This is Not an Exciting Thread

[Orangey]

Ma mère (it makes me feel less lame than saying my mother. Shut up) and I were discussing a variety of topics last night; at one point we strayed onto the subject of China. We were talking about the population problems they have had/are having. She opined that it was surprising that their population hasn't stabilized yet; I disagreed, arguing that EVEN in a perfect world (one in which chilbirth regulations were strictly adhered to following their passage) it would take three or four generations for it to 'stabilize' and a few more for it to really start to decline.

My reason for saying this is thus; I was wondering what y'all's(yes, I say that too. Shut up. Again) thoughts on the issue were; how long would that sort of thing take to stabilize? Why? Am I accurate in thinking that they still are having problems in that area, or is my knowedge rather dated? Any other thoughts?

Following the boredom likely to quickly ensue on this topic, I suggest this thread be modified to be a forum for any-thing on the minds of our bizzare forum-goers, from D&D cheese to the war on terror, to Biffany(revisited: this time, it's personal! (Pg13)).

[Amanda]

*applauds Orangey for starting a thread that may lead to actual discussion!*

I tend to agree with you that it will take many generations to level off. Though, that may not happen. Everything about their country is growing right now, and at a rapid rate. Though an alarming number of the population are becoming deathly ill from things like cancer because of their industrial revolution and pollution. The top 10 most polluted cities in the world are all in China.

Expect a growing amount of attention to be paid to China with all of the nasty recalls plus next year's Olympics.

[Silfedac]

I agree with everything you two have said, but I have some things of my own to add. SOmething I remeber reading is that about half of chinese households don't have toilets. And hey, as long as the government isn't using that three trillion dollar surplus to make things in their country a little bit better, why don't they give it to us? It'll fill up our three trillion dollar hole quite nicely.

[Orangey]

As a perennial dork, I always read the subscripts during commercials. Just now, I was watching Demetri Martin on Comedy Central, and saw an advertisement for Veramyst(sp?). It was a nasal spray that is supposed to relieve every gosh-darn type of alergy symptoms. I was idly watching it, thinking about the allergy medicine whose mascot as a wasp with a spanish accent, when I noticed that the subscript at the bottom of the screen said 'The way Veramyst works is NOT ENTIRELY UNDERSTOOD'. Needless to say, I wondered how on Earth the FDA approved of this drug, but never was the message presented that they hadn't, which I believe is required by law if that is the case.

I'm... worried.

[Silfedac]

Isn't that the commercial for Nasonex?

Also, Holy butt. That can't be good.

[Orangey]

You know what I don't understand? Break-dancing. Well, that and several other forms of art (dance especially), but let's focus on the break-dancing for now. Sure, it must be difficult; yes, it shows you've got skilzz (possibly mad ones. But are they are likely to pay the bills?); I admit that it must take practice and dedication to master. However, in the end, what do you have to show for it? A penchant for exhibiting (in public) a form of movement uncannily remeniscent of extreme epilepsy?

The style itself has no grace and rarely seems to have much to do with the music being played. While the more staid dances of the world aren't as... energetic, they at least appear to be dancing, rather than a controlled spasm.

Then again, I suppose it all depends on perspective. As a proponent of established 'art', I can call break-dancers philistines. But, just because I have history behind me and more words to use on my opponents than they have for me (well, more socially acceptable ones), does that mean my art is better than theirs? For that matter, haven't all forms of art gone through this phase? Waltzes considered lascivious, rock-and-roll seen as sinful and detrimental to society, abstract art thought to be no more than meaningless spatter... Just because I stick to what I know, does that make me right?

Tangential musing aside, I neither like nor understand break-dancing; I feel it looks silly.

Just thought I'd share that.

[Silfedac]

That's great. You should have your own segment on the evening news.

Also, what's your opinion on abstract art?

[Chris Hallbeck]

You know what I don't understand? Break-dancing. I neither like nor understand break-dancing; I feel it looks silly.

Just thought I'd share that.

Weird. The forum appears to be picking up the thought waves of my dad circa 1983.

[Ðefiance]

I had a dream where chinese people ate disk drives and shot laßur beams from their hair.

[Orangey]

Abstract art is a bit of a toss-up. On one hand, there are beautiful and thoughtful pieces, with depth, a clear understanding of color, a great sense of motion, and/or the idea that the artist is really trying to express some-thing. On the other hand, there are pieces that are clearly a self-justifying piece of snobbery, an artist's excuse for having no actual skill, a canvas that clearly just had paint thrown at it, and/or might have been good but the artist didn't know when to quit and took it too far, ruining the piece.

I've been taking too many art classes for way to long, so I feel I have a rather good eye for shape and color and an educated sense of what flows well. I feel entirely justified in saying that most of what is considered 'abstract' or 'modern' these days is really garbage. It has no depth, no aesthetic value, no soul.

Also, Chris, I don't know whether you're being mean or not...

[Chris Hallbeck]

Also, Chris, I don't know whether you're being mean or not...

Don't worry, you're not the only one. 

[Orangey]

O_o That's just semantically ambiguous enough to make me really nervous! Yay!

On another subject, I just saw a news report about grand theft.

Grand theft LINGERIE.

I'm not even joking.

[Silfedac]

You know, my family went to Myrtle Beach over the summer (a family destination, by the way). There must have been at least ten of each lingerie and liquor stores, in addition to several gentlemen's clubs and sleazy bars.

Yeah.

[Amanda]

Myrtle Beach is SO not only a family destination. It is a huge spring break location, as well as a place that men's groups organize golf outings. So the sex shops make sense. 

[Orangey]

One of my favorite breakfast cereals is Honey Bunches of Oats™®®®™®®™®™™™®™ (Apparently, they're a mouthful of joy.). I was reviewing the panel on the side that says some-thing like 'Try All Our Delicious Flavors!'. The one with pieces of peach in it said "Honey Bunches of Oats: With Real Peaches"; the one with strawberries said "Honey Bunches if Oats: With Real Strawberries"; The one with almonds sad "Honey Bunches of Oats: With Almonds".

I presume that were it made with real almonds, they'd have said so. I made me wonder what the crunch, white nut-like-objects I had been eating were; the almond cereal had never been my favorite (I've always been partial to the peaches myself), meaning I don't eat them often, but still? What mystery substance had I ingested? I decided to compare boxes of strawberry and almond cereal, and look at their ingredients list.

It appears that the crunchy nut-like-objects were, in fact, crunchy nut-like nuts. It just makes me wonder; when they advertise the real-ness of their fruit, why not their nuts? Are almonds cheaper and more available, and there-fore more likely to be real? Or is it just an unfortunate printing error?

It reminded me of a time I was perusing an old magazine (I don't remember why... I think I was at the dentist's office) and I noticed an ad for "Genuine Imitation Snakehide" boots. It remained a ponderable for me for years, until I was reading a book about advertising techniques. I don't remeber what this one was called, but I do remember that the technique was to preface the word imitation with genuine. Generally, some-one reading both will latch on to the word genuine, and discard the imitation. I thought that was pretty cool; then again, I've always enjoyed watching how manipulate-able people are, especially on a language-based level.

That reminds me of the story of the Chevy Nova. I heard once that the Nova's sales had gone remarkaly poorly in Latin America, as nova (no va) transates as 'it does not go'. Having taken Spanish classes, I knew that the translation part was true, and assumed the rest of it was true as well.

Turns out, I was wrong. That was just a rather recent urban legend that had started as an example of the consequences of bad market research. Upon reflection, that seems more likely, if you put it in context; after all, no English-speaking person would choose not to buy a dinette set marketed under the name 'Notable', just because it says No Table.

I think I've rambled enough for now; more to come later. (Woo!)

[Silfedac]

That reminds me of something I read about how the Rolls Royce Silver Mist didn't sell well in Germany because "mist" in German translates to "muck", which is used as slang for poo.

[SpriteMeister]

Here we can talk to our heart's content about the new stem cell discovery without worrying about cluttering the Today... thread.

I, personally, am about as happy as my apathy can let me be about it. Yay for scientific progress not being halted by religion!

[Mii]

EXCITEMENT!!1

[Orangey]

Yes, thank you for that insightful and relevant comment, Mii.

How-ever, there are still (not necessarily religious this time) people who oppose stem cells at all because they think "Oh, if we have stem cells at all, we could start creating people in laboratories, or (and this is a real argument I heard) start creating human muscle tissue and use that as a substitute for beef!".

[the Scarf]

umm...why not just use stem cells from cows? 

people can be so friggin stupid. Its hilarious...

[Silfedac]

It is, yes. I once heard a comedian say something that makes a lot of sense on this topic (religious stupidity). It was a comment on creationism. He said, "One of the main retorts in the creationist arsenal is 'Well, everything's just so complicated. There must have been some intelligent design in there somewhere,' all of which basically equates to saying 'I don't get it. It must be magic!'"

I forgot this guy's name, but he gets props. Thank you, anonymous comedian!

EDIT! Woohoo! Stick Figure commentary! (Go to Bigger than Cheeses for more. And no, this isn't the whole comic.)

[Orangey]

I like Bigger than Cheeses, especially the author's rants.

[Silfedac]

You do, eh? Than you'll like this, too!

[Orangey]

yeah, I do. Remember though, that I have read all their archives, so I have seen that before.

[the Scarf]

Eh...I prefer webcomics with either a really good plot, or uncanny wit and humor...I may read some of the more random ones occasionally...

[Mystery Fish]

While we're on the subject of religion, does anybody know what denomination (if any) this symbol belongs to?

[the Scarf]

I can't say....that is...I don't know...what is it?

[Mystery Fish]

*Shrugs*
It was on practically every page of one of my Music teacher's old GCSE workbook (hence the name, 'Mr. Warburton's Symbol').

[Silfedac]

I would probably say Islam...just looks like that's what it'd be.

[the Scarf]

perhaps you could ask him?