DraadNagel

home    message    submit    archive    theme
©
26 Utrecht

wondermilkybeetch:

I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn’t work with our brains and it never will.

The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.

Read More

thepoliticalnotebook:

The Guardian has recently been criticized for running an ad (print only) by the organization This World — an ad featuring Elie Wiesel and saying, among other things, “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas’ turn.” (Newspapers in the US ran this ad, too, but that’s less surprising.)

Alan Rusbridger responded with a few interesting arguments — primarily that newspapers shouldn’t dismiss ads they disagree with and that it was a freedom of speech issue. Those are valid considerations when it comes to controversial advertising, but this wasn’t an ad for a political campaign or an advocacy group dealing with social issues — it was an ad about an ongoing conflict. And the ad used the child casualties of that conflict as a tool of emotional manipulation. That’s not an issue of whether or not the paper disagrees with a political stance; this is much more than that. The language of the ad was not just offensive to those who disagree with it — it was a base manipulation of the deaths of children.

One of my great disagreements with this choice — while it sounds admirable to forge ahead and publish ads you disagree with — is that it diminished and overshadowed the reporting from Gaza and Israel from Guardian journalists. Advertising should never overshadow the actual journalism, and that’s exactly what it did. When there is a clash between the two, the advertising should go. It is not, or should not be, more valuable to the publication. 

Read Guardian readers’ editor Chris Elliott’s good discussion of what happened.

wondermilkybeetch:

mrbellek:

wondermilkybeetch:

I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn’t work with our brains and it never will.

The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is…

The worst is that originally, theaters promised they’d always have 2D version of 3D movies available for those who preferred watching movies without glasses.

They lied.

Buy a pair of 2D glasses: 2d-glasses.com

I’m building a pair today because I really want to see guardians of the galaxy, but I’m still mad that I’ll still be paying for a mediocre cinema-experience. I already complained to Pathe but I’m p. sure they’ll only understand when they start losing money.

dreamofbecoming:

Reasons abortion should be fully covered on all insurance plans:

  • If you can’t afford an abortion, you definitely can’t afford a pregnancy
  • If you can’t afford an abortion, and are forced to carry a pregnancy to term anyway, you sure as hell can’t afford a child

Who the fuck do you think you’re really protecting here?

(via clubbedsoda)

       Anonymous

jettiebettie:

All unnatural creatures cower and flee in the name of our Lord God. - 1715”
Proven false; they flee unchecked proselytism. - 1868”

Attacked pack of shapeshifters with fire and water blessed by a local priest. Unsure which was more effective. - 1857”
It was not the blessed water. (Group casualties: 3 dead, 4 wounded)" - 1864"
It was the fire. - 1865”

If one falls prey to the temptations of a succubus, he must be isolated within a monastery for a period of one fortnight in order to cleanse himself of such desires. A fellow brother will determine if the afflicted is well enough to return to the service of the family. - 1734”
Just lock him in a room with a Playboy and wait a day or two. - 1976” 

A knife crafted by a medicine man of the region is the only method found capable of vanquishing the creature known as Wendigo. - 1801”
Addendum: Setting its den ablaze works just as well. - 1803”

We have encountered on our journey an ungodly beast. Though it casts the appearance of a water fowl upon first sight, its ghastly body is covered in a matted fur pelt. Its tail is not its own, but that of which may have belonged once to a beaver. We suspect its nature to be an unholy one. Details to follow. - 1798”
Is he talking about a platypus? - 1965”