This has nothing to do with the movie itself, but I will refuse to have a player entry called "God Hand" on the site.
If the player wishes to have a movie published here, he needs to choose another name. (In addition to making an actual publish-worthy movie.)
This has nothing to do with the movie itself, but I will refuse to have a player entry called "God Hand" on the site.
If the player wishes to have a movie published here, he needs to choose another name. (In addition to making an actual publish-worthy movie.)
Coulda been worse. You act like he decided to name himself Christ-Cumbuckets or something.
Stupid rules are stupid.
Just sayin'.
KaitouKid: Well, the point is clear. You are an atheist (or agnostic or whatever), and I am christian. :)
And you rant angrily and use words like "fuck" and "christ" in contexts where they don't belong to. And I frown at that kind of behavior.
That's how we both are.
Nothing new there.
So, enough of off-topic and more about this submission, mayhaps?
Atheist in the middle of the bible belt. Which, to those not knowledged about goofy nicknames of places this country gives itself, is a string of states in the midwest that are packed full of highly religious nutjobs.
I am surrounded by Christians. The rest of my family are Christians. And I myself have chosen to not believe word one of it because I don't need a work of fiction dictating to me that stealing and killing are bad. That's common sense and I can guide myself rather than being a sheep, thank you.
But yes, the point. Personal beliefs have no business in things like this. His name is fine.
It's nice that you don't carry any prejudice ;)
But what I posted in my first post of this thread, holds.
(I could also argue a flaw in your "I don't need" paragraph, but that's beside the point.)
There is no difference between an atheist who calls down a religious person for having beliefs, than a religious person who looks down on the atheist for his.
And putting things in tiny parenthesis at the bottom of posts doesn't make them any more acceptable or relevant. Neither does putting smiley faces. Neither does swearing. Judging is judging, and hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Edit:
I also just had this thought in IRC which I think is a good point:
There's a difference between something possibly looking like blasphemy, and something actually intending to be blasphemous.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
The only thing that comes to mind is a quote attributed to Dave Barry:
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them".
So yes, everyone has their views, but I don't come here to be part of religious discussions and squabbling, I can talk to my parents for those.
On a lighter now, here's another one that is somewhat more related to TASing:
"There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them".
That's what makes it a religion, I guess…
No. A religion is something that people follow in order to give their lives purpose, hope, things like that. In no way does it entail completely shunning someone else's beliefs because they what path they follow is different from your own.
JXQ wrote:
There's a difference between something possibly looking like blasphemy, and something actually intending to be blasphemous.
You think you'd still be having this debate if the name in question were "SHITHEAD" or something? Of course not, there'd be no contest, he'd be forced to change his name. Yet that may be an acceptable name on some other site.
This is Bisqwit's site, he makes the rules.
It should be noted that the atheists on this website most likely already know Bisqwit is christian (if you've seen his profile). They(We) have the decency and open-mindedness to enjoy the website and Bisqwit's runs even though he is a christian. Just remember that.
Every time I log onto the forum, I wonder how you guys are going to outdo yourselves in the ridiculous pointless nonsense department.
You never fail to disappoint, though.
actually, according to Wikipedia it's 33%, but good point anyway.
Of course he's totally allowed to publish or not publish whatever he wants, I think Bisqwit needs to ask if he's really going to prevent someone from publishing a tas because they write something he finds offensive.
"God" is the generally accepted catch-all word for a deity in the English language. I'm almost positive "God Hand" was not attempting to be blasphemous with his name; if he had called himself "Jesus Hand" or something, I can see it (though I still wouldn't agree).
Besides, isn't using the name of "God" in a worldly sense only blasphemous in Judaism? :)
Fabian: I don't think Bisqwit was being harsh at all in his posts.
Wow, two more of my pet peeves have entered this thread!
1) BoltR: No shit. Your reply could be pasted ad nauseum whenever anyone questions any decision about the site, which accomplishes precisely zero - which is less than or equal to any other post made about anything! Thanks for going nowhere with that.
2) Inzult: Thanks for letting everyone know how lame you think this discussion is by posting in this discussion which you think is so lame about how lame the discussion is. It differentiates you from those who actually post about the lame discussion, and as a result, you come across as much cooler and more mature than everyone here.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Heh, I'm amazed how much discussion this actually generated.
Yeah, adelikat is right, I should have posted it as a privmsg to the author instead of to this topic. I just thought it'd be a good way to inform the author as well as potential publication-doers at the same time.
Here's btw more of what I had in my mind when I posted that… warning… if anyone cares.
My concern is only about how it would appear if we announce on the site, "played by God's Hand". I have nothing against that person in particular. It's just that particular expression happens to have a connotation that I don't wish to have there.
I have nothing against pseudonyms, or such names appearing in fiction, but the "played by" line is supposed to be a fact (for us to have credibility), and if such an expression appears there, it looks too weird.
Re: JXQ, In communication, the responsibility to make a message understood is with the sender, not with the receiver. When we publish at this site, we are making a message. It is our responsibility to make it understood the right way. Hence, your "but there's a difference between intention and the looks" point is moot.
Also, for a person to be called with such a highly praiseful name like "God's Hand" ― this term in Japanese is used generally for people whose work appears to be really divine, i.e. on a completely different level than of mundane people.
Using such a name of oneself is nothing short of excessive egoism. Rude, in other words.
One could be called "God Hand" by others who consider the person to be really expert beyond any other experts. But one cannot call oneself "God Hand".
Of course the site is not decided by Japanese culture… but the name "God Hand" is influenced by Japanese culture (at least that's what I understand from the links by KaitouKid's provide).
But this was another tangent, it is not the reason for me to prohibit that name. After all, we also have "Arne The Great", "SuperNinja" and "Master Insan". Oh wait, the third hasn't submitted a movie. Anyway.
Re: JXQ, You do a great job in pointing fingers and blaming everyone for whatever character warts you recognize, or just generally making everyone look stupid. How productive is that?
