Wow, that was more far more coherent and less "nerd-ragey" than I expected from the sender, and a deftly-handled response by the company. Paul @ The Early Learning Centre is right, the clients there are too little for the live-action films but just within the Clone Wars TV show's target market. The problem is when Lil' Skippy's older brother tells him about what happens to Anakin after series ends...

Meh, Jedi are wimps anyway. The number of them I've set on fire, Death from Above'd and rocket punched over cliffs is staggering.


scottydoesntknow: This is shown in the clone wars/prequels which are geared toward children.

Children may not pick up on that but it's something an adult would. Perhaps more effort is put in to the show than I thought.

What an Early Learning Centre in Scotland might look like.

Penny Arcade is going to rape that corporation with a shiat-covered toilet brush.

mooseyfate: Penny Arcade is going to rape that corporation with a shiat-covered toilet brush.

What problem would those two have with the Early Learning Centre? Please be as exact and specific as possible I really want to know.

mooseyfate: Penny Arcade is going to rape that corporation with a shiat-covered toilet brush.

Why? Did one of their readers forward a poorly worded, horribly typed, insult filled response from them to said reader?

FTA[In regards to good things Anakin has done]Built C3PO

Many people consider that to not be a good thing.

TO: All bloggers/ online journalists/ whatever the hell you want to call yourselves
FROM: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen
RE: "After the jump"

Please stop using the phrase "after the jump". We already have a word which describes the idea you're trying to get across. That word is "below".

The problem here is that in order to create Darth Vader from (Yipeee!) little Anakin, George Lucas created a completely irredeemable character. Yes, I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer and Josef Mengele might have had very positive childhoods, but as adults they turned the evil all the way up to 11. Turning on the Jedi order would be one thing, but deliberately and meticulously slaughtering children goes beyond the point of no return. He wasn't 'insane' like Andrea Yates or Susan Smith, he was off the scale of what we call evil. Selling heroic toys about this character, or even the existence of the Clone Wars series sends some seriously warped messages. Think about it. Would Toys'R'Us be selling toys supporting the earlier 'good' adventures of history's most horrific killers?

And what gets me the most is that he did all of this because he thought his wife might die some day... really?

madgonad: The problem here is that in order to create Darth Vader from (Yipeee!) little Anakin, George Lucas created a completely irredeemable character. Yes, I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer and Josef Mengele might have had very positive childhoods, but as adults they turned the evil all the way up to 11. Turning on the Jedi order would be one thing, but deliberately and meticulously slaughtering children goes beyond the point of no return. He wasn't 'insane' like Andrea Yates or Susan Smith, he was off the scale of what we call evil. Selling heroic toys about this character, or even the existence of the Clone Wars series sends some seriously warped messages. Think about it. Would Toys'R'Us be selling toys supporting the earlier 'good' adventures of history's most horrific killers?

And what gets me the most is that he did all of this because he thought his wife might die some day... really?

But on the other hand, you can buy a plush Cthulu doll.

madgonad:
And what gets me the most is that he did all of this because he thought his wife might die some day... really?

I'd point out the Clone Wars cartoon and how Anakin's fall is in much smaller but at that point reversible steps and those visions were the final push but that's EU. So yeah... pretty much. He also actively sets out to kill his own, previously thought deceased, child. So he's not only irredeemable but amazingly stupid as well.

sarah_t_s: madgonad:
And what gets me the most is that he did all of this because he thought his wife might die some day... really?

I'd point out the Clone Wars cartoon and how Anakin's fall is in much smaller but at that point reversible steps and those visions were the final push but that's EU. So yeah... pretty much. He also actively sets out to kill his own, previously thought deceased, child. So he's not only irredeemable but amazingly stupid as well.

There is very little gray in Star Wars, at least for the Jedi/Sith. It seems to be a function of the force, for whatever reason; force-sensitives are seemingly always led to extremes, or always being tempted, or something. Even the Sith have problems with it (even Palpatine, who was clearly making really bad choices by the end). It seriously screws you up if you don't keep it under control. Anakin had no training of controlling his emotions past "don't feel" and once he hit a certain point, it just collapsed into sheer evil. Note that this doesn't apply to the whole universe -- Han Solo/Lando are good examples of being grayish characters and getting away with it. It just seems to affect those with ties to the force.

Also, Vader never really wanted to kill his son (all of his "attempts" were to force Luke to the dark side). Especially if you consider that he basically hunted down and killed most of the remaining Jedi in the years between the two trilogies, he very obviously could have killed Luke if he wanted to.

Nice to see Mr. Christofaro changed his name and got a new job:-)

Any Pie Left: Nice to see Mr. Christofaro changed his name and got a new job:-)

Nah, it's not arrogant enough to be him...plus, proper spelling and punctuation.

PizzaJedi81: But on the other hand, you can buy a plush Cthulu doll.

I, uhm, own a plush Cthulu doll..... and my kids fight over whose bed it sleeps on.....they don't know anything about Cthulu.....yet.

Magorn: Which how Lucas retroactively ruined the first movies (IV-VI) for me. Luke:
"I know there's good in you somewhere, I can feel it"
Me after watching I-III: Really? Cause I'm not seeing it. All I seee is a whiny biatch who will betray his vows and then his mentor and order all at the drop of a hat. what "good" did Anakin ever do that wasn't almost by accident?

It is like I am talking to myself...

Magorn All I seee is a whiny biatch who will betray his vows and then his mentor and order all at the drop of a hat. what "good" did Anakin ever do that wasn't almost by accident?

Perhaps the Force chooses someone for greatness. It just so happens that, in order for the person to reach that greatness, they have to be sucked into a combine, which destroys the engine, which destroys the space station - tada, hero status!

So maybe Anakin needed to be his emo self and destroy the Jedi, as the Force's way of cleaning house. Get rid of the stodgy and stagnant order and start anew. Granted slaughtering kids was beyond the pale, but then so were the Jedi with accepting enslaved clone soldiers (really, a government spanning a galaxy, and no standing armed forces?).

Or maybe we're attempting to polish the turd that were the prequels.

/Jolee Bindo was the only Jedi who made sense

I'm an Orthodox Jedi. I don't believe in the Prequels. But I accept SW:TOR as cannon, so I think I'm a bit confused on my faith...

Magorn: madgonad:
And then thanks to GL's ret-conning, the people that Blow up the Death Star II and "win" at the end of III are the same sleazy scumbags that showed no remorse in invading a planet because they disagreed with its tax policies and tried to murder Jedis who came to them under a flag of truce.

The Rebel Alliance of the original trilogy has no relation to the Sepratists of the prequels. Anakin and the Emperor cut the head off that movement at the end of Episode III and shut down the droid armies, ending the war. In a cut scene you see the start of the Rebel Alliance when a bunch of Senators from many different worlds object to Palpatine's declaration of an Empire.

God I'm pathetic.

Cyno01: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: TO: All bloggers/ online journalists/ whatever the hell you want to call yourselves
FROM: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen
RE: "After the jump"

Please stop using the phrase "after the jump". We already have a word which describes the idea you're trying to get across. That word is "below".

The first part of articles on many sites are frequently posted, in part, on a "main page", to read the rest of the article you have to click a link to visit the individual page for that entire article. It is not "below" anything. Yes "after the jump" is kind of a silly phrase, but it is not incorrect.

Here is how the article appears on their main page.

[i.imgur.com image 640x849]

So is that mostly a browser thing? The entire article appeared on one page for me.

Anyway, point taken. So I submit the following as a more transparent and accurate phrase than "after the jump"...

"The full letter... are after the jump you click on this annoying link, which serves no purpose other than to annoy the fark out of you and increase our page views, where you may continue to read this POS article..."

I'd still rather they pretend those breaks don't exist and just write their article; don't make references to formatting which may or may not be there. Also, I'm like sooo totally tired of this, like, conversational style of writing(?), which seems to have consumed most of the "online journalism" world.

Yeah, yeah, onions, lawns, blah blah blah...

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Cyno01: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: TO: All bloggers/ online journalists/ whatever the hell you want to call yourselves
FROM: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen
RE: "After the jump"

Please stop using the phrase "after the jump". We already have a word which describes the idea you're trying to get across. That word is "below".

The first part of articles on many sites are frequently posted, in part, on a "main page", to read the rest of the article you have to click a link to visit the individual page for that entire article. It is not "below" anything. Yes "after the jump" is kind of a silly phrase, but it is not incorrect.

Here is how the article appears on their main page.

[i.imgur.com image 640x849]

So is that mostly a browser thing? The entire article appeared on one page for me.

Anyway, point taken. So I submit the following as a more transparent and accurate phrase than "after the jump"...

"The full letter... are after the jump you click on this annoying link, which serves no purpose other than to annoy the fark out of you and increase our page views, where you may continue to read this POS article..."

I'd still rather they pretend those breaks don't exist and just write their article; don't make references to formatting which may or may not be there. Also, I'm like sooo totally tired of this, like, conversational style of writing(?), which seems to have consumed most of the "online journalism" world.

Yeah, yeah, onions, lawns, blah blah blah...

No, that's not what it is like either. The site is set up to show previews of every story of the day, and if you want to view the entire article, you can click the link for more information. Otherwise you'd have to load every single piece of multimedia contained in their articles, and it would run slowly, be too long, and generally be a giant waste of time. However, since they don't do that, summarizing what appears "after the jump" is an appropriate compromise.

Cyno01: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: TO: All bloggers/ online journalists/ whatever the hell you want to call yourselves
FROM: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen
RE: "After the jump"

Please stop using the phrase "after the jump". We already have a word which describes the idea you're trying to get across. That word is "below".

The first part of articles on many sites are frequently posted, in part, on a "main page", to read the rest of the article you have to click a link to visit the individual page for that entire article. It is not "below" anything. Yes "after the jump" is kind of a silly phrase, but it is not incorrect.

Here is how the article appears on their main page.

[i.imgur.com image 640x849]

Yea... except here's the thing... see that big link that says "read the rest of this article"? That should be the ONLY reference that that article is split it any way. Same goes with page references. Referencing pages/splits/jumps/other formatting is not only equivalent to breaking the 4th wall, and wrong merely on principle, but it assumes a static formatting in a single place with no changes nor reprints. If you want your article quoted, reprinted, adapted for other media, etc... stop making meta references and stop referring to non-static things in a static way. Let the page hosting the content worry about that kind of stuff.

rickane58: However, since they don't do that, summarizing what appears "after the jump" is an appropriate compromise.

I fully disagree with you, but solely because I find it is not an appropriate compromise to use this phrase--I find it insulting.

For sake of discussion, I would like to point out that you don't see in newspaper articles "we will discuss blah, blah, blah after you turn to page 5" you instead get an abrupt end to the article with "Continued on page D4" and have to turn the page to continue. For years I read articles with this format and never needed to be told what to expect after a "brief reading break" while I turn the pages.

So, why then would something as simple as clicking (vs. an old method such as actually turning and folding a newspaper) require a summary now and new phrase?

The only two rational explanations I can see are, the "journalist" thinks either:
A) The "read more" link is so confusing that they need to tell you there's more to the story.
B) That you are so lazy that you need to be told why you should take the effort to click a link

Both of which are insulting to me, hence, I hate the phrase and do not consider it to be an appropriate compromise. The article should just abruptly end with a "continue reading" link if the content is deemed to large to load in its entirety.

Magorn: And then thanks to GL's ret-conning, the people that Blow up the Death Star II and "win" at the end of III are the same sleazy scumbags that showed no remorse in invading a planet because they disagreed with its tax policies and tried to murder Jedis who came to them under a flag of truce.

Wait, how's that again? They're not the same organization. Their leaders were killed by Anakin (then the new Vader) on Mustafar. Their droids and fleets were not used by the Alliance, so far as I can see.

* Won the Podrace

I didn't know that only good guys won podraces.

ConConHead: I'm an Orthodox Jedi. I don't believe in the Prequels. But I accept SW:TOR as cannon, so I think I'm a bit confused on my faith...

I am in the same boat.

Further complexity: My son (8) loves Star Wars, even the blasphemy (his mother lets him watch Episode I-III at her house, I have called CPS but they refuse to do anything) and wants me to take him to the 3D release of Episode I in theaters.

ITT: Nerds being nerdy. Next!

sarah_t_s: mooseyfate: Penny Arcade is going to rape that corporation with a shiat-covered toilet brush.

What problem would those two have with the Early Learning Centre? Please be as exact and specific as possible I really want to know.

There's no possible way I might have been joking. None what-so-ever.

Where's a B-Wing when you need one.

I like how the original letter writer was "shocked".

He better make sure not to show his kids the movie "Back to the future" or he might be "shocked" at how people behaved in the 50's and he might spook his kids.