Shadow Creator's definitions
Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Surprisingly, it's real. A fake ass 'disorder' pulled out of the asses of a small collective of psychiatrists working for pharma companies in order to maximize revenue. Of course, there is no 'authoritarian disorder', because the parents are the ones paying. Despite the seemingly 'funny' aspect of it, this is actually considered a real disorder by many psychiatrists, a scary happening and a looming indicator of what may come.
OMG, he has ODD, force drug him, it can't have anything to do with our ridiculously excessive punishments and restrictions!
by Shadow Creator October 20, 2007
Get the odd mug.An arbitrarily set 'maximum legal speed of travel' that is almost always disobeyed, except in horrible conditions. However, even then, you'll find some still ignoring it. Nonetheless, only the latter in dangerous, and speed limits serve little purpose aside from bringing in revenue. Used also as an excuse for stupid drivers to be able to stay on the road as long as they 'obey the law'. Remember, speed doesn't kill people, people kill people. Aggressive drivers tend to speed a lot but not all speeders are aggressive. The autobahn in Germany has a lesser accident rate than almost every US highway and this includes many out of country drivers (Austria mostly) that are far more dangerous. Out in the midwest, people are usually more laid back, so they drive closer to the limit (though usually slightly above still).
In the east and west, people are usually going 10-15 above (sometimes more in areas with even lower limits). This is great for city and state coffers because people who are only going 5-10 above the usual traffic speed (often to pass) are ticketed for 20, sometimes 25 over the limit. It's also a very easy way to profile certain groups because everyone is already speeding anyway. Realistic limits, or better yet, no speed limits might cause a few idiots to run off the road, but most slow drivers AND fast drivers go the speed they do because they are not comfortable with any faster. Keep right unless you are passing or have nowhere else to drive.
So, next time you get pulled over, remember that you're just being taxed further. Unless of course, you were weaving through traffic like an asshole and really deserved it. However, most people ticketed are just average Joes attempting to get from point A to point B. There's little evidence that speed limits actually increase 'safety'. The assholes who cut people off and fail to use turn signals are the real danger, not speeders.
Also, 'enforcing' these limits is a waste of time, waste of our money, and a danger to police officers who sit on the median and the drivers who panic when they see them.
In the east and west, people are usually going 10-15 above (sometimes more in areas with even lower limits). This is great for city and state coffers because people who are only going 5-10 above the usual traffic speed (often to pass) are ticketed for 20, sometimes 25 over the limit. It's also a very easy way to profile certain groups because everyone is already speeding anyway. Realistic limits, or better yet, no speed limits might cause a few idiots to run off the road, but most slow drivers AND fast drivers go the speed they do because they are not comfortable with any faster. Keep right unless you are passing or have nowhere else to drive.
So, next time you get pulled over, remember that you're just being taxed further. Unless of course, you were weaving through traffic like an asshole and really deserved it. However, most people ticketed are just average Joes attempting to get from point A to point B. There's little evidence that speed limits actually increase 'safety'. The assholes who cut people off and fail to use turn signals are the real danger, not speeders.
Also, 'enforcing' these limits is a waste of time, waste of our money, and a danger to police officers who sit on the median and the drivers who panic when they see them.
I went the speed limit because it was pouring rain.
50 mph? What the fuck? Should be more like 75 mph, AT LEAST.
50 mph? What the fuck? Should be more like 75 mph, AT LEAST.
by Shadow Creator January 11, 2008
Get the speed limit mug.1. An intelligent person who hates 'sluts' and 'players' because he or she views them as the scum of the earth. These types are not commonly 'jealous', just disgusted by stupidity. Will sometimes ruin their 'game' out of spite and/or distaste for pure idiocy.
2. A lowlife idiot who actually is jealous of players success. This is even more stupid than the 'players' themselves, because it involves coveting something utterly worthless.
2. A lowlife idiot who actually is jealous of players success. This is even more stupid than the 'players' themselves, because it involves coveting something utterly worthless.
1. John is a 'player hater'. He thinks that 'players' are animalistic morons who should be rounded up and shot. He doesn't give a shit about screwing ten women.
2. Joe is a 'player hater'. He whines all the time how he never gets chicks and desperately tries to screw 'players' over. He's probably just as stupid as them.
2. Joe is a 'player hater'. He whines all the time how he never gets chicks and desperately tries to screw 'players' over. He's probably just as stupid as them.
by Shadow Creator January 4, 2008
Get the player hater mug.Usually, some poor excuse for a sex based relationship, though this is disguised in supposed 'love'. No, I'm not bitter, I can just observe that 95%+ of 'relationships' are total horseshit.
If you don't use your brain and understand your partner, don't expect any more (or to be any more) than your average 'girlfriend'.
by Shadow Creator January 11, 2008
Get the girlfriend mug.by Shadow Creator October 27, 2007
Get the buckwheat mug.A term used that is usually used in the context of entertainment, which can include reading, video games, television, and films. It refers to the reader/watcher's ability or desire (or both) to ignore, distort or underplay realism in order to feel more involved with the game, film, or book. This is a very common practice in many action movies, some books, but probably the most in video games. It is usually permitted and ignored because most people don't care about realism in their entertainment. It's also much more difficult to program a realistic game with highly realistic damage scales, movement, targeting, and more. Some games which are meant to be silly (grand theft auto) don't require much of this, because the entire atmosphere revolves around the less-than-serious style. However, some others attempt to be serious but fail to relay such. This still does not ruin the feel for most, though.
Some people have poor suspension of disbelief, or just don't prefer to use it. These people usually don't care for casual 'shoot em up' games unless there is a huge element of humor and stupidity that is integral to the game itself. They are sometimes perceived as tight asses, but in reality, they just prefer to keep their unrealistic games silly and stupid.
Sometimes, fan boys will take their suspension of disbelief too far and proclaim blatantly unrealistic things to be realistic in an effort to validate the game against 'invaders' who simply assert the truth.
Some people have poor suspension of disbelief, or just don't prefer to use it. These people usually don't care for casual 'shoot em up' games unless there is a huge element of humor and stupidity that is integral to the game itself. They are sometimes perceived as tight asses, but in reality, they just prefer to keep their unrealistic games silly and stupid.
Sometimes, fan boys will take their suspension of disbelief too far and proclaim blatantly unrealistic things to be realistic in an effort to validate the game against 'invaders' who simply assert the truth.
Examples:
Live Free Die Hard - Stunts are too extreme for average cop, certainly a good movie, but the theme could have been portrayed in a much better way if done more realistically.
Resident Evil 4: Ability to dodge lasers, but not clumsy villagers. Headshots do not decapitate or kill, but neck breaks kill. Metal masks deflect bullets. Story of 'alien virus' does not nearly reconcile with these shortfalls and main character is unable to walk and shoot at the same time despite having supposed secret agent type reflexes.
Halo: Using assault rifles, pistols, and Jeeps in ad 2550 despite extreme advances in space travel. Highways, buildings, and tech that look identical to C. 2025
Starcraft: Organic creatures that can somehow tear through inches of armor and resist hypervelocity bullets and bombs. Missiles that can tear apart advanced alien buildings.
Starcraft is fun as an RTS, but it is simply difficult for some to get involved in the story because of these shortfalls in realism.
Halo and Resident Evil 4 are fun shoot em up games with the former having a more realistic damage scale, but both try to be too serious for the lack of realism. However, with suspension of disbelief, most people are okay with all of this.
Live Free Die Hard - Stunts are too extreme for average cop, certainly a good movie, but the theme could have been portrayed in a much better way if done more realistically.
Resident Evil 4: Ability to dodge lasers, but not clumsy villagers. Headshots do not decapitate or kill, but neck breaks kill. Metal masks deflect bullets. Story of 'alien virus' does not nearly reconcile with these shortfalls and main character is unable to walk and shoot at the same time despite having supposed secret agent type reflexes.
Halo: Using assault rifles, pistols, and Jeeps in ad 2550 despite extreme advances in space travel. Highways, buildings, and tech that look identical to C. 2025
Starcraft: Organic creatures that can somehow tear through inches of armor and resist hypervelocity bullets and bombs. Missiles that can tear apart advanced alien buildings.
Starcraft is fun as an RTS, but it is simply difficult for some to get involved in the story because of these shortfalls in realism.
Halo and Resident Evil 4 are fun shoot em up games with the former having a more realistic damage scale, but both try to be too serious for the lack of realism. However, with suspension of disbelief, most people are okay with all of this.
by Shadow Creator October 27, 2007
Get the suspension of disbelief mug.1. Usually, a self claimed internet residing 'know it all' who claims to have the knowledge to flop what he/she perceives as a 'conspiracy theory' on its head. This is often a means for showing off. The complete opposite of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, debunkers usually have little common sense, little or no ability to connect the dots, no respect for common sense and call everything that that is outside their narrow a conspiracy theory. Since they profess to rely on hard evidence so much, this often seeps out of the domain of 'hard evidence', and they begin to fabricate so called 'truths' based primarily on jumping to conclusions and ad hominem attacks. Their favorite tactic is to try to 'get something out of the way' by attempting to embarrass their opponent and call it a done deal.
2. The other type of debunker consists of those who are anti-establishment and attempt to expose mainstream fraud and nonsense for what it is using logic, anecdotal evidence, and supplemental facts and figures. They are commonly insulted with the term 'conspiracy theorist' by those who wish to tarnish their reputations. Although still fallible, anti-establishment 'debunkers' commonly have less of an emotional stake in their arguments, as they have seen the light far more than their naive counterparts. Some do, however, take this too far and become truly raving lunatics.
2. The other type of debunker consists of those who are anti-establishment and attempt to expose mainstream fraud and nonsense for what it is using logic, anecdotal evidence, and supplemental facts and figures. They are commonly insulted with the term 'conspiracy theorist' by those who wish to tarnish their reputations. Although still fallible, anti-establishment 'debunkers' commonly have less of an emotional stake in their arguments, as they have seen the light far more than their naive counterparts. Some do, however, take this too far and become truly raving lunatics.
As Joseph explained why psychiatry is not hard science, the debunker yelled "STOP WITH THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT BIG PHARMA". However, it's not a conspiracy theory that most funding for psychiatric studies comes from big pharma, that they fund the ads in medical journals profusely, that they conduct their own studies on the drugs they push, that they have a much larger budget (and therefore much larger influence) than the FDA, that they fund APA conventions, and that it is not hard to skew data if you have so much power and are working in a poorly understood area.
by Shadow Creator December 24, 2007
Get the debunker mug.