primarscources (primarscources) wrote,
primarscources
primarscources

  • Mood:
  • Music:

same minimalist packaging, great new flavor

someone told me that purple text on a black background was hard on the eyes, so i've updated the colors (made it brighter) to cause your pupils to constrict more...and more...until your eyeballs finally explode (more on this later). ok, it's not really that bright, but it's a lot brighter than the black background i had before.

the gray symbolizes mist. you know, because mist is gray. the crimson symbolizes blood (for the obvious reason). so the journal style is basically a huge explosion of blood inside a cloud. or something like that, anyway. i thought it sounded pretty cool. if you don't like the style, i hope you die 60 years from now, but suffer horribly until that day.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 9 comments
I simply must apologize to you. In a bout of primal bloodthirst I attempted to perform the duties of the office to which I have been elected in the non-profit corporation that I devote my time to just because I like it. Posting in a group directly in our sphere of influence was clearly a mistake. I don't know what evil possessed me, but I abosolutely understand the disruption that the post must have brought to your life and to the lives of those you love. I was clearly in the wrong and I submit myself to you that I may be subjected to your most merciless chastizations, which I shall bear without a hint of regret.

And not everyone deserves to learn to program.
1. who the hell are you, and what the hell are you talking about?

2. "to which I devote my time" sounds better than what you wrote.

3. your avatar has pi written incorrectly. you've added an extra "35".

4. what is this disruption of which you speak? i don't remember anyone disrupting me. please clue me in.

5. why should i chastize you?

6. in case you are someone i have offended: LJ is public space. if your posts can't stand up to a good mocking, don't post at all or make your journal private so nobody will ever hurt your flimsy feelings again.

Anonymous

June 15 2006, 02:40:20 UTC 10 years ago

0. Start with zero.
1. You initiated our interaction, I'm simply following up. To answer your question in an annoyingly vague and obvious way, I'm the person whose post you commented on, and I'm not sure why you felt the need to do so.
2. You think it sounds better. I don't. My grammar is technically correct.
3. 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288 and that's all I have memorized, and it's correct. If I made avatars, I'd make good ones. It won't stop me from using this one. That some fat nerd somewhere made a cat girl icon in the middle of the night and didn't get his pi right isn't of much consequence to me. Why is it of consequence to you?
4. If I hadn't disrupted you, you wouldn't have commented on my post with such passionate vitriol. That's assuming you're like other people. It doesn't seem like you are. (That's not a value judgment, if you care.)
5. Actually, you already did. You seemed to enjoy it, though, and you seemed to like doing it to me. Is it my place to stop you?
6. I was not offended. I was disappointed, though. I made a post that I had been asked to make on behalf of a local corporation of about 40 people, and it was a truly innocuous post. Any chance it may have had at fulfilling its purpose was reduced to an incalculably small decimal after you decided you wanted to play with it. It's fine to want to do that when people are being imbeciles, but I don't think the post deeply warranted mocking. Plus it was an outreach attempt, an advertisement. 90% of advertising effectiveness stems from appeals to ethos, and even if the post could "stand up to a good mocking" the fact that anyone mocked at all would render the advert nearly ineffective. I'm just trying to fill some co-op rooms so we don't have to increase our vacancy reserve next year. We aren't lacking members because of a fault of ours either -- I could give you the microeconomical breakdown of Champaign-Urbana's housing climate if you wanted me to, but I doubt you do. Someone like you might already know.
In summary, I am aware that LJ is a private space. I do not know why you do what you do, though. There are plenty of legal ways to hurt people, but I don't want to hurt people. Maybe you do. I think that's fine. I still wish I hadn't ever been your target.
0. fair enough
1. i've made dozens of posts in the last few days, and i honestly don't remember your screen name or what i said to you.
2. true
3. you still have pi written incorrectly, which just looks dumb. i guess i just assumed anyone else might care about doing things properly.
4. i don't know what i said to you, but unless you're one of those post-deleting people, i don't think i tossed any vitriol your way.
5. i do not intend to hurt anyone's feelings, merely to point out to people that they take often themselves too seriously. if there were a way to accomplish this painlessly, i'd choose it.
6. i'm sorry if i've damaged your advertising c(h)ampaign, but please keep in mind that many of my comments are simply spur-of-the-moment creations based on some nuance or detail that caught my eye.

god is in the details, and god is a funny subject, so humor must be in the details, too. i'm not intentionally hurting anyone, though. if someone makes a conscious decision to get upset over a joke (and that is what they do), they're taking themselves way too seriously.
and because i AM a person who cares about doing things properly, i've fixed your GIF image with the transparency and all. it's available for download here:

fixed.gif
and since you posted anonymously last time (i'm assuming it was you), i'll reply here so you are notified.
and tell those ignorant fuckers at the chambana board that they're only hurting themselves by banning voices of dissension. if they don't think it's true, tell 'em to read Irving Janis's paper on Groupthink. if they don't feel like doing that, well, fuck 'em. i won't bother trying to help people so immature and cowardly.
They don't ban voices of dissension. They ban certain voices of dissension that, in their opinion, are inappropriate. It embodies the very definition of censorship: they get away with squelching whatever messages they dislike under the premise of protecting the users. I neither support nor criticize their actions. Aren't they free to do as they wish, just as you and I are?

What's your interest in the chambana group in the first place? Your email address isn't a U of I one, so why are you even reading it? This isn't an exciting place, you know.
they are free to do as they wish, but i still wish they weren't such craven idiots, for my sake and theirs as well.

my interest is that i happened to see it and felt like posting.

i see you have rejected my gift of a corrected icon. it's still here if you change your mind:

http://www.techwarereview.com/non-website/fixed.gif