AnDY's definitions
1) A great wolfhound in Tolkien's book The Silmarillion. Loyal to Caranthir, he followed the elf-lord into exile and the doom of the Noldor fell upon him - although immortal, he could now be slain, and fate said he would be killed by the greatest wolf ever to live. After Caranthir's attempt to abduct Luthien, Huan joins Luthien and allows her to ride him to Tol Sirion, where he slays Draugluin and helps rescue Beren. He later aids Beren and Luthien several times, but departs before their attempt to enter Angband. When the enraged Carcharoth descends on Beleriand, Huan joins the party sent against him, and the two meet in combat and slay each other.
Another peculiar part of his curse is that he may speak, but only three times.
2) A doctor in Suikoden II, who is one of the 108 stars and who is already part of Viktor's army and does not need to be recruited.
Another peculiar part of his curse is that he may speak, but only three times.
2) A doctor in Suikoden II, who is one of the 108 stars and who is already part of Viktor's army and does not need to be recruited.
by Andy May 11, 2004
Get the Huanmug. Corporate journalist (political slang word). aka propagandist.
Journos are scumbags who tape people fighting the cops and stuff like that, knowing damn well that the cops will get the pictures off them and use them to persecute people, but who go ahead regardless, and then act all shocked when their cameras get smashed and they get chased off.
Also responsible for most of the disinformation which people take for "common sense" - for instance, the idea that the US has "liberated" Iraq.
For every one good journalist, there's ten or twenty who are corporate whores.
Journos are scumbags who tape people fighting the cops and stuff like that, knowing damn well that the cops will get the pictures off them and use them to persecute people, but who go ahead regardless, and then act all shocked when their cameras get smashed and they get chased off.
Also responsible for most of the disinformation which people take for "common sense" - for instance, the idea that the US has "liberated" Iraq.
For every one good journalist, there's ten or twenty who are corporate whores.
Some favourite journo tricks:
Make out before a demo that there's going to be loads more people than they will, and that there'll be trouble when there won't - thereby making an excuse for repression - and then when the crisis fails to materialise, attribute this to the repressive policing which was legitimated by the initial scare stories. e.g. London Mayday.
Just ignore events which don't fit your worldview or your story. For instance, only ever cover violent protests and ignore any where there's no trouble. Or don't bother covering the protest itself - just make a fuss about how there was "no violence" and this was all the cops' doing. c.f. non-coverage of the third day of protests at the Gothenburg EU summit (because they were peaceful).
Cut bits from out of interviews so everyone says what you want them to say. For instance, in the Rushdie affair, local news put on an Asian saying the book had stirred controversy and a white guy saying he defended free speech. All very stereotypical. But get the full transcript and you find the Asian guy said he supported the book even though it caused controversy, and the white guy was a Nazi who wanted Asians out of Britain, rambled on forever and just said a little snippet about free speech in the middle. It was cut and pasted to make it fit preconceptions.
Get all your info from a single biased source. For instance, info on protests and on "race relations" comes from the police. If the police are your only source, you end up always tailing their line, without even knowing it. Another example is the "lobby system": in Parliament, some journos are allowed into the inner sanctum of political life... as long as they agree only to report the stuff they're told officially. So they might be able to find out that MP such-and-such is doing coke or that so-and-so admitted that the Iraq war was all about oil, but they aren't supposed to reveal it - yet they sound authoritative because they're in the inner sanctum and can quote "sources close to the prime minister" and stuff like that.
Ask a question such as, "do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was a good thing?" - if someone says "well yes I suppose", report this as: "such and such says US is right: we needed to overthrow dictator, says such and such in interview".
Divide news up into chunks and don't put together stuff which is similar. For instance, NEVER link economics and politics. This way everything stays confusing.
Use simplifying concepts. For instance, every conflict in Africa is by definition "tribal" and a proof of "their" incivility. Anyone who uses force against a government the west likes must be a "terrorist" and be motivated by an irrational ideology or religion. And so on. That way, everything seems to make sense and nobody asks any questions about what's REALLY going on (e.g. mobile phone companies in the Congo, US support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, etc. etc.).
Any rumour you like the sounds of is a "fact". Any fact you don't like the sounds of is a "rumour" (make sure to include "rumours" from the other side as well).
Make out before a demo that there's going to be loads more people than they will, and that there'll be trouble when there won't - thereby making an excuse for repression - and then when the crisis fails to materialise, attribute this to the repressive policing which was legitimated by the initial scare stories. e.g. London Mayday.
Just ignore events which don't fit your worldview or your story. For instance, only ever cover violent protests and ignore any where there's no trouble. Or don't bother covering the protest itself - just make a fuss about how there was "no violence" and this was all the cops' doing. c.f. non-coverage of the third day of protests at the Gothenburg EU summit (because they were peaceful).
Cut bits from out of interviews so everyone says what you want them to say. For instance, in the Rushdie affair, local news put on an Asian saying the book had stirred controversy and a white guy saying he defended free speech. All very stereotypical. But get the full transcript and you find the Asian guy said he supported the book even though it caused controversy, and the white guy was a Nazi who wanted Asians out of Britain, rambled on forever and just said a little snippet about free speech in the middle. It was cut and pasted to make it fit preconceptions.
Get all your info from a single biased source. For instance, info on protests and on "race relations" comes from the police. If the police are your only source, you end up always tailing their line, without even knowing it. Another example is the "lobby system": in Parliament, some journos are allowed into the inner sanctum of political life... as long as they agree only to report the stuff they're told officially. So they might be able to find out that MP such-and-such is doing coke or that so-and-so admitted that the Iraq war was all about oil, but they aren't supposed to reveal it - yet they sound authoritative because they're in the inner sanctum and can quote "sources close to the prime minister" and stuff like that.
Ask a question such as, "do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was a good thing?" - if someone says "well yes I suppose", report this as: "such and such says US is right: we needed to overthrow dictator, says such and such in interview".
Divide news up into chunks and don't put together stuff which is similar. For instance, NEVER link economics and politics. This way everything stays confusing.
Use simplifying concepts. For instance, every conflict in Africa is by definition "tribal" and a proof of "their" incivility. Anyone who uses force against a government the west likes must be a "terrorist" and be motivated by an irrational ideology or religion. And so on. That way, everything seems to make sense and nobody asks any questions about what's REALLY going on (e.g. mobile phone companies in the Congo, US support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, etc. etc.).
Any rumour you like the sounds of is a "fact". Any fact you don't like the sounds of is a "rumour" (make sure to include "rumours" from the other side as well).
by Andy May 1, 2004
Get the journomug. 
by andy January 19, 2004
Get the shitbackmug. The ruler of the realm of Vassagonia, in the Lone Wolf world. Roughly equivalent to a king or sultan, the zakhan lived in a huge palace in the city of Barrakeesh, always surrounded by retainers and sharnazim guards. The zakhan typically demanded absolute obedience from his subjects, although history tells of a number of good rulers.
When Lone Wolf arrives in Barrakeesh, the old zakhan has died (according to the Legends novels, assassinated by the Darklords), and is replaced by a new Zakhan, Kimah. Kimah is extremely evil and is allied with the Darklords. He reappears in Lone Wolf 9: The Cauldron of Terror, at the head of the Vassagonian army besieging Tahou alongside the Darklord army, and armed with a lethal golden orb emitting a protective shield. Those who even touch the light-shield are killed instantly.
The Zakhan Kimah is one of the hardest opponents to beat in the entire Lone Wolf series, especially if Lone Wolf is armed with the Sommerswerd. (The problem can be avoided somewhat if this item is left behind for this quest, although the reason why this weakens the zakhan is not clear; perhaps the orb absorbs the sword's light?)
In the Legends series, the Zakhan Kimah is tortured and apparently killed by Vassagonian rebels, and a new, good-aligned Zakhan takes over. Although it is clear to a careful reader that he has not been killed, the series stops before this issue is resolved (only one book before it would have to be raised again).
When Lone Wolf arrives in Barrakeesh, the old zakhan has died (according to the Legends novels, assassinated by the Darklords), and is replaced by a new Zakhan, Kimah. Kimah is extremely evil and is allied with the Darklords. He reappears in Lone Wolf 9: The Cauldron of Terror, at the head of the Vassagonian army besieging Tahou alongside the Darklord army, and armed with a lethal golden orb emitting a protective shield. Those who even touch the light-shield are killed instantly.
The Zakhan Kimah is one of the hardest opponents to beat in the entire Lone Wolf series, especially if Lone Wolf is armed with the Sommerswerd. (The problem can be avoided somewhat if this item is left behind for this quest, although the reason why this weakens the zakhan is not clear; perhaps the orb absorbs the sword's light?)
In the Legends series, the Zakhan Kimah is tortured and apparently killed by Vassagonian rebels, and a new, good-aligned Zakhan takes over. Although it is clear to a careful reader that he has not been killed, the series stops before this issue is resolved (only one book before it would have to be raised again).
by Andy April 24, 2004
Get the Zakhanmug. 