CommentFuckiness

by Candy Friday, August 12, 2005 at 01:14 PM

OK, Sarah and I are trying to figure out how to fucking close the comments in EE without making all the comments disappear.

And it’s motherfucking HARDER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE.

For the next few hours, things may be a bit wacky with the comments. Right now, you’ll notice there are two comment links for most of our entries. One of them has the entry box, the other one doesn’t.

So if weird things are happening, be patient, and just refresh the page. I’m trying out different solutions at a really quick rate, so the comment thing is going to change from moment to moment.

If you have long comments to leave, I recommend you type ‘em out in Notepad or something first because the way things are going now, you might lose ‘em.

Edited to add: FUCK YEAH we just figured it out! WHO’S YOUR DADDY? UNH UNH UNH OH YEAH WE RULE. *happydance*

Picture of {name}
17 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: News

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Checkthisout

by SB Sarah Friday, August 12, 2005 at 11:31 AM

From the dedication page of Time Off for Good Behavior by Lani Diane Rich:

“And last, without trying to sound like I’m pandering, because I really mean this, I’d like to thank everyone who reads this book. You may not realize it, but every time you read a book, you’re validating every author who ever thought up a story and, despite the overwhelming odds, said, “I’m gonna give this a shot.” You’ve made dreams come true, and that’s one of the most important things a human being can do. So go forth and feel good about yourself. You rock.”

I’ve never had a book suck up to me, the reader, before, but damn, now that felt oh-so-good. Thanks, and you’re welcome! 

Picture of {name}
6 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Random Musings

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

TheBookofAngels,Chapter1

by Candy Friday, August 12, 2005 at 09:04 AM

No personal ad today because durrrrr, Candy was a retard and forgot to upload new Smart Bitch aristocratic titles. So instead, we have chapter 1! Of my post-as-I-type-it-out serial novel!

Boring caveat-ish stuff:

1. These here words copyright 2005 by Candy Tan. I’ll probably go for some kind of creative commons thing later once I’ve done more reading on it, but for right now, let’s just go with the full copyright, hmmm? Feel free to excerpt, since fair use covers that, but as a courtesy, please link back to the story, or at least the site.

OK, did some reading on Creative Commons while Autodesk Inventor 10 crashed and burned around me. So! This seems to be the license that best fits what I want for this story:

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.


Wow. I feel all warm and fuzzy and copyleft and shit.

2. Really, really minimal research has been done on this story. How minimal? Let’s say I looked up “Egypt” in Wikipedia, confirmed that its official language is Arabic, and that’s been about it. Please don’t come crying to me about how inaccurate my version of Cairo is. I KNOW. That’s kind of the point of this story--I’m trying to emulate the pulpy, over-the-top serials published in old magazines.

3. There’s a nifty little notes section at the end of this chapter, since I used a couple of foreign words. The annotator in me, it refuses to die.

4. This includes the partial chapter I posted a few days ago, with minor edits (exclusively word-choice issues). If you want to skip it, I’ve linked to section 2. Click on it. Bitch.

And now, without further ado: The actual friggin’ story! *trumpet fanfare*

More,more,more!>
Picture of {name}
35 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Serial Novel: The Book of Angels

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

CorrectionstoRevengeGiftsbyCindyCruciger

by Candy Friday, August 12, 2005 at 06:31 AM

I know, hard to believe, but we Smart Bitches are not infallible. We found out last night that we made at least one error in our review for Cindy Cruciger’s Revenge Gifts. Go to the review and the review comments for more details.

Smart Bitches extends an apology for the factual error.

If any of you spot any factual errors in our other reviews, please feel free to contact us and beat us thoroughly over the head with a dead fish. We’ll get the corrections done ASAP.

Picture of {name}
8 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: News

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

SmartBitches:Apparently,WeHateChrist,NotJustMan-Titty!

by Candy Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 10:25 AM

Someone on one of the AAR messageboards has accused us Smart Bitches of having an anti-Christian slant.

Candy’s Take:

Confession time: Organized religions in general give me a mild case of the heebie-jeebies. Organized religions in particular that make a very stark distinction between the saved and unsaved, those who Got God and those who Don’t Got God, tend to give me even more heebie-jeebies. The latter claim I’m going to burn in Hell and/or am Satan’s minion for the lone fact that I don’t believe in the right deity, regardless of how good or bad a person I actually am; would you blame me for feeling just a teeny bit uncomfortable?

But the people who identify themselves as belonging to a certain religion? They’re such a varied bunch that I can’t make blanket judgments about them. It’d be impossible. As with anything else, I take ‘em on a case-by-case basis. If they deserve to be made fun of or taken to task, then I try to call it as I see it.

For example: A Christian pharmacist who won’t prescribe birth control to someone because he believes it’s “chemical abortion” is an asshole (as well as deserving of having his degree yanked--what kind of shit chemistry and biology classes did this motherfucker take?). The same pharmacist who does this AND refuses to return the prescription to the customer so she can fill it elsewhere is a super-duper, grade A, mecha-Streisand stupid asshole; the fact that the asshole’s opinions are informed by his religious values also makes him a religious asshole. That doesn’t change that he’s an asshole, first and foremost. He could be ANY religion. In this particular case, he was Christian. I’d call him a Christian asshole.

But some people insist on reading that as me calling all Christians, alla time, assholes.

So let me make this clear once and for all (even though I’ve said this many times before on this blog): Assholism is a major religion in and of itself, and its practicioners range far and wide. Assholism is oftentimes caused by fundamentalism: the belief that you have the inside line to God (or non-God, as the case may be), know what’s best and everyone else needs to live only according to your values. Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, Zoroastrianists, Scientologists, Pagans, Worshippers of the Puckery Purple Men of Uranus, whatever--all of these have their share and then some of assholes.

I’ve said some inflammatory things on this blog before, but I’d like to know: were any of them attacking Christians and Christianity as a whole? I’d like to think I’m careful enough to make it clear that I’m usually talking about specific individuals or sub-groups, and not the Christian population as a whole.

There’s a difference between talking about the group, and talking about individuals. Perhaps we all need to learn to read more carefully when it comes to these sorts of statements?

Unless y’all want to argue that asshole fundamentalist Christians are the only true Christians around. I certainly don’t.

Now, if you want to talk about a group of people that us Bitches have consistently and ruthlessly attacked, I can tell you exactly who they are: Cover models. We’ve called them everything from child molesters to gym monkeys. If Fabio ever wants to take us to task for making unkind statements about him, he’d have a rock-solid case.

I seriously doubt you’d find the same level of hateration for Christians on this site.

Sarah’s Take: Since my blog was mentioned in that particular conversation over at AAR, I have been tempted to respond. But for the life of me I can’t figure out what I’m being called on the carpet for, there. It seems the complaint is that my strong feelings of Christianity might bleed...somewhere. Aside from the biohazardous nature of my alleged opinion, I have to wonder: Do I have strong feelings about Christianity?

Sure I do. I think that the teachings of Christ as depicted in the gospels are some damn fine code of human behavior, and a marvelous demonstration of fair ethics that everyone could do well to emulate.

Heck, you could say that because I liked those ethics of Jesus’ so much that I converted to Judaism in 1999. I used to be Christian, now I’m a homie of Christ. And last time I checked, Jesus was not down with harming other people in his name. Moreover, the tenets of Judaism and Christianity advocate for treating everyone with respect, honor and kindness.

So am I anti-Christian? No. Like Candy, I am anti-fundamentalist. I think the root word of “fundamentalism” is Mental, and that people who hurt others in the name of religion need some serious cans of whoopass cracked in their vicinity. I think ostracizing anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe is like revisiting 6th grade gym class every day of your life.

Furthermore, I do not have any problem with people who achieve peace and happiness through great devotion to their religion.

I do have a problem with people who, having achieved their own peace and devotion, seek to bend me to their will and force me to adopt their ways. If it works for you, great. But do not force your religion down my throat, even if it is my own. So I’m not going to hold your little Scientology cans in the middle of 42nd street, nor am I going to tie t’fillin (which I wouldn’t be asked to do anyway since I’m a girl and all), I’m not going to shake the lulav with you, and I’m not going to kneel and recite the rosary because you think I ought to do so.

I wonder if the root of the comments regarding our alleged anti-Christian bias lies in our personal dislike for inspirational romance. I personally do not enjoy it, because I feel that the underlying rhetoric of those few inspirational romances that I have read is that as a non-Christian, I am not saved. I find shades of the exclusive rhetoric that permeates orthodoxy of all religions in the structure of inspirational romance, and I feel that it does not apply nor appeal to me.

Do I rant and rave and yell that inspirationals should not be considered romance? No. I don’t care if RWA devotes an entire award to them; I know that personally, they are not my cup of holy water, so I’m going to find my romance elsewhere. But does disliking inspirational romance make me anti-Christian? No.

However, I refuse to change my opinion on man-titty.

Picture of {name}
Commenting is disabled, kids. Read the existing comments Trackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Ranty McRant

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Page 459 of 528 pages « FirstP  <  457 458 459 460 461 >  Last »