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)
I admit the guy’s kinda flaky…but man Sarah is laying down the hate kinda hard?
H
When you look at their meeting, not so much really no. He was an huge ass beyond any remote shadow of a doubt. However, she seems to see him as “I like to be a jackhole rrrar rrar yay” when it more comes off as “I am stupidly straightforward with my thoughts, and simultaneously socially clueless as to how to present this and not sound like a jerk.” – at least to me it does. Shrug.
Honestly though. I mean, I get that she dislikes him because of their initial meeting, but you have to admit, I think she is taking her levels of general dislike and raising it to outright loathing a BIT far.
The problem is, their first meeting was horrible. Sarah deciding then that he needs to be lit on fire is perfectly normal, and the fact that she has to keep associating with him only makes it worse. That said, the dude is actually trying to be polite now, so Sarah’s current behavior doesn’t seem like it will improve anything.
I’ve been the Terrence in these sort of conversations for a different reason. Hate is a very powerful thing. Hate is not just a strong dislike. It takes a lot to get me to hate someone or something. This is obviously not true of others and I have found from time to time that there are people all riled up about some momentary thing that really, I just can’t be arsed to get worked up about.
I leave you with a zen story:
A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.
The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.
Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the woman, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his ?journey.
The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened. After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.
Two more hours passed, then three, finally the younger monk could contain himself any longer, and blurted out “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”
The older monk looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”
Does anyone else feel that Sarah’s the sort of asshole they’d hate to have to work with on staff at a con? I’d rather have ten Terrences instead. How many con staffs have been damaged by the Sarahs whose very presence and abrasive attitude discourage many volunteers from staying on?
He did refer to her as “it” in their first conversation. It’s not like she’s totally unjustified.
Yes it is. The level of response is completely disproportionate to the causal event.
Yeah… go around referring to people as “it” and then instead of ever apologizing tell them how little you care about their existence. We’ll see how well that goes for you.
Go around showing a complete lack of forgiveness to people for what could well have been an accident. We’ll see how well that goes for you. Personally, I’d much rather be the one who shows forgiveness in the absence of an apology than the one who is spiteful and hateful in the same circumstances.