Current Post On Trae’s Blog:
So it was literally more than twenty years ago that I first put one of my dumbest creations on the internet: The Steven Seagal Movie Generator.
Like I seriously publicly launched that dumb thing back in 2004, and for those of you who were unaware, it assembles a title, cast and plot of a fake Steven Seagal movie from elements of his (real) bad films.
I honestly got the idea from a former-friend, who in high school wrote a comedic piece about how you could mash up the titles of Seagal films in the weird underground "newspaper" that got handed out for a few years. But I took it a few steps further, and made a whole thing.
Mostly it just sat there though, a thing I made once and never went back to. I followed it up with the Sci-Fi Channel Movie Generator (later retitled the Syfy Movie Generator) in 2008. I spent more time on that one, doing a later design update that made the "Syfy" movies show up on a fake DVD back cover.
But the Steven Seagal generator just sort of sat there, untouched.
And Steven Seagal kept making (terrible) movies with (predictable) titles. Like a lot. But the generator still only spat out movies culled from the nineties and early 2000s, ignoring all of his new stuff. There was a whole library of awful movies that just weren't in there, and it made the generator feel less relevant.
So, uh, I went and did something about that today.
First off, I redesigned the page. Now it looks like the back of a VHS tape box. Then I loaded the elements of about twenty-five additional films into the generator. And that was harder than I thought it would be, since some of the films are so obscure that they're not well documented. I literally had to do some deep research to figure out a lot of the basic plot details that are now in the generator.
But I did it.
And it's done.
And the generator is now fully loaded.
It's still useless and dumb, though.
![Nerd & Tie[dot]Social Forums](https://www.nerdandtie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/natsocial-nicepreview-square-300x300.png)
Sometimes just saying “Doin stuff” gets the point across well enough that you can stay relatively on the more appropriate side of a conversation so it doesn’t turn into a conversation on your sex life. Also Sarah must be very nervous to talk about all of this.
Good show, Sarah.
Language can be weird. There’s this mental block of ‘that’s a bad word, don’t say that word’ that lingers long after you’ve gotten used to whatever the word refers to.
Straight and not straight are not the only options, just sayin’.
Well technically they ARE — in the same sense that everything is either directly to your left or not directly to your left. Or everything is located in Des Moines or NOT located in Des Moines. Or all words rhyme with Mellon or they don’t rhyme with mellon. 😛
You do realize that one of the two characters in this conversation is asexual, right?
Actually, Trae’s right.
However, straight and gay are not the only options.
Exactly
While “straight and gay are not the only options” is certainly better phrasing, I disagree with the notion that “straight or not straight” is like the examples Trae gives above. The big differences is that unlike leftwardness or locations in cities, sexuality is a spectrum, so binary negation is just not applicable.
My examples work fine in the sense of “strict definition”/”not strict definition” — which is really the whole point. If you want to get into analyzing the need for looking at things as a binary (which is a complicated ball of wax) my “left” example still totally works… with the left/right binary and all.
Anywho, Ruth says what she says because Sarah made a pretty specific declaration a while back.
well damn thats oddly mature of her