Author Topic: Musicological banter  (Read 418746 times)

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1170 on: July 02, 2015, 02:51:15 pm »
It was a joke about not crossing streams.  

Jokes are always much funnier after you explain them.

killsaly

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1171 on: July 02, 2015, 03:16:36 pm »
.

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 16862
  • I don't belong here.
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1172 on: July 02, 2015, 03:23:13 pm »
.
<sig>

slappy

  • Member
  • Posts: 999
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1173 on: July 09, 2015, 11:19:22 am »
This is an excellent piece on so many levels.
How history gets revealed, rape and it's consequences, and how one reacts to it.
Joan Jett needs to get out from her lawyers and get real.
Shit, this is the LA story that should've been the plot for this seasons 'True Detective'

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-lost-girls/

walk,on,by

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1174 on: July 09, 2015, 02:40:47 pm »

Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1175 on: July 10, 2015, 01:31:29 pm »
Closer to home is the heartfelt tribute to Josh Burdette, the legendary security man at Washington DC?s cult 9:30 Club venue and close friend of Turner?s, who took his own life in 2013. Turner pulls up the leg of his trousers to reveal a tattoo of a dragon, which he had inked Burdette?s memory. ?He was covered in dragon tattoos,? recalls Turner. ?All of his dragons had closed eyes and he said that when he died he wanted their eyes opened. So his tattooist went and did it, which is fucking intense.?
http://www.nme.com/features/frank-turner-interview-the-tireless-punk-troubadour-on-starting-again-with-positive-songs-for-negati
LAMF

Julian, Adroit TASTEMAKER

  • Member
  • Posts: 23855
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1176 on: July 10, 2015, 01:57:25 pm »
Wait, am I reading that correct? His tattoos were altered postmortem?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 01:59:20 pm by Julian, Verified SHITLORD »
LVMH

Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1177 on: July 10, 2015, 02:35:06 pm »
Wait, am I reading that correct? His tattoos were altered postmortem?
That's my understanding
LAMF

Julian, Adroit TASTEMAKER

  • Member
  • Posts: 23855
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1178 on: July 10, 2015, 02:50:28 pm »
Wait, am I reading that correct? His tattoos were altered postmortem?
That's my understanding
I've been down a weird google rabbit hole about desecration of a corpse and necrophilia laws for the last hour or so from state to state and I do not think I will be eating for several days.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 03:05:01 pm by Julian, Verified SHITLORD »
LVMH

Heilung4eva

  • Member
  • Posts: 5171
  • Prepare to be surprised - Europe's favorite
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1179 on: July 10, 2015, 02:59:48 pm »
Wrong thread.

Julian, Adroit TASTEMAKER

  • Member
  • Posts: 23855
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1180 on: July 10, 2015, 03:05:24 pm »
Wrong thread.
Would the legal minutia been better suited for the Smackie thread?
LVMH

Yada

  • Member
  • Posts: 7896
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1181 on: July 10, 2015, 03:16:06 pm »
Wait, am I reading that correct? His tattoos were altered postmortem?
That's my understanding
I've been down a weird google rabbit hole about desecration of a corpse and necrophilia laws for the last hour or so from state to state and I do not think I will be eating for several days.

Where can you view that type of material and not get fired from your job?

Julian, Adroit TASTEMAKER

  • Member
  • Posts: 23855
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1182 on: July 10, 2015, 03:28:34 pm »
Where can you view that type of material and not get fired from your job?

http://law.justia.com doesn't exactly have photos of the various crimes accompanying the text of various federal and state codes.

My sort of justification for tagging/not tagging something NSFW is, "hey, if someone walks behind you and glances at your computer screen while you're at work, is it immediately going to draw their attention because its obvious at a glance this has no valid business purpose?" A page of dry text (regardless of text's content): probably not. Nude/nearly-nude .gifs of people? Probably. Footage of open wounds or gore? Probably.

Obviously everyone's workplace and computer-use policies are going to be different and people need to know where they work and what's fine and what isn't but I don't understand how my request things virtually no employer is going to be cool with tagged NSFW so people can make an informed decision is so ridiculous.
LVMH

killsaly

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1183 on: July 10, 2015, 03:47:16 pm »
It must suck to work in such an environment...

Julian, Adroit TASTEMAKER

  • Member
  • Posts: 23855
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1184 on: July 10, 2015, 03:54:31 pm »
It must suck to work in such an environment...
Yeah, I've really had to train myself to make it 8 hours without enjoying gratuitous nudity and autopsy photos.
LVMH