the screwed-up Puritan ethic our country was founded on and that flourishes on the right. In the inherently paternalistic, authoritarian worldview of that ethic, which believes that suffering is divine and wholesome, that it builds character, that it is necessary and right, and that leisure makes you a tool of the devil. Ye olde "Spare the rod, spoil the child" mindset...and you're the child.

So on work-ethic and paternalist reactions to welfare: what I find interesting is how much concern conservatives seem to have for my soul when it is my body that is starving.

But as a number of us commies (or "socialists" or "liberals" or whatever Red Scare term has been invented to describe and dismiss us this decade) have noticed over the years, to our amusement: everything people create and make available on the internet makes a pretty good case that even if you give people lots of things for free, or don't pay them for what they are doing, they will still make themselves busy creating very cool things and doing things, even good works, for themselves and others.

And that's aside from the studies that show people are more charitable with their time and money when they aren't struggling to survive or living in fear of falling into poverty from of one bad medical emergency or losing their job or their hours or anything else. When you create a baseline cushion you don't let people fall below, the majority tend to become better people.

But scares the ever-loving crap out of certain people. The idea of suffering and struggling as something good and just, as divinely mandated, is ingrained into the brain of these conservatives. They don't just avoid it, they deny that reality as being a terrifying assault on the foundations of their concept of the world.

Which isn't surprising, given that a great many conservative brains are highly authoritarian: meaning they are wired such that they look on the world through lenses of fear of others, as well as a need to control or be controlled. Certainly, all the great conservative movements have been about authoritarianism: find a strong leader and follow him unquestioningly, demonize outsiders to your traditions and beliefs, and make sure everyone is very, very afraid--not only of your just and righteous anger, but of the terrible people out-there who don't (or worse WON'T!) drink the kool-aid.

You want to know what should scare the hell out of every liberal reading this?

There are no small number of left-wing groups who work that way, too. Many activists, whom we on the left view as heroes because we link them with the good fight against oppression, are all about "I'm righteously angry. We should be afraid of the evil world. Anyone not with us is against us and therefore bad."

I'm sure some of you know some of those folks. Personally.

Guess what? They're just as bad as the conservatives I trashed above. What's scarier for you is, since they're on your side, you can't help thinking that maybe they're right and you shouldn't really criticize, because aren't they the good guys or doing good?

Yeah. BTW, that's why the right doesn't come out en masse against the nuts you can't stand who have hijacked conservatism over the last thirty years, and get a pass on their racism, sexism, or other intolerance. You're doing the same thing to yours.

More About Not Taking Offense

2009-11-11T22:21:54Z

Part of a long, rambling post Robert put up the other day on his blog really made me nod and say "yes". Because, you know what, yes. Because it touches on something I've been arguing for years.

Despite what I had to say in the last post about on-the-job word ninnies, I am about the job at the job, and my actual response to other people's reaction to the way I talk is...I tone it down when I know I'm around somebody the swearing will bother.

I hold back on the trucker talk, you hold back on the Jesus talk, and we don't jump down each other's throats when some of it slips out.

If you can't do that, hold it in for other people, you're a jackass and you'll just keep getting in trouble and wondering why. If you run to HR whenever somebody's else's Stuff That Irritates You comes out, everybody around you will hate you, you will not get that tolerance when you need it, and...you probably won't figure out why, either.

See, that top bit? That's what I do, too. No, not here in my journal space, though I may and have if asked by someone sincerely, but if you know me in-the-flesh, you know it and know I won't poke at it, whatever "it" happens to be for you.

But it's really about this:

If you can't do that, hold it in for other people, you're a jackass and you'll just keep getting in trouble and wondering why.

I want everyone to look at that, and instead of going, "Yeah, see? That's what people need to do!" also look at the other half of that, which is:

If you run to HR whenever somebody's else's Stuff That Irritates You comes out, everybody around you will hate you, you will not get that tolerance when you need it, and...you probably won't figure out why, either.

People need to do that, too. And the nuance here is what I think the various critics who have shook their finger at me about these things, and various anti-racism (or anti-whatever) activists and leftist "oppression" and "correction" and "privilege" experts, just don't get. Those folks end up being the hated, clueless git who can't get the tolerance they keep demanding when they actually need it, precisely because...well, they can't figure it out.

(Which is amusing, because Robert is talking about the right-wingers who don't get it, either.)

But it's not that hard TO figure out, so I leave it to anyone who is in the "doesn't get it" boat, or the "I deserve not to be tweaked by my issues" boat, who can't figure out the balance between those to work out for themselves (ie: those who have a horse to ride about privilege and invisible knapsacks and cultural racism/sexism/discrimination and "welcoming" environments and so forth).

And we're not really talking about a business environment or HR here, which I hope we all get. It becomes an analogy for the bigger social environment. Really, they're running to the media, or the government, or their friends, or anyone who will listen to them for five seconds every day complain about how bad everyone else is for upsetting them and how they all better just stop because they're bad people, especially if they don't.

And we're talking about how those people hear that criticism of that behavior and think it means they have to just shut-up all the time and get run roughshod over and so forth and OMG-more-oppression-oppression-oppression. Which is why I said they don't get it.

The Dark Side of Fandom

2009-11-07T10:00:42Z

Discussed here:

Contacting employers, contacting family, threatening to kill people and talking about how they deserve to be sexually assaulted, cracking passwords, contacting webhosts to report them for alleged Terms of Service Violations, contacting a show’s producers and actors to blast them for another set of fans’s actions. Most of the most egregious behavior doesn’t get documented out of fear of both sides going after the document-er for getting the story wrong... [Ed: all the above is also done to those who do document.]

...Fail fandom is generally about some one taking offense at something someone did or said or implied. Sure, yeah, the subtext of fail fandom is often about a power play in fandom but at the onset, it generally doesn’t look that way... [Ed: as it is dressed up to be about racism or sexism or vulnerability, etc.]

...The attacker looks for vulnerabilities. They look for places where they can exploit your weakness in order to push you out of fandom, to get you to stop being in conflict with them and to further their own agenda.

All that is stuff I saw in the RaceFail crowd, both before and during that fiasco. It's a good part of why I think they are wrong, philosophically and logically, and why they disturb me so, with all the rage and violence and hate-talk, and all the social dominance behaviors. I saw all that stuff mentioned above happen during the Fail, and a good chunk of it came from the leaders: the "anti-racists" claiming to be calling out a great social injustice, and getting away with the above -- or during the rare times they weren't directly involved, implicitly allowing it to happen, unremarked, on their watch.

Nor did I see any of their people speak up against it. Unsurprising, as anyone who did would be bashed likewise and cast out. Everyone knows that's what happens in fandom, and there's plenty of proof out there supporting that.

What I saw of the Fail crowd--and I've seen nothing to suggest this was not the majority--was a mob of pliant hangers-on and ragers ready to attack (or support the attack of) anyone or anything they were pointed at without personal or environmental reflection, caution, or skepticism, because that's what someone in a fandom-authority position told them to do, or because they wanted to lash out somewhere, anywhere, and who cares where: the issue wasn't the point, the release of getting to lash out at others was. And the justifications and apologetics for the behavior have long been built in.

They were a mob and acted like one, right down to denying they were a mob after the damage was done, complete with readied justifications rushing in during their gatherings at certain conventions to hide from themselves what they'd actually done.

This is also why I'm just not interested in stepping one tiny foot into fandom anywhere now, even though I've heard others say they've never encountered that same level of insanity. I know enough people who have encountered this stuff, and have seen and experienced it myself now, to know on-line fandoms and the fans in it (particularly the ones who believe they are crusaders for social justice) are or can too-easily be...well, scary places and deeply disturbed people.

But for some reason, people I know will give these very same folks who behave this way a pass on all this, hand-wave it away, because of what causes that crowd says they support.

But I'm sorry, I don't care what your causes are: just or unjust. That behavior is unacceptable and should not be excused, swept under the rug, or encouraged either by consent or through silence. The people who engage in it should not be given a pass just because they're "on your side", "doing good otherwise", "understandably upset" or any other such nonsense used to dismiss, excuse, and forgive it.

In the Limelight of the Syndicate Legion

2009-10-30T05:51:20Z

The final batch of illos from the noir contract. So that is it for art-sharing from this contract! I don't think I missed posting any of them. Also, I received word earlier today that my cover is slated to grace Fight On! issue #9. I can't wait, and I'll finally be able to share it with you guys! Bonus.

As usual, click below to jump right to the images, or jump directly to my deviantArt gallery.

The Syndicate

The Legion
(or the alternate)

The Limelight

Comments are welcome!

I don't like the Legion as much as the other two: it just turned out too rough. I don't know if I was having a bad week or what, but things just didn't seem to click with it. The Syndicate and the Limelight, though? Definitely grooving on both.

My Morning Was GAG How Was Yours?

2009-10-23T13:07:49Z

A while back, the girls decided that they could get chicks to hatch from carton-eggs if they just cuddled them and warmed them up. They even took some of the eggs up to their room.

We had thought we had rescued all the eggs (and hence the room/house/clothing/bedding/furniture) that day--even despite the fits that were thrown when we tried to explain to them that you can't hatch chicks from carton-eggs--and gotten all our edible ovum back into the fridge without problem.

I discovered this morning that wasn't exactly the case. We missed/they hid one. In a pretend makeup case, in a "nest" of used candy wrappers. And they'd managed to crush the egg when they closed it.

I'm surprised it didn't start smelling sooner...but this morning made up for any prior lack of smelliness on its part. Which is how I found it. I wasn't even certain what it was (other than extremely stinky) until I found the egg-shells while scooping out the goo-sheathed wrappers and hosing the case down.

A New Book Nook?

2009-10-23T07:29:59Z

So the Nook is available for pre-order. It looks spiffy enough that I might want one for reading all the e-books I've collected over the years and barely touched -- especially since it has native PDF support. I could actually get through all those gaming PDFs I've purchased and barely read!

Also, it runs the Android OS. Yes. The fscking Android OS. Whoo! Which means it is not going to be a walled garden like the Kindle, and I sense some awesome hackery and Android app-making will commence shortly.

Plus, I could bring stacks of books with me to bed to read. Instead of having to decide on just one, I could hop in bed and make the decision from there. Though, really, that's the draw of any e-book reader.

This might be the e-book reader that gets me to take the plunge and buy one, assuming the PDF support is more-than decent. We'll have to see what the reviews say after its release (supposedly end-of-November).

Would You Like Some More Manipulation With Your Coffee?

2009-10-23T04:37:11Z

If there were any lingering doubt that coffeeandink's big crocodile tearfest about being "outed"* was a...well, a big crocodile tearfest, a new fact about her behavior will remove all doubt (except in the most fervent of her defenders and apologists**).

What does she do once she was done using her fake "outing" and designer pity-fest to gather sympathy and bully people/silence criticism by launching her angry intarweb minions against them?

Posts her name and openly links it to her livejournal (AGAIN)!

For anyone who was NOT aware her claims of being "outed" were a carefully crafted and executed show, clue in already. Or go watch Beck on FOX, because you are exactly the type of gullible, easily-manipulated viewer he's looking for. Congratulations.

(I'd wait for a public apology from certain folks for my "part" in "outing" someone who was already out and who, after claiming they were oh-so-scared about people finding out who they are and sooper-protective of their privacy, continued to publicly "out" themselves...but I suspect Satan's tits will have 20-inch icicles hanging from them before that happens. Still, you kids could always surprise me and prove me wrong on that, that would be nice.)
_____
* During the concentrated wank that was RaceFail '09.
** Yep, there runs Bradford to her defense with her typically zany brand of crazy, where 'right' is 'left' and 'up' is a 'plaid'.

Liberally Orphaning Horror

2009-10-17T21:26:39Z

Earlier this year there was a push to ban a horror movie called "Orphan". I'll let you read all about it here and then the sane view here.

I'll say only: this is what post-modernist activism bullshit nets you. Everyone's personal, internal issues--and fears of being "left out" or perceived badly--become a crime. No separation of fiction and reality, or grasp of context.

Gods forbid any of these people actually manage to force legislation on things like this. Think about how we laugh at Christians when they freak-out because somebody mocks or "misuses" Jesus or sacred ritual, but we're all so stoic and sober and run to the lawmakers when some personal issue of ours is mocked or "misused", or even appears to be.

They Don't Do Whatnow?

2009-10-14T05:42:47Z

Someone on Fred Hick's FB friendlist just posted the argument (and complaint) that the Big Purple is a mind-controlling, mod-heavy "Cultivated Positive Only forum" -- that no one there is either allowed to or actually does post blatantly negative comments or behave rudely...

...someone is taking hallucinogens, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me.

Do You Think He Has a Brother Named Glenn?

2009-10-09T07:33:01Z

In the "not really news" category: Another wealthy, bootstrap-believing, poor-hating, foul-mouthed, sociopathic right-winger sets out to prove ~~not all conservatives are wanton wastes of human flesh and breathable air~~ all conservatives are jerks.

Because, you know, picking on kids, the poor, and senior citizens from your ivory tower gated community really shows what a man's man you are.

SG:U Air

2009-10-03T07:47:21Z

We enjoyed the premiere of SG:U, though I felt the first episode of SG:U was a little more drawn out than it needed to be. And WTF was with the commercial placement?! Seriously, piss poor timing. Middle of a tense scene and BAM! commercial. No fade outs. Distracting and poorly considered.

A couple things about the plot jumped to our attention immediately:

#1) And NO ONE ELSE tries one of the Ancient communication stones? Seriously? They argue about it, then forget about it completely instead of using a stone to check if Rush really did talk to General O'Neill? Was everyone carrying the idiot ball? Instead of "Oooo...did he? Didn't he? It's mys-ter-ious!!" Right.

#2) Um, seal the hatches AROUND the air leak/broken hatch? It was established the hatches keep the other open and damaged parts of the ship from venting atmosphere, so why not just seal a number of other hatches around the broken hatch? Ta-da! Problem solved. No one needs to die.

I hope those two instances of too-obvious writing-for-plot are just the rough spots of a new show, and similar blatantly manufactured tension/drama does not hold as a common element within the series.

Because it does look like it will be (ie: it could certainly be) an enjoyable and interesting spaceship-and-alien-worlds/technology show. Things I have heard about the story and the writers' intentions leave me concerned that it may become TOO soap-opera like, at which point I'd probably wander away, but we'll see.

They're Like a Cancer

2009-10-01T22:18:04Z

Oh no! The left-wing morality police have finally arrived at FailBlog:

I personally find distasteful adolescently crass references to genitals and sex acts, as well as depictions of real injuries and deaths. But that, to me, is largely a matter of taste.
I find disturbing a number of !mages that have appeared that conjoin children with sex. That, to me, goes beyond questionable taste and is a matter for concern and reconsideration.
I find abhorrent !mages that condone and celebrate racisim, ethnic slurs, and homophobia. That to me is immoral, and, in my opinion, should just stop...I wish to transform the discomfort I sometimes feel here into a reminder that we can do better.

Thankfully, there appear to be intelligent people there as well whose sense of humor and ability to understand context aren't withered and dying by years of POC bullshit:

Some of the blogs are g-rated, and some are not, and that is for a reason. Not to mention, the site in general mocks instances of racism or child/sex displays by use of the word “FAIL.” It’s subtle, I know, but most literate people usually understand the intent.

The subtlety and sarcasm of the insult drips beautifully from that last bit. I salute you, sir.

These also popped up as responses:

In the end, what is “abhorrent” to one person can be “hilarious” to another. “Taste” and “morality” are relative and subjective, not to mention an important part of each individual. While I understand Dave’s point of view, and fully support his desire to express said view in an effort to modify the feelings resultant in one individual from viewing this site, i personally find above post more reprehensible than most any picture i’ve seen on any of these sites.

And:

Censorship can cause a lot more harm than several controversial pics...

Amen.

But I Have a Rajaat!

2009-09-25T09:50:37Z

Some of the arguments by new faces on the WotC DarkSun boards would make for great entries on NotAlwaysRight, specifically the ones where the service rep keeps repeating an answer to a customer, who just doesn't grasp, at all, in any way, what the actual problem is, and resorts to repeating their argument as though it is somehow a valid response.

I could call it the "But my boss is Jewish!" fallacy or the "But I have a ticket!" fallacy.

Amusing as hell reading about it happening to someone else, but damn is it freaking annoying when you're the one on the receiving end.

Me: "I find it ridiculous that six-thousand years of history is basically 'Rajaat did this, Rajaat did that' and no one else ever burned their toast or ate a bad piece of meat in all that time. History doesn't work like that."

Fanboi: "Rajaat was immortal, so he had time to do all those things, make long-term plans, and so was more effective in the destruction he caused, and its effects were more widespread than with a mortal."

Me: "Good points, I agree with you, and I am not disputing that. I'm actually criticizing the idea that for six-thousand years no one else did anything important that he wasn't involved in."

Fanboi: "But Rajaat was immortal so he could have done all those things!"

Me: "Yes, I know. But beings not involved with Rajaat didn't do anything at all during that entire span of time. Don't you think that is kind of odd?"

Fanboi: "Rajaat. Was. Immortal!"

Me: *headdesk*

Criminalizing "Offensiveness"

2009-09-22T06:55:02Z

We have become a society of prudes, or perhaps "returned to being" is a better phrasing, giving our Puritan history as a country...because of this, and perhaps worse, we are a society that acts as though my problems are your problems, or rather, my issues are your issues.

This is a symptom of that disease: we have made sex and sexuality criminal, and we make people pay for it, even children.

You may think I am damning the Right in saying this, given their well-known stance on sexuality, nudity, pornography, and so forth, and you would only be half-right, for the Left is not only complicit in this state of affairs, but outright engaged.

Because the two prongs of this attack upon and erosion of freedom, in the name of "social mores", have been certain so-called "feminists" and "family-values" conservatives. Two groups who should be diametrically opposed, and yet have come together to absolutely damn natural biological behaviors in our society and to criminalize the body itself.

Don't see the connection? Then think about pornography and how each group views it, as filthy, disgusting, exploitative, wrong, offensive, even criminal...

It happens that both follow the same driving core philosophy, that of personal offense as the greatest crime imaginable that needs to be dealt with by the full force of the law, and turn natural behaviors such as teens exploring their sexuality together or such mundanely "shocking" events as streaking a sports event into criminal offenses that will haunt and destroy those involved for the rest of their lives, out of all proportion to whatever deed they have done. In particular, males, also far out of proportion to their participation in such activities.

As well as situations like breastfeeding, in public or in private, or cutesy pictures of your kids' naked bum. The right wants to protect you from wicked immorality, the left wants to protect you from yourself. There is no difference between a right-wing theocracy and a left-wing nanny state: these people are the same people using different arguments to achieve the same purpose.

So read that article again: those are the wages of the hysterical moral-policing practiced by the unsavory in their games of social dominance and indoctrination via politics, of postmodernism and critical theory and the deconstruction of offensiveness into theories of vast social oppression and exploitation, by the belief--a belief made of pure bullshit and fail--that people have a right not to be offended...

...think about that: A RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED...

...and that if one is offended--by a bare breast or a nude penis or a naked ass--one has been criminally assaulted. Whether that "one" is you, or some hypothetical person you believe you are protecting.

It is a truth that some people join politically-motivated or social organizations for whom this is a central, if not the central, priority: legislating and criminalizing "offensiveness", whether because they believe it is morally "wrong" or socially "exploitative".

And if you don't understand, instinctively, what is so very deeply wrong with the idea of not being offended being treated as a right--especially as an American citizen--I don't know that explaining it will make a difference.

As well, these people, whether they mean to or not, or care if they do or not, are shitting on Free Speech, or at least any speech that doesn't live up to their personal code of what speech is allowable, inoffensive, and acceptable. Hello, 1984, here we come, guided into being by the darkest corners of the right and left.

And, yes, there should not be a free-for-all anarchy, do and say whatever the fuck you'd like, because there are (and must be) certain limited social standards. But those are not black and white despite being treated as such by both sides, and the actual black area (not the steadily upwards creeping black area devouring the gray area and nibbling at the white area) is a hell of a lot smaller than the folks on either side of the political isle think and treat it as though it is.

You see, we know someone personally whose life was screwed up by bullshit like this years ago now. Girl lied to him about her age (a difference of a year, as I recall), they slept together, he got her pregnant. He manned up and said he'd marry her, take care of the baby, do the right thing.

Instead, the State threw his ass in prison and told him he could never, ever see his daughter or be involved in her life or he'd go right back to prison, and put him on a sex offender list.

A sex offender list...for sleeping with a 17 year old girl who told him "Yeah, I'm 18" and then trying to do the right thing. Clearly a very dangerous man who should never be allowed around children...{sarcasm}

Our society is deeply fucked up.

And it stems from those controlling, damning Puritan morals that underlie the historical foundation of our society: the idea that which is deemed offensive is objectively offensive and must be stopped and destroyed at all cost, even human cost.

This is how authoritarian personality disorder works, and why it is not just an issue or a danger of the right--yes, more common there--but exists in the left as well.

Grr. Incompetence.

2009-09-20T01:45:42Z

A little over a week ago, while Jen was getting out of bed, the frame on the bed snapped. It had a shoddy-ass welding job, so I'm actually surprised it lasted this long.

Anyways, I called and had it replaced under warranty (with one day left, HAH! Awesome). Waited the necessary week for replacement parts to arrive, sleeping on the couch in the meanwhile. A friend with a truck helped me haul the old parts in and bring the new parts home.

But at the store, I find out they ordered the wrong parts. Footboard and rails instead of headboard and rails. "Oops, I typed the wrong order code," she says. The gods smiled, however, as they found they had the same headboard on display and gave me that one.

Yay, I thought, now I can sleep in our bed again. Yet when I went to put it together, and despite asking specifically, twice, of two separate employees, if all the bolts and such were in the box and being told "Definitely!"...

...No bolts. No nuts. No washers.

Perfectly good frame (and with much better weld on this) with no way to actually put it together BECAUSE THERE'S NO @0$$#*& BOLTS!

I shake my tiny fist at you, capricious spirits, for making me sleep on my couch again! And at customer service people who aren't doing their jobs.

This is (at least) one more uncomfortable night on the couch. Growl. I'm almost ready to just say "fuck it" and jury-rig it together with sticks and bungee cords.

I'll call tomorrow afternoon and hopefully they will have the bolts, etc. and not have to order them.

So Common It Isn't?

2009-09-19T21:28:30Z

How can someone who has ever played D&D or read a fantasy novel seriously claim "an evil, immortal, uber-wizard with crazy plans to destroy the world and an endless army of minions led by evil lieutenants" is not a cliche? HOW?

Because We're First In Everything!

2009-09-18T04:10:53Z

I'm not stunned by this stuff any longer because it is just too (sadly) commonplace; instead I just rolled on the floor laughing. Because, seriously? Really? You really asked that?

Behold: Christianity and ignorance! Where would they be without each other? Though, to be fair, it isn't like they have a monopoly on it.

Tangentially: here's a clue about why the answer is wrong as well.

Password Manager Needed

2009-09-17T20:03:06Z

I was listening to one of the NPR tech segments the other day when driving back from the dentist when one the folks on the program mentioned a password manager they used. I've completely forgotten what the name was now, but it had the following features:

Can generate strong passwords.
Stores passwords for each site.
Automatically enters passwords for each stored site.

Anyone know what the program was, or can recommend a similar program that does the same? Thanks!