So I lost an hour of my deadline oriented work and of course an hour of pay (besides switching shuttles in this freezing cold twice) because some morons planted bomblike devices on the T and in other public places. More news here.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/01/suspicious_pack_1.html (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/01/suspicious_pack_1.html)
Ugh... at least they might get into serious trouble over this. I hate that some people are too overpaid and sheltered to realize the consequences of their actions ahead of time.
-edit: towned down the anger a little before anyone quoted me-
i remember something like that happening before
I was with my college on a trip to new york and we were takign the subway somewhere... and all of a sudden a bunch of polica ran down screaming "get out! get out there a bomb"
we found out it was students art project once we got back home a week later
[url
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/27/findlaw.analysis.hilden.art.terror/index.html] yes it was real im not making it up..[/url]
Um, yeah. I don't feel much pity for people overreacting to non-threatening stimuli.
They had CARTOON CHARACTERS on them.
O NOES ITS A BOMB!!1!!1!1!11eleventyone1!1!111
Quote from: captainspud on January 31, 2007, 04:16:36 PM
Um, yeah. I don't feel much pity for people overreacting to non-threatening stimuli.
They had CARTOON CHARACTERS on them.
O NOES ITS A BOMB!!1!!1!1!11eleventyone1!1!111
God Im glad I took out my line about people who consider this to be overreacting, I figured it would offend a few people who dont live in the city where the sept 11th planes took off from and who dont commute blindly to work with only loud raspy intercoms to tell you what is going on. For the rest of us we are at the bottom, its a vulnerable place. Personally I wasent afraid (I figured it was just another suicide or homicide) but it did evoke a lot of anger to find out it was something mundane and stupid that delayed so many people from doing their job. Is it the bomb squads fault for taking EVERY THREAT seriosly? Should we only hire people with the gift of jaded hindsight that consider anything with a cartoon character to be harmless?
(like that pokemon cartoon that hospitalized so many kids...)
Not saying it's harmless, but people need to think before they flip out. That's the problem with the culture of fear your dictatorship has induced-- you see mortal threats everywhere you look. You see muslims praying on a plane, you shout "TERR'IST! GIT IM!". You see something new you don't recognize... "BOMB!"
"Better safe than sorry" isn't actually very good advice. Your keepers have you folks in such a panic, so intent on scanning your surroundings for danger, so that you'll never stop and look upward toward the real threats.
Dude, dont lecture me about this country. When I came here as an immigrant Bush was already president and I was making $5.50 an hour serving french fries and getting called racial slurs, Im not part of this redneck racist dictatorship fantasy misinformed people love to indluge in after watching the daily show a few times.
I live in the projects, with the other people who take public transportation to work. People like you look down on them as dumb, as the people who voted for bush or some such nonesense. I dont have such-ubermensch aspirations, I see anything that picks at the scabs of my fellow commuters as horridly irresponsible, a cruelty perpetrated by people who dont understand where their parents go 10 hours of the day while they are on their playstations and myspaces.
And geez, no such thing as "my keepers", I've had 10 letters published on racism, immigration, law enforcement and other such things. I participated in 'mayday'. I agree that not being born on american soil does give you some insight though, which you can use either to be sensitive or to be rude more effectively.
Rude's more my thing though. ;)
Quote from: captainspud on January 31, 2007, 05:39:10 PM
Rude's more my thing though. ;)
Actually now that you mention it I did make a small crack about being shocked to see so many police officers in one place without an unarmed person being shot. But that wasent rude of me, it was... uhm.. ;)
Well, the fact is, this same thing has been going on in 10 cities for several weeks, and this kind of reaction did not take place in any of the other cities. How were they supposed to know this would happen?
This is one case where you really can't fairly blame anyone. Sometimes what happens, happens.
You do realise this is going to fuel at least a week of bumpers on Adult Swim.
Quote from: captainspud on January 31, 2007, 04:49:50 PM
Not saying it's harmless, but people need to think before they flip out. That's the problem with the culture of fear your dictatorship has induced-- you see mortal threats everywhere you look. You see muslims praying on a plane, you shout "TERR'IST! GIT IM!". You see something new you don't recognize... "BOMB!"
"Better safe than sorry" isn't actually very good advice. Your keepers have you folks in such a panic, so intent on scanning your surroundings for danger, so that you'll never stop and look upward toward the real threats.
Ughhh, and they say Americans are ignorant about other cultures. I'm as big of a critic of the Bush administration as any thinking American, but statements like these are irksome. I can't help thinking that a comic book forum isn't the best place to cast political aspersions.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on January 31, 2007, 06:08:31 PM
Well, the fact is, this same thing has been going on in 10 cities for several weeks, and this kind of reaction did not take place in any of the other cities. How were they supposed to know this would happen?
This is one case where you really can't fairly blame anyone. Sometimes what happens, happens.
I tell you, Boston is BIG on guilt. They (we?) feel that if one more terror incident happens here Massachussetts will be fired and given back to its native populace or forced to merge with Rhode Island or something.
I live in a town that borders Boston, and my wife is the head nurse in an elementary school in the heart of Boston's center. I don't know how this gag was presented in the other cities, but noone I've heard speak publicly or privately, regardless of their political and social leanings (and Boston is PLENTY diverse on that spectrum), believes that the city's response was anything but appropriate given the specific circumstances. The prank was nothing more than a fiasco that diverted precious resources from where they were most sorely needed, among which were the neighborhoods where wife's vulnerable inner-city students live in daily.
Most telling is that Turner Broadcasting and the ad agency which designed the prank have not released a cohesive response other than "Whoops - sorry!" A lawsuit is planned to recoup the cost of the public safety efforts, and I hope these buffoonish corporations get soaked but good!
EC
PS: Oh, and Spud? Shaddap! *smack's Spud's pasty potato-ish butt* :cool:
I don't know about most people, but I'd be more paranoid of a U Haul truck or a guy in a heavy parka than a mysterious box. I'm fairly sure anyone planning a bombing is going to make damn sure it's well hidden or disguised enough that noone is going to see it till it does its thing.
Screw things like passports to get into Canada, you should be required to provide a half dozen pieces of ID, have numerous background checks, and be fingerprinted just to buy fertilizer and diesel fuel.
Saw it on the news. About 1 PM they were already declaring it to be a hoax. At the time, I thought it might be a MIT hack prank.
Quote from: Verfall on February 01, 2007, 05:33:33 AM
I don't know about most people, but I'd be more paranoid of a U Haul truck or a guy in a heavy parka than a mysterious box. I'm fairly sure anyone planning a bombing is going to make damn sure it's well hidden or disguised enough that noone is going to see it till it does its thing.
Screw things like passports to get into Canada, you should be required to provide a half dozen pieces of ID, have numerous background checks, and be fingerprinted just to buy fertilizer and diesel fuel.
Unfortunately, criminals run the same gamut as regular people: really smart to incredibly stupid.
And yeah, didn't people see V for Vendetta? ;)
DK
Quotenoone I've heard speak publicly or privately, regardless of their political and social leanings (and Boston is PLENTY diverse on that spectrum), believes that the city's response was anything but appropriate given the specific circumstances.
I don't think anybody in Salem thought hanging witches was all that excessive or uncalled-for, either. It's only through hindsight that we realize how insane those people were.
[size=0pt]Hi There, Quoter! You've successfully been goaded by Captain Spud![/size]
Considering that the bomb squad couldn't even tell that they were harmless, I think the police reaction was fine.
For those who want a good look at one of the items that caused this whole panic, there's one for sale on Ebay (http://cgi.ebay.com/aqua-teen-hunger-force-mooninites-neon-not-a-bomb_W0QQitemZ190078492881QQihZ009QQcategoryZ363QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
My God, the ressemblance to an explosive device is uncanny.
And just how many explosive devices have you seen?
Just because it has blinky lights in the shape of a cartoon character does not mean that it isn't a bomb. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the kind of shape on would expect terrorists to use in order to make bombs seem more harmless. Anything with wires and space for explosives could easily be a bomb. In fact, a device this size, could feasibly cause destruction in a block or two.
You may mean well, but your ignorance in these matters is appalling.
My instinct tells me to hold my tongue on this one, but....
The people at Turner Broadcasting responsible for this are *vastly* irresponsible, and severely lacking in forethought & common sense. Just like you don't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you don't "secretly" plant ambiguous electronic devices in a large metropolitan area, and then be surprised when at least *one* person thinks it might be suspiscious enough to call the authorities. That's like mailing a package to your "friend" that works in a government building, wrapped in brown shipping paper with oil stains on it, addressed in block, capital letters (and misspelled), with a piece or two of wire taped to the box underneath the paper, just because it'd be funny to see the look on his face when he gets it. Back in the day when the good explosives like TNT were bulky and a little more obvious, something this small might not have been as much of an issue. If something like this would have been planted in Paddington or King's Cross train stations, or Heathrow, 10-20 years ago when the IRA was still in full swing, I'm sure it would have gotten the same reaction, and possibly been dealt with harshly.
The first time some insane piece of scum made a seemingly safe, innocuous device explode with the express intent to hurt people, we as a people (i.e. humans) lost our innocence over such a thing, and there has been a need for a certain level of caution ever since. It's also coded into us to be suspiscious of something we don't recognize, since we don't know if it presents a threat yet or not, and a certain amount of fear towards the unfamiliar is how we've survived long enough to come down out of the trees & walk upright.
In addition to seeking to recover losses incurred by this "advertising brainstorm", I think the cities need to level a rather stiff fine, as well. If you call in a fake bomb threat to some place (whether it be a grocery store or a military base), whatever your reasons, you face criminal charges. This is close enough to the same thing that there should be some sort of punishment laid out.
Lug, when you're ready to march on the Turner offices, give me a call. I'll grab my Louisville Slugger and my mace (the heavy, smash-y kind, not the little spray-can kind) and be right behind you!
Dude makes a cartoon about Mohammed. Muslims flip the hell out. Westerners go, "Dude, seriously, calm down. It's just a joke."
Dude makes an unconventional piece of advertising. Americans flip the hell out. My response is of course, "Dude, seriously, calm down. It's just a joke."
Your response to that comparison: "That's not the same thing. The first one was a cultural misunderstanding, the second is a threat to our lives!"
Well, it is the same thing. You put the #1 priority on your life, they put it on what comes after. You (and this is the 2nd person plural, referring to everybody) can't have the first perspective and disagree with the second. If you're justified in making a ruckus just because you (again, plural) didn't like someone's joke, then they're justified in every single violent action they take because of affronts to their sensibilities.
"That's still not the same thing!"
Is too. They killed a guy, and then already two people in this thread have implied or directly stated that they intend to inflict bodily harm on the people responsible for this. Just think about the hypcrisy of that. They made a joke that wasn't intended to be threatening, but which you didn't like, so you make (what I hope is) a joke about actually harming them.
Seriously, just think about that.
Americans weren't rioting all over the world killing and injuring hundreds of people.
The cartoon didn't force an entire city to shut down (not counting the rioting)
The cartoon couldn't have easily been a bomb.
Not a valid comparison.
Yeah, I'm going to have to side with cat on this. The whole world is on edge as of late, because why?? Bombings going on all over. This didn't have to be something that happened in the U.S. If it would have happened in the U.K. there probably would have been the same response.
Psychos are all over the world blowing themselves up, killing many others in the process. It's not really "overreacting" when you see a suspicious looking things set up all over town blinking. I'm actually kind of suprised they weren't bombs with the way the news has been on bombings.
And for Turner to pull an advertising stunt like this when bombings are going on is just stupid. I think they knew it would cause an uproar, and they wanted the extra advertising it gave.
QuoteAmericans weren't rioting all over the world killing and injuring hundreds of people.
Three people. Not hundreds. But really, it's irrelevant-- it's just a matter of order of magnitude. People still might go to jail for this. Over a
misunderstood joke.
QuoteThe cartoon didn't force an entire city to shut down (not counting the rioting)
The sign didn't cause a city to shut down-- people overreacting did. Which is exactly the same thing that happened when the riots shut cities down. The cartoon and the signs were not responsible for the inconvenience, it was the people's response that did it in both cases.
QuoteThe cartoon couldn't have easily been a bomb.
Again, back to what I said before-- for our culture, life and limb is the main priority. For theirs, it's more important to have a clean spirit, as they consider it more important to get into heaven, or whatever the motivation is. You can't say life > spirituality, because that's your perspective, and they might argue the other way around. Priorities are subjective.
QuoteNot a valid comparison.
It's the same bloody situation. You just don't like looking at it that way because it means you either have to admit you're wrong or admit they're right, and neither outcome is something you're comfortable with.
For now Im giving spud the benefit of the doubt... with all the hacking going on it is possible that some 13 y/o hacked his account. Still going to reply to one point: in order for me to be hypocritical when it comes to joking about them I would need to take this joke to a very far off and unpleasant place, where it stops being funny and tramples over the liberties of thousands. And honestly the moment I found out about what happened I felt like the parents in "sympathy for lady vengance" (great movie, watch it guys!), and ready to whup somebodies butt for real. Now that I have calmed down Im just writting another letter, it might get published in the Globe but we shall see... nothing special but if it does I'll post it.
Now word on the street here is that the person who called in the threat was one of the publicity guys, which would explain why it became an issue after going unnoticed for weeks. Probably false but if it turns out to be true... oh man. Especially with the mayor and our newly minted Governor as angry as they are.
QuoteQuote
The cartoon couldn't have easily been a bomb.
Again, back to what I said before-- for our culture, life and limb is the main priority. For theirs, it's more important to have a clean spirit, as they consider it more important to get into heaven, or whatever the motivation is. You can't say life > spirituality, because that's your perspective, and they might argue the other way around. Priorities are subjective.
Okay, let me switch hats here.
I am what you would call a HIGHLY religious person. As in church services at least 3 times a week, my church donations last year were about a fifth of my income, the whole works.
I too consider it more important to get into heaven than to live. Yet, my religious beliefs as a Christian are mocked CONSTANTLY, far more than just a few cartoons.
I have yet to take part in any riots. In fact, I would attempt to stop any that I did know of.
The fact is, that kind of mockery is, in my mind, one of the greatest forms of evil possible. But its there sin, not mine.
Even to a Muslim, it's not there sin. There reaction is not one to danger, spiritual or physical, it was simple rage and hate.
And I'd like to point out that it was only a small fraction of the total numbers of Muslims who rioted.
Quote from: lugaru on February 01, 2007, 04:20:47 PM
For now Im giving spud the benefit of the doubt... with all the hacking going on it is possible that some 13 y/o hacked his account.
Believing in personal freedom is immature?
Quotein order for me to be hypocritical when it comes to joking about them I would need to take this joke to a very far off and unpleasant place, where it stops being funny and tramples over the liberties of thousands.
I don't even know what that means.
QuoteNow word on the street here is that the person who called in the threat was one of the publicity guys, which would explain why it became an issue after going unnoticed for weeks. Probably false but if it turns out to be true... oh man. Especially with the mayor and our newly minted Governor as angry as they are.
If that's true, then I'll happily flip sides. Putting up a joke and having it be misunderstood is one thing. Intentionally provoking the public is going a bit too far.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on February 01, 2007, 04:54:20 PM
There reaction is not one to danger, spiritual or physical, it was simple rage and hate.
Not necessarily, though. The two faiths might demand different action in response to a slight-- yours says to forgive, maybe theirs says to right the wrong. (I honestly don't know, I'm not a theologist).
You're still looking at this in terms of details. Of course there are differences in the details. All I'm saying is that the situations are fundamentally the same thing-- an overreaction to a joke, albeit one that was probably in poor taste. You overreact through outrage, they overreacted through violence. Different culture, different mindset. Same stupid, panicky instinctual response.
I'm just going to weigh in as one who, if the signs had been actual explosive devices, could have been injured or killed at at least three different locations on his way to campus yesterday: I think the incident is a marvelous exemplum that I hope all can appreciate. A major media corporation has subverted everything I understand as "guerrila" (e.g., subaltern, desperate, etc.), and now certain Americans can associate in their minds this corporation and the idea of the enemy. I do not feel insulted in the least (though I am sorry to read about lugaru's inconvenience and loss, and I can sympathise). I admire "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" as a rollicking satire. I also do not think that the city overreacted, given its ignorance of the cartoon. If one bloated, capitalist entity wants to sue another bloated, capitalist entity, so much the better. We can now see the serpent swallowing its tail or, if you will, the system cannibalising itself.
The revolution is coming...mark my words.
:P
:P
:P
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and You Know the Rest
Taking my limited knowledge on the situations (I'm just not that bothered to read the news) as a grain of salt, I still see at least one (so I'll only illuminate one) difference between the cartoon/Muslim event and this advertising/bomb scare.
The cartoonist wasn't even remotely a part of the group that felt offended (religously, culturally, or nationally).
The people that green-lighted this ad campaign were most *definitely* a part of of the group that took things so seriously (perhaps not Bostonian, but very much American, and most likely residents/frequent visitors of large cities)
I figure either the Turner legal people knew of this, and either didn't see the potential to blow up (no pun intended) in their collective faces (not a very effective legal department if they can't imagine possible lawsuits and criminal charges), or they felt that the risk of it going bad was outweighed by the increased revenue that more viewers would bring (irresponsible and short-sighted).
The other possibility is that their legal department was blindsided by this, and somebody further down the chain will most likely be facing the axe very soon (gotta love corporate seppuku).
If it *was* a PR person that actually phoned it in, then woe be to him. Can you say sacrificial lamb?
QuoteYou overreact through outrage, they overreacted through violence. Different culture, different mindset. Same stupid, panicky instinctual response.
But that's the thing. There wasn't much panic. A suspicious device was found, the authorities were notified, and they dealt with the situation as best as they could. They had no way of knowing the devices were harmless. (someone official should have been informed) While I don't place much blame on the company itself (how were they supposed to know it would have this reaction when it didn't anywhere else?) I still think the official reacted the best they possibly could.
If this had gone down the opposite way, you would probably be saying that the very actions you now condemn were the opposite one.
These two situations are fundamentally different.
QuoteBut that's the thing. There wasn't much panic.
What happened to "It shut down the whole city"?
That wasn't panic, that was a reasonable precaution, given the circumstances.
They'd probably call the riot reasonable, too.
Objectivity's a wonderful thing.
Here's a sentence I never thought I'd type:
Spud is entirely, completely 100% correct on this.
I feel dirty now. :)
R
Quote from: bredon7777 on February 01, 2007, 09:00:24 PM
Here's a sentence I never thought I'd type:
Spud is entirely, completely 100% correct on this.
I feel dirty now. :)
R
Ditto. Hell must've frozen over, because I'm actually with Spud on this! :blink:
I think both sides in this are wrong: Turner and the advertising people, because they should have known better than to pull something like this considering the current situation, but also the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.
However, if what Lugaru says is true and it was actually one of the people behind the advertising who called it in, then the two jokers should be tossed in prison for a long time and the advertising company (if there is one, and its not actually just the two idiots who got caught doing it on their own) should be sued out of existence and held to 100% of the blame, not Turner.
I haven't seen any confirmation of the rumor that Interference Inc. or Turner or the two guys who put up the signs called in claiming they were bombs. Until such confirmation exists, I am assuming that rumor to be just what it sounds like: bull excreta. (BTW, I am interested in who actually started the rumor itself... Hint, look to someone who benefits from these guys looking worse.)
Meanwhile, I really don't see what Turner et alii can be held liable for, except maybe improper placement of advertizing placards. As steamed as people may be about the ultimate result of this, and as much as the natural reaction of Boston officialdom with mud in its eye is to find a scapegoat, I am not sure they have much of a case here. They are going to have a tough job in front of them, explaining to a reasonable jury that, although the signs were up in plain sight for several weeks before anyone gave a hoot, and although a half dozen other cities (including New York) had the same signs put up and Boston's government was the only one to react this way, nevertheless that reaction was the rational one and Turner should be forced to pay for it.
I'll admit, I may be biased because I saw pictures of the signs and didn't think there was anything threatening about them, although it took me a minute to recognize the character. But big cities are full of bright signs and lights and so on. Meanwhile, you can put explosives in anything, but it seems more likely that someone wanting to detonate a bomb would disguise it as something inconspicuous, instead of something designed to gather attention. IMO, of course.
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 01, 2007, 10:04:41 PM
Quote from: bredon7777 on February 01, 2007, 09:00:24 PM
Here's a sentence I never thought I'd type:
Spud is entirely, completely 100% correct on this.
I feel dirty now. :)
Ditto. Hell must've frozen over, because I'm actually with Spud on this! :blink:
Ya know, if he were already dead, I think that'd be two out of the three miracles required before becoming a saint! ;)
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 01, 2007, 10:04:41 PM
I think both sides in this are wrong: Turner and the advertising people, because they should have known better than to pull something like this considering the current situation, but also the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.
Do we know the sequence of events, a follows b follows c? I'm pretty sure most bomb squads like to have an area cleared before they look things over (something about the whole blowing up because they did something to it thing, I think). In the wake of 9/11/01 and Hurricane Katrina, most major cities have probably come up with some sort of large disaster plans, whether it was done for actual practicality or just for political appearances. Plans that complex and widespread are hard to test for flaws until they're actually put into practice. It could be a case of things not being in the right order for the emergency plans, or it could just be that the sheep of the general public can be *too* easily frightened, and rumors move faster than truth or common sense. I'm a firm believer that a large percentage of the people around me are morons (driving on the highways around here during rush hours or when there is an accident or large road work *always* bears that out). But my cynicism is a different subject. ^_^
Are we sure that the citizens of Boston were really in a "panic"? Or were they just annoyed that the city was in disarray because of the evacuation and other procedures employed? I am just asking because I don't live in the area and the news reports I heard were mostly people complaining about traffic. I mean, news is a deceptive business, so I have little doubt that they managed to find some people who were genuinely frightened and put them on camera out of proportion to their numbers. But, was "panic" the typical response of real people (outside of officialdom)?
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 01, 2007, 10:04:41 PM
... the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.
Actually that's the whole problem. Somebody called the bomb squad. The bomb squad's job is to take everything seriosly, be it a light bright toy or a lit stick of dynamite. When this happens on the train or a bridge, everyone is forced to work around it.
And to answer stumpy nah, no panic, like I said most people figured it was a suicide but then they start cropping up all over town and people are thinking "bunch of punks got organized, this cant be a good thing even if it's just a prank" because so far the internet news (boston.com) only says it was circuit boards with LED lights. Then around 4:30 or 5 they announced turner taking full responsability and well that was that.
Quote from: lugaru on February 02, 2007, 04:24:14 AM
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 01, 2007, 10:04:41 PM
... the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.
Actually that's the whole problem. Somebody called the bomb squad. The bomb squad's job is to take everything seriosly, be it a light bright toy or a lit stick of dynamite. When this happens on the train or a bridge, everyone is forced to work around it.
And to answer stumpy nah, no panic, like I said most people figured it was a suicide but then they start cropping up all over town and people are thinking "bunch of punks got organized, this cant be a good thing even if it's just a prank" because so far the internet news (boston.com) only says it was circuit boards with LED lights. Then around 4:30 or 5 they announced turner taking full responsability and well that was that.
Meh. That's what I get for posting when I haven't been up long - hadn't even been up an hour, so my mind wasn't fully clear.
What I meant was, it seemed from what I've read that there were something like 38 of these things (could be wrong, but I think that was the #) all over Boston, and there was crap going on involving a lot of them. You'd think they'd have figured out by examining one or two of them that they weren't bombs and wouldn't blow the situation all out of proportion. I do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange, but it still seems to me like some of the people handling the situation didn't exactly do a stellar job.
And whoever the person is who thought up this ad campaign is clearly an idiot.
QuoteI do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange
You guys actually pay attention to that crap?
:blink:
Quote from: captainspud on February 02, 2007, 04:42:55 AM
QuoteI do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange
You guys actually pay attention to that crap?
:blink:
Not me, but I saw it mentioned in someone else's criticism of the situation at another board, and there are people who actually do pay attention to it.
Quote from: captainspud on February 02, 2007, 04:42:55 AM
QuoteI do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange
You guys actually pay attention to that crap?
:blink:
Absolutely I do. For good or bad, those threat levels are going to determine how the government and law enforcement, etc. are going to respond to things. I kinda like to know that.
Quote from: stumpy on February 01, 2007, 11:43:23 PM
Meanwhile, you can put explosives in anything, but it seems more likely that someone wanting to detonate a bomb would disguise it as something inconspicuous, instead of something designed to gather attention. IMO, of course.
Again, criminals can be really really smart down to really really dumb.
DK
Quote from: captainspud on February 02, 2007, 04:42:55 AM
You guys actually pay attention to that crap?
:blink:
Why not? We've paid attention to the political comments in this thread. Same texture and aroma.
I thought vehement politics were off-topic for this list.
Hermanitos,
Oh my, what a pot this has stirred up!
I have grown quite fond of this community in quite short order, so I feel I can safely say this: everyone who has posted on this thread, regardless of the side they've taken, clearly shares with the rest the common interest in both public safety and public sanity. Noone has shown admiration for either mass hysteria or mass destruction. Only our opinions on how to avoid these two kinds of calamities differ. The fact that the two are now so inextricably linked in such complex ways is, from what I read here, the biggest source of tension among we who live in this massively complicated time.
That being said, Lugaru's original post refers to the consequences of this particular incident, so I'd like to draw focus back on what we know about it so far. Mainly, that the motivation behind the installation of the devices came from corporate enterprise. Second, that the response was initially a public safety response and not a law enforcement response. I'll address this one first, as it is an important distinction. That many are characterizing this as a case of "The Powers-That-Be" unfairly coming down on the "underground, independent artist" is misguided; the immobilization of parts of the city was a deliberate action to protect the people of Boston from a potential bomb threat. Indeed, this is a remarkable test case of coordinated emergency services puting into action new protocols that they have toiled endless hours to design since 9/11. There was no mass panic, largely because nearly everything worked exactly as it was supposed to: roads were blocked off, bridges closed, traffic diverted, threats investigated, and, yes, people were highly inconvenienced. But within hours of this mechanism's triggering, the threat was found to be no threat at all, and life in the city returned to normal. Only after this moment did the public nature of this incident take a legal and cultural turn, and an ugly one at that.
Much has been said about the City of Boston and it's cultural "cluelessness" in seeing the devices as a threat. It's been said that "anyone could see it was the cartoon characters". But that would only be anyone who was plugged into that particular zeitgeist. Clearly, the person(s) who reported the devices was not. To top it off, the "artists" chose to install the mechanisms under the I-93 overpass and the Mass Ave and Longfellow Bridges, the three of which carry hundreds of thousands of commuting citizens every day. I don't know what happened in the other cities, but choosing spots that are commonly known to be appealing soft-targets for terrorism was an astonishingly careless decision, and ensured a better-safe-than-sorry response.
Much reference has also been made to the Big Brother State keeping the brave, subversive artist down. There are indeed brave, subversive artists among us, but keep them out of this! These two guys, no matter how much they try to wrap themselves in the revolutionary's cloak, were doing this work for "The Man". Their puppet masters were not innovative, off-mainstream gurus, but rather a bunch of suits gathered around the meeting room tables of Turner Broadcasting and the ad agency that designed the stunt, suits whose guiding interest was gorilla profit, not guerilla art. Those who take deep pride in the culture of their youth and the independence of their expression should step as far away from these two bozos as possible, as they were merely functioning as cogs of mega-media incorporated. And the more they put on the image and manner of the daring revolutionary/artist, the more shameful their dishonesty.
Ultimately, it was the media that couldn't resist elevating this story beyond it's magnitude. The story was too juicy, as the debate began crackling in all corners of the public square, this thread included. From what I see, Boston responded quickly and efficiently, then appropriately sought compensation from the responsible parties. It was the arousal of public opinions that gave this story legs, and gave cause to many to see this for more than it was: a misguided publicity stunt gone fabulously wrong. Here's to hoping we can all take a breath next time and examine the facts first. ;)
EC
So, if these devices were bombs disguised as cartoon characters, and they did explode and kill people, but nobody took it seriously because, as before, they looked innocuous, would it be the city's fault for not reacting at all?
Quote from: Gremlin on February 02, 2007, 01:39:00 PM
So, if these devices were bombs disguised as cartoon characters, and they did explode and kill people, but nobody took it seriously because, as before, they looked innocuous, would it be the city's fault for not reacting at all?
Better yet, if those signs were actually Certs breath mints disguised as Lite-Brite art and one bit them in the dark, would they still make a spark?
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and You Know the Rest
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 02, 2007, 04:52:57 AM
Not me, but I saw it mentioned in someone else's criticism of the situation at another board, and there are people who actually do pay attention to it.
I pay attention to it. I actually downloaded a reminder that is constantly in my task bar telling me the terror alert level of the day. I think it's stealing my credit card numbers though... :doh:
(you know Im joking, right?)
Quote from: Gremlin on February 02, 2007, 01:39:00 PMSo, if these devices were bombs disguised as cartoon characters, and they did explode and kill people, but nobody took it seriously because, as before, they looked innocuous, would it be the city's fault for not reacting at all?
That's a fine argument until you realize that a bomb can be made to look like pretty much anything. What's the appropriate trade-off? One idea is to have government react to any unfamiliar object or situation as though it were a deadly threat. The advantage is that you will catch some sneaky attacks disguised as MacDonalds bags or stacks of
The Onion. The disadvantages inlcude knowing that you will reduce overall productivity and the everyday quality of life for millions of people with constant disruptions for every little thing and knowing that it still will not ensure absolute safety because a smart/lucky enough bad guy will still slip something through. Another idea is to react only to highly likely threats and to make an effort to identify unfamiliar objects when possible before acting as though they are life-threatening. The advantage is less disruption of lives and use of valuable resources. The disadvantage is that a bad guy may be more likely to sneak something through and cause some harm.
I think a case can be made for either approach, but I am not laboring under the illusion that absolute safety is an honest option. Some evil people will manage to do evil things and I both hate and accept the fact that our best efforts cannot make that untrue.
As to the question of would I blame the city when something slips through, the answer is no. I expect government to have procedures in place to take reasonable steps to deal with likely threats and I expect them to follow those procedures. I don't expect the impossible miracle of absolute security.
BTW, with regard to part of EC's comment on whether artists have common cause with the people involved in this, I think art engaged to practical purpose is still art. Despite its popularity in some circles, the idea that making a profit and creativity are exclusive enterprises strikees me as simplistic. Meanwhile, I don't see why the people annoyed at what they see as an overreaction to expressive freedom should be comforted by the idea that a "big, evil" corporation (or an employee) happens to be the target (this time). Bad policy turned toward others is still bad policy.
We should talk about hair styles of the 70s.
The entire hair fashion of the seventies was pathetic. I've seen pictures of my dad in high school. It's terrifying stuff. I'm just glad I haven't seen sixties pictures...I don't know if I could stand that.
That's how terrorists will atack us next. They'll overload our brains with the images of seventies fashion! THE PAISLEY! IT BURNS!
Or just film the 'Making Of' scenes of us. ...THE NIGHTMARES! THEY BURN! THE GOGGLEZ, ZEY DO NOTHINK!
'Tis a shame. I often think that hairstyles were more interesting and more diverse in the seventies than they are now. I know that all nostalgias are false, but I still adhere to the idea that only a handful of women I saw on the street resembled Farrah Fawcett in the seventies whereas every one of my students today resembles Jennifer Aniston. :(
The revolution is coming...mark my words!
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Che Guevara
QuoteI know that all nostalgias are false, but I still adhere to the idea that only a handful of women I saw on the street resembled Farrah Fawcett in the seventies whereas every one of my students today resembles Jennifer Aniston.
Before or after the nose job? :blink:
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 02, 2007, 04:35:48 AM
Quote from: lugaru on February 02, 2007, 04:24:14 AM
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 01, 2007, 10:04:41 PM
... the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.
Actually that's the whole problem. Somebody called the bomb squad. The bomb squad's job is to take everything seriosly, be it a light bright toy or a lit stick of dynamite. When this happens on the train or a bridge, everyone is forced to work around it.
And to answer stumpy nah, no panic, like I said most people figured it was a suicide but then they start cropping up all over town and people are thinking "bunch of punks got organized, this cant be a good thing even if it's just a prank" because so far the internet news (boston.com) only says it was circuit boards with LED lights. Then around 4:30 or 5 they announced turner taking full responsability and well that was that.
Meh. That's what I get for posting when I haven't been up long - hadn't even been up an hour, so my mind wasn't fully clear.
What I meant was, it seemed from what I've read that there were something like 38 of these things (could be wrong, but I think that was the #) all over Boston, and there was crap going on involving a lot of them. You'd think they'd have figured out by examining one or two of them that they weren't bombs and wouldn't blow the situation all out of proportion. I do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange, but it still seems to me like some of the people handling the situation didn't exactly do a stellar job.
And whoever the person is who thought up this ad campaign is clearly an idiot.
I live just outside Boston. If anyone know s the geography of the city, they'd understand why the city was shutdown. There are two major highways that intersect near the coast, Interstate 93 running north-south and I-90 running westerly from I-93. The Charles River borders the city to the north, with several bridges connecting across the river to Cambridge (MIT and Harvard). The city is 400 yrs old and has congested narrow streets.
As I understand, the first device was discovered on a column supporting Interstate 93, thus that road was closed. The subsequent devices were discovered along the bridges leading over the Charles and other high traffic areas within the city. At this point, the officials hadn't determined whether these devices were innocuous. So we had gridlock.
If the advertisers had followed the law about permitting their advertisement locations, this could of been averted. The advertisers should foot the bill (Turner has already said he would) for the chaos they caused by skirting the law.
What components would be included in a remote detonating bomb? A circuit board? Maybe. Batteries? Probably. Wiring? Definitely. Where would such devices be placed? High traffic areas? Obviously. The city government's reaction was exactly as it should of been. The populace didn't panic, they were just ticked because the city was 'closed' down.
With hindsight, you can say the city overreacted. Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy.
Now that some time has passed let me add:
Ephemeris: yup, glad I dont own a car!
The kids are making major scapegoats which is dumb. I've done sleazy illegal work for an advertising firm myself (a door to door campaign in a city where we didint have a permit) and I did it because I didint know that what I was doing was wrong. Then again just looking at these smirking hippies is enough to make anyone who works hard angry, which is why the Herald is really raging at them. "Pranks a lot! Geeks cause major caos" or something like that. Did I mention the Herald always works terrible puns into their covers?
About the whole "does it look like a bomb or not?" thing it just gets on my nerves to listen to all these armchair rambos. You know, the people who watch a horror movie and say "sheesh, I would just kill the guy with the ax" or watch an action movie and say "I would of known the gun was empty by the weight". I grew up around ak-47's (a friends dad was a drug smuggler, part of why Im super anti-drugs), drive byes (my first letter ever was in 6th grade to the mayor when a cop got shot down at a restaurant a few blocks from my house with his family), depressing crime (almost got mugged by barefoot kids looking for glue money) and preventable illness. None of that stuff is cool and when we pretend to be experts on it... ugh. And sheesh, my life is tame compared to my ex roomate Farid who got maced repeatedly as part of his training for the Irani army and who saw his share of soccer ball BOMBS at football riots in the streets (soccer ball + gunpowder + metal shards).
What about glam hair styles? a little more haut than mainstream but most of bowies stuff was great. Even the Aladin Sane Mullet.
As someone who actually lives in NY, I can tell you that the reaction here was to roll our eyes and shrug (and that was from our PD, who said, "Yeah, we got a call and checked it out....", and
then shrugged and rolled their eyes), but I'm sure if the boxes had been strapped to the base of the Brooklyn Bridge, it would have been a different story. It didn't cause much of a fuss here, probably because most of the devices were quickly stolen (hey, this
is New York!) I do have to say that I don't get this 'Bostonian guilt' nonsense over the 9/11 planes leaving from Logan. WTF is
that all about?
The mistake that the ad people made was probably in the placement of the devices - not too bright to place a blinking box with wires under an overpass or bridge. I'm sure that's a violation of some statute or other, and they should be punished accordingly. But it's not terrorism, it's stupidity. In fact, the entire affair was a 'Perfect Storm' of no common sense. And if the 'Ad Men' were indeed the ones that called in the bomb threat to drum up publicity (which I sincerely doubt), then I hope that Ted Turner puts on his best Captain Planet outfit and kicks the crap out of them all.
Lugaru: Did you actually use the word
"hippies?" :o
El Condor: Yours was by far the most intelligent post in the entire thread....
Lionheart's:
QuoteWhy not? We've paid attention to the political comments in this thread. Same texture and aroma.
...was the second.
Quote....whereas every one of my students today resembles Jennifer Aniston.
Ow: I want to go to
your school! Do you have a class where everyone looks like Angelina Jolie? I'm majoring in her! :D (and where is that 'Mean Machine' mesh??!!)
Midnight: Elvis had the best hair - hands down. ('Live at Vegas' Elvis, not 'Dead Bloated' Elvis)
And I liked you all a lot more when all you did was make skins....
Sorry to say I've only just stumbled into this thread, but I'll say this:
Political discussion is frowned upon on these forums for a reason, not the least of which is that it's really quite easy to talk with ones head stuck up one's own proverbial.
Unless you've lived in/through a situation, your commentary is essentially little more than speculation. It may be well-informed speculation, but that it's speculation all the same. You're entitled to your opinion on matters - but so is everyone else, and ramming your opinion down their throats or belittling them because they disagree is a no-no. Besides, it's just plain impolite and inconsiderate.
Keep it civil, or get find another forum to vent.
Quote from: Dartman X on February 05, 2007, 06:37:29 PMAnd I liked you all a lot more when all you did was make skins....
I have a difficult time telling whether this is sarcastic or not, but in any case; that's an unwise comment.
Quote from: Midnight on February 02, 2007, 03:32:46 PM
We should talk about hair styles of the 70s.
Not sure if anyone got my reference. If you didn't, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/v/fJkTNJ7BM9I
Quoteramming your opinion down their throats or belittling them because they disagree is a no-no. Besides, it's just plain impolite and inconsiderate.
Keep it civil, or get find another forum to vent.
Despite my overt participation in this thread, I agree heartily. Let's keep the dialogue respectful and non-personal or, failing that, let's just stick to comics and super-hero games. :rolleyes:
EC
First off,
everything I say is sarcastic.... :P
And what I meant by my comment is that this particular discussion seems to have brought out a bit of the ugly side of more than a few of the posters involved (as do
many political discussions, which is why the mods frown upon such discourse). I certainly have my own political views, and I belive I made an overt attempt in my post not to inflict them upon anyone else, nor to belittle anyone on a personal level for thiers. I don't frequent the site to engage in bickering, and it was a lighthearted attempt to say, "Let's pull back a bit and remember why we come here", which (for me) is to enjoy the creative endevours of the various people who frequent the site. If anyone in particular was offended by my comment, perhaps I should amend it by saying I liked
some of you more before this particuar discussion, as opposed to painting everyone with the same brush. For that, I
do apologize.
Perhaps El Condor said it better:
QuoteLet's keep the dialogue respectful and non-personal or, failing that, let's just stick to comics and super-hero games.
Yeah - I'm with him.
I find it kind of amusing, that with all the thinly veiled insults being flung around (and the not so veiled, as well), that you chose
my final comment as ....."unwise". :rolleyes:
Thanks G'day, and you're right Condor, this IS a comic book forum, like I said in my post. This isn't the place to....well...I'll hold my tongue lest I be guilty of what I was against to begin with. Anyroad, the hair styles seem a bit safer of a topic!
Quote from: Dartman X on February 06, 2007, 10:31:38 AMI find it kind of amusing, that with all the thinly veiled insults being flung around (and the not so veiled, as well), that you chose my final comment as ....."unwise". :rolleyes:
Well, I chose to remain agnostic about the whole thing. The only insult, veiled or not, that was directed at me was yours.
And, I still remain agnostic about this situation. It happened. It looks stupid in hindsight, but it's still hindsight. *shrug*
Although I may be still fairly new around here, I have been browsing these forums religiously for the past few years now, and even though I haven't really had an active part in this community I still see it as my own. I think this thread started out showing Lugaru's annoyance at how one little thing can affect so many more people's lives, for better or worse, in this case it's the worse for pretty much all parties involved. It is here where the the conversation evolved, due to some posts being lost in translation or simply not being thought about thoroughly before being posted. I think the prime thing that this thread shows us is that everyone is different, and that no situation, can ever be black and white. I have "known" you all long enough to not pass judgement on anyone in this thread and don't think that anyone here is 100% right or wrong, but I do think taking sides in the matter was the biggest downfall, as it will just create a split in this community, which we all have grown to cherish. Now I think the best course of action would be just to forgive and forget, allowing this topic to disappear in the wave of topics which are sure to come.
Now wait just a minute! I'm always 100% right, just ask my wife.
On second thought... :)
Mid: you said -
QuoteThe only insult, veiled or not, that was directed at me was yours.
I said :
QuoteMidnight: Elvis had the best hair - hands down. ('Live at Vegas' Elvis, not 'Dead Bloated' Elvis)
Midnight, this is the
only comment that I directed at you, so I don't particularly understand where you're coming from...unless you feel that because the comment I made was underneath it that it was directed towards you, which it wasn't. It was directed towards
some of the people who were up on their soapboxes (which you plainly were not), and it was done so 'tongue-in-cheek' (which I thought I explained in my last post). So if there was a misunderstanding, again, I apologize to you.
Yet another reason to avoid these types of discussions...
Your Elvis comment is of no consequence; I'm a skinner, so your skinner comment (intentionally or not) was directed at me. I'm just pointing out that skinners (and meshers and modders and fxers &c &c &c) are more or less the reason why FR was created. Your statement could easily be taken as an offense. I honestly don't care; about your comment OR this topic. Just making my point.
Dude, I so don't want to get into a urinating contest, but I don't belive I made a 'Skinner' comment (since I consider myself one as well), and have the utmost respect for the talent that compromises the community. What I said (and meant) was I prefer it when we focus on the game (skinning, meshing et al), as opposed to political diatribe, and petty squabbling.
Just making my point Again.
Let's just agree to disagree.
Since the past several posts have had nothing to do with the original topic and more to do with defending or being offended by one or another post, I'd say we are done with this.