'Talkative Tortoise' yammers about Global Warming
Animation Xpress #351 for 22 August announces that, “Chennai based HappyCloud Studios working on Talkative Tortoise, 26X11 Animated TV Series”, by Zeenia Boatwala. In the usual news story that looks just like a hyperenthusiastic press release, it is announced that:
With a mission to provide high quality animation content for all mainstream media, including Theatrical, TV, Web & DVD; Chennai based HappyCloud Studios is working on its In-house IP Talkative Tortoise, 26 X 11 CGI.
Talkative Tortoise is a humorous show which orbits around a talkative tortoise that always talks about the environment and educates about global warming. Targeted at the kid audience aged between 6-12 years, this series is bundled with secondary characters, Pelican, Crow, Pigeon, Squirrel, and Fishes. The entire series focuses on the causes on Global Warming and gives solutions to resolve this. Production began in 2009 and the show is slated for release in India and on International Channels in 2013.
Director Raj Kumar says, “We chose tortoise to be the protagonist of the series thinking that a tortoise is build with a hard protective cover and so by instinct he has a mentality to protect himself, and this aspect somewhere drives him to protect his environment also.”
Further details are in Animation Xpress.
About the author
Fred Patten — read stories — contact (login required)a retired former librarian from North Hollywood, California, interested in general anthropomorphics
Comments
The fastest mitigation to climate change is to severely reduce consumption of animal foods. About 1/2 of human induced warming is attributable to animal agriculture. Methane is 24 times more potent than CO2 and takes only 7 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. CO2 takes around 100 years to come out. Human pursuit of animal protein is the leading cause of methane release and a primary cause of CO2 concentrating in the atmosphere. Check the facts and act!
"As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?"
"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency." UN Food and Agricultural Organization's report "Livestock's Long Shadow"
“If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains... the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund
Why would someone choose to be vegan? To slow global warming for one! Here are two uplifting videos to help everyone understand why so many people are making this life affirming choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKr4HZ7ukSE and http://www.veganvideo.org
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." ~ Albert Einstein
That was not the quote, the quote was:
"Although I have been prevented by outward circumstances from observing a strictly vegetarian diet, I have long been an adherent to the cause in principle. Besides agreeing with the aims of vegetarianism for aesthetic and moral reasons, it is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind." Translation of letter to Hermann Huth, December 27, 1930. Einstein Archive 46-756
How does this relate to the fact that Adolf Hitler was a known vegetarian? (He also was a non-smoker.)
Fred Patten
Well, Einstein was a physicist not a psychologist.
People forget that men of science also have opinions too and just because they were a brilliant scientist does not mean everything that comes out of their mouth is factual. Like everything that comes out of a Christian's mouth isn't godly.
Fuck yeah!
If I remember correctly QI said that the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian is just nonsense. In any case whether he was or wasn't means nothing.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I do not know who or what QI may be, but here is Wikipedia on Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism Yes, I know what is said about Wikipeda's accuracy, but still. This may be like the claims that Walt Disney was a Jew-hating Nazi-lover. No amount of proof otherwise will change the minds of the true believers.
Fred Patten
QI is a British general knowledge quiz show. It doesn't take itself too seriously but I think the actual questions and answers are quite accurate, if sometimes phrased in very misleading ways.
The Wikipedia article is quite ambiguous on the issue.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Snopes also said that was false, though it was based upon how Hitler's doctors felt a vegetarian diet would have been better for him given some condition he had or something. Of course people responded by saying Snopes was bribed by PETA.
It's why I didn't really mention it, it's an area of contention that isn't really relevant. Everyone has something in common with Hitler (myself for instance am a Taurus born in the year of the ox), it doesn't mean they're going to commit genocide. Saying vegetarianism is great because Einstein liked it is just as silly as saying it was terrible because Hitler practiced it. It's anthropomorphism a cause into the shape of a person that practiced it.
It's ok to read about media development, including non US-centric stuff, but I feel like this kind of post is just press release spam. It's about 4th-rate product, from a part of international business that's best considered as a place for cheap outsourcing. The outsourcers squeeze the blood out of a medium that's already oversaturated with watered down crap. The foreign businesses don't seem to make anything better for their domestic audience either (as far as I can tell from this kind of news.)
Earlier this month my employee spent a week at Siggraph. He told me about how everyone was aware of how grads of US schools are watching the industry gear up to outsource all the jobs. The tech is accessible enough and the schools have churned out so many hopefuls that technical skills won't mean much.
Creative business has always been competitive of course. Creative vision is what's worth paying attention to, not the assembly line of crap.
Please think about this when posting from such sources. I think it's more worthwhile to read about original creators, working artists, insight on culture, or critique of business.
It is news about an animated TV program that I do not think any of Flayrah's readers have heard of, featuring anthropomorphic animals. Whether it is any good or not is of secondary importance. This is worth announcing on Flayrah.
Fred Patten
But it's not really contributing anything. It's not necessary to do a report every time something with an anthro comes out as that will include so many things from irrelevant kids shows to adverts. Not every one of them is newsworthy. When you're doing nothing more than repeating the press release it would make more sense to just make a link in newsbytes.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Seriously, give it a rest, you two.
When people outside the fandom actually know who the fuck you are, nevermind respect you, you're allowed to post whatever the fuck you want, because whatever the fuck Fred wants to post is still worth more than us on our best day.
Um... no it isn't. Just because someone has accomplished something doesn't mean they do everything well. Would you say this story was worth posting if it was someone's first post? I judge posts on their own merit, not on who posts them.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Actually, good point. If this was some poor newbie's post ... no, you two would still be acting like presumptious jerks.
Also, you're the guy who is so biased against FurAffinity it is a running joke in the comment sections, and none of us are big FurAffinity fans. Meanwhile, despite once telling me off for preaching in comments, PatchPackrat somehow managed to both preach and cheerlead the editorializing shit out of a fluff piece about fricking coyotes (as well as take the trophy for "Most Egregiously Unnecessarily Long. Headline Ever"). And I am a godamn drama queen/pretentious nitwit. So what?
Just lay off one of our most consistent contributors because he posted an article you don't care for. Nobody cares about our crappy contributions, either.
I have no idea how "egregiously" worked its way into my username, but it kind of works, doesn't it?
Reader ratings do not bear out that assessment. Of those readers who have explained that their votes, some noted a lack of relevance to their interests; these stories were worth less to them than others.
Fred's record shows a higher number of two- and three-star votes than most other contributors. Because of this, your own average rating on stories is .12 higher than his, even though you have a higher proportion of one-star votes (presumably due to your opinion-based content, which is open to dissent). In fact, his rating is the lowest of any registered user who has posted a comment to this story.
Does this mean that Fred is a bad contributor? Of course not. However, what is arguably his best content - reviews and retrospectives - get relatively few votes compared to, say, news about furry fans, which tends to be posted by others.
As we have seen, not everyone agrees that press release-centric coverage of minor anthropomorphic animated works is newsworthy, at least to the level of individual posts about each of them. Compiling these into a weekly or monthly summary of upcoming anthropomorphic animation, like Treesong's old comic previews, might be more palatable to readers.
Whoah, I'm still kind of recovering from a epic drama queen moment arguing over whether I got one stars for my opinion or if I just wrote a shitty review (probably was a shitty review, but as I pointed, so was the Ted review, and no one gave a shit). You, uh, kinda just reversed your earlier assesment. Just pointing that out.
Honestly, I am not dealing well with the negativity of the star system. Negative votes don't usually come with justification, so they can hardly be called valid criticism. I feel that bitching and moaning about stories is for comments; positive feedback is needed on the rating system. For Christ's sake, Portal of freaking Evil's "bulb" system only had positive options.
The fact that a forum dedicated to not being nice had a system in place nicer than all the "upvote, downvote" "five star, one star" brutal cockfight of a system used by the rest of the Internet is kind of sad.
The funny thing is that that system WORKED. I really tried to post better things, hoping for bulbs. When I get a one star here, I don't try harder; I just bitch and moan a lot about censorship or some shit and don't change a damn thing about my posts.
Also, I get protective around certain posters, Fred being one of them.
You'll notice I was at worse passive-aggressive at Sonious when the Brave thing was actually going down. I didn't flip out until Fred got bushwhacked, and am sorry I even tried to placate that one bitch, whoever she was, and called Fred boring.
Boring, moi?
To change the subject completely, I saw ParaNorman earlier this week, which I have not commented on here because it is not anthropomorphic in any way. But the more of this year's animated movies that I see, the more I appreciate the story in Ted. I consider Ted a boring movie because I don't like movies about big macho jocks, but it was just about 2012's only animated movie that did not have an idiot plot story. All of the others, including ParaNorman which has awesomely superb stop-motion animation, have stories that only work because at least some of the characters act like idiots. Ted has believable macho-jock characters doing macho-jock things, except that one of the characters is an anthropomorphized teddy bear.
Fred Patten
I'm always frustrated when I see a movie like that, though they're better than the ones which make absolutely no sense. Writers are so cheap, relative to their potential impact on a story, that you would think a film with any reasonable budget would be able to hire a whole team (I will give some children's films a pass, as they're on tighter budgets). Alas, it seems that all too often people go with what they have and hope to "fix it in post".
I was going to save my comment review for my latest column; honestly, all those pundits who said last year was a weak year for animation just because Pixar coughed up a hairball would be right this year, because right now, I suspect ParaNorman would win Best Animated Feature hands down.
I think I liked it better than Fred, but, yeah, for the studio that did Coraline, well, it just has neither the heart, nor the fangs. That being said, I did enjoy the use of the Halloween theme; once again, I was the only one laughing in the theater. That was a great scene, though. The first half of the final confrontation with the witch was at first really cleverly animated, and came close to the "fangs" of Coraline, but the second half of the confrontation didn't even come close to the "heart."
I was sitting next to a 14 year old who was way too young and media unsavvy to get most of the references (it wasn't really referential, except for the pitch perfect Halloween gag, again, but it did have a purposeful grindhouse feel to it; the opening was a bit Tarantino-and-Rodriguez, actually); the movie came with a trailer for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and I had to explain how I knew the dwarves name and the lyrics to the song, because though he was super excited about "a new Lord of the Rings!" he had no idea that something called The Hobbit ever existed. His verdict of ParaNorman was "This is just like Chicken Little."
Uh, ouch.
Opinion results in more extreme voting. Shitty opinion gets fewer five-stars and more one-stars. ;-p
You demand valid criticism, but is that not what people are trying to give here? Placing all of Fred's work on a pedestal does a disservice to his more significant pieces, just as his opinion would be devalued if he slavishly praised each book he reviewed. As mwalimu recently mentioned, there is always room for improvement, just as there is always something of merit.
So my opinions are shitty.
Thanks, asshole.
But, anyway, I'm kind of conflating two problems at once; I'm angry at Patch and Rakuen because they really don't need to be attacking another contributor in an open comment section when, as I pointed out above, well, it's not like they post perfectly every time, themselves. We're a team, here; if they really feel Fred isn't holding up his end of the court, well, they should bring it up privately. Since they didn't, all bets are off.
Realistically, none of us contributors should be commenting on any of the articles; it's really not our place to be talking. Our place to speak our mind is in our articles; comments are for our readers. Yes, aware of the hypocrisy, here. Really, the only frequent contributor that I cannot rip into is Higgs Raccoon, because he posts his story, often about contreversial topics, then shuts his mouth. That guy knows what he's doing.
So that's that.
Then I'm also just rubbing more salt into an old wound with the one star thing, but in that case, yes, a one star doesn't actually tell me much; are you one starring it because of the opinion, you don't like my prose style, my jokes were bad, the arguments were poorly presented, what? For all I know, the one star guy just doesn't like me; in case you haven't noticed, there is an anonymous commenter running around calling me a cunt, regardless of what I say or how I say it.
But, to put it in practical terms, the current system punishes failure, but it doesn't really reward success. There's a side feature that never changes and nobody pays attention to for highest ranking, but that's about it. Hell, the "featured article" header seems to be based on word count, unless I'm mistaken. In other words, I'm being punished for being concise like I'm supposed to be. And if this comment is any indication, concise is not my natural style.
But my point is, punishing failure doesn't make people try harder; it just makes them give up. You have got to give us something to work for, not to running screaming from.
Of course, there is a very big philosophical divide between us in how we see our readers. You're a "communications" guy. You are like Hammond in Jurassic Park, the founder of the whole park; you see our readers as wonderful, magical creatures who, while occasionally difficult, are just the apple of your eye.
I've worked in a real newsroom, under editors who wore suspenders and had an alcoholism problem; I'm the park ranger Muldoon, the one who's second most famous line is "They should all be destroyed." Because I know these fuckers are real monsters, and they'll eat you if they can. Yeah, my most famous line is also a famous last line, but that's only in the movie; in the book I packed a rocket launcher and a bottle of Jack Daniels, and you were the one who gotten eaten by your precious babies.
Does that remind you of anything happening recently?
I'm not sure if that metaphor really worked, and also you shouldn't take the "Thanks, asshole" thing too seriously. I mean, take it some seriously, but not too seriously.
Also, watch out for those fucking raptors. They should all be destroyed.
You're confusing disagreeing with attacking. I've got no problem with Fred at all but I do disagree with him posting press releases of obscure animation or links as stories. Maybe it would be better to address in private but that would also imply he has something to be ashamed of and needs to be protected from the public. I don't think either of those is true, particularly since we're equals. It would be different if Greenreaper, as head of the site, were telling him to change his habits.
I agree the star system doesn't work. I try to vote based on what I think of the post or comment in question and how well it presents a point but that's not true for most. A lot of people vote me down just because they disagree with me. I know that because there's a huge difference between the votes I get for stories and comments, yet my writing ability is not changing between the two of them. Also I know my comment score used to match my story score until I took a position that a lot of people disagreed with.
So yes I think the star system (and pretty much any voting system) is horribly broken from the outset but it's still showing that people do not (and should not) just five star anything a major contributor has done and they are neither perfect nor exempt from criticism.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I agree that the "story" of 'Talkative Tortoise' is an obvious press release about an obscure CGI TV series that may never be shown in America - or South Africa. So what? It's anthropomorphic, so Flayrah's readers will probably want to know about it, especially since this is a TV program with a production budget of 1.37 Million USD that is actually being made, not just somebody's pitch for a program that will probably never sell.
Fred Patten
The core argument is not that the topic has no value, but that if we don't have anything original to say, we might as well just link to a press release on Animation Xpress rather than republish it. This follows the online media mantra of cover what you do best, link to the rest.
It follows that once the story is collapsed to a link, it probably doesn't merit a story of its own, but should be combined with others, either in the newsbytes or a roundup post — ideally with original analysis or commentary, which is where we can add value.
Since I restarted Flayrah, it has been my goal to make it a source of original news and features of interest to furries that you cannot find elsewhere. If people want up-to-the-minute information about animation derived largely from press releases, it could be argued that they should be subscribed to Animation Xpress, since it is what they do best. There is value in applying an "anthropomorphic filter" to other news sources, but it does not require replicating their stories (as it might in a printed work). I guess there's the argument that our links might break in the future, but it's not a strong one for topics which are likely to be covered in many places.
I would also argue that most of Flayrah's readers are not all that interested about foreign anthropomorphic animation that they are unlikely to see. This doesn't mean such works shouldn't be covered; but if they're every other post, people will tire of it and vote them down. It has been said that furries are fans of one another, and so are more interested in work created by furries, or made specifically to appeal to us.
I think we have a disagreement about how moderation should work when it comes to comments. Part of the point, as I see it, is to filter out fringe views which don't represent public opinion; the other is to discourage arguments between commenters. In both cases, if nobody else is interested in hearing it, it goes away – and if you keep harping on it, then everything you say is discounted, just like in the real world.
This is the equivalent of an editor not publishing letters sent in on green ink. If public opinion is split, or you make an exceptionally good point without dwelling on the topic, it's more likely to show up.
It has the, major, drawback of pushing down any disagreements regardless of validity. For example it's nice to say it filters out fringe views but that doesn't mean that the majority view is actually any better. For example it's like saying that the views of gay rights activists in the US shouldn't be given much time because they are the minority view. Ideas shouldn't be judges on how popular they are but the quality of the evidence to support them. It's also worth pointing out that just because that's how things work in "the real world" doesn't mean that that is how things should work.
There's a good picture titled "How democracy works" which has four people around the lip of a volcano. One is dressed in a suit and the others in tribal gear and one of the three is saying, "You might think it's stupid but the rest of us say we jump in." We should be very cautious about the false comfort of the majority viewpoint.
Edit: Also could read the quote I'm using as a signature.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Well, yes, that's exactly my point. You have freedom of speech, but that does not grant you carte blanche to keep speaking after everyone's tired of listening to you. If you persist, it affects your karma, and so how much attention your speech gets in the future.
The alternative is to allow a vocal minority to give fringe views undue emphasis, or to to moderate them myself. As Flayrah is meant to represent everyone's views, I prefer to make a system that allows everyone to contribute to such moderation. It's not perfect, but as Churchill said:
I think we do a good job of balancing time for minority opinions, judging by the fact that both those providing them and those who decry them complain about the extent of our coverage of them. :-)
I would agree with this in that government is a body of control, all governments can be corrupt. However with democracy it is trickier as you have to control a majority instead of just having one corrupt agent.
I think most democracies have problems with those who don't want to control people or are jaded not voting thinking it doesn't matter because the minority is so loud and mean. If they came together to vote outside the extreme bounds it'd be for the benefit. However people seem to be more apt to vote when they feel extremely rather then on a regular basis. You can see this by going to any of our pages, the number of three votes is always far outweighed by 5s and 1s.
I'm only talking about stories; I'm not sure what in my personal history makes you think I care about comments. The frequent reiteration of the phrase "I don't care about comments" and variations thereof should be a clue.
I wasn't replying to you, but to Rakuen, who does care about comments.
(It is tricky to keep track when we're in heavily threaded comments!)
Oops, sorry.
Speaking of private messages, I think I will send Patch and Rakuen a private final explanation/apology, so they can look forward to that. Well, Rakuen, anyway. I'm not sure if Patch is aware of all this, but he'll still get the message.
Also, email for you. If nothing else, this part really does need to be private.
He wasn't talking about you, you have a 3.25 on comments which means overall you have more towards 5 then 1.
What I noticed at least when it comes to comments the only way to really get into the low numbers is to "obsess". Not really a factor of wording it.
For example there was one anon poster who would talk about CrusaderCat or LupineAssasin no matter the topic of the post and would be one stared. Or talking about the relevance of Wikifur or how it's run and that would be one stared.
I mean, if he's saying that one stars result from opinions that are bad, then Greenreaper also kind of hit himself too. If I recall his opinion article was one starred pretty hard.
Stars are complex things, you can't dwell too much on their meaning, because one could be wrong.
As far as content concerns, I would think that normally these things are handled in private, however times are changing. Private dealing of content concerns can be seen as manipulative and conspiring. At least in this manner it seems as if those providing content are also consuming it, have a feel on it. If we don't feel comfortable doing it how is a general user going to?
There is a time and place for both private feedback and public debate; the latter moreso when we are discussing general classes of content. I see no reason why such discussions about Flayrah itself should be private; if anything, it should engage readers who have a chance to express their own opinions and shape the course of the site.
You are right to discount individual ratings; the system is also designed to limit the impact of initial votes. I spent significant time balancing it, using past discussions as a guide.
As crossaffliction hints at, I have great confidence in the wisdom of crowds, while acknowledging their limits. There remains the potential for a mob effect, but looking back over past articles, several previously folded comments have become visible as those uninvolved with the immediate discussion provide moderation.
There's a reason why it's worth repeatedly talking about Crusader Cat and Lupine Assassin.
It's the same reason why governments repeatedly put out PSAs warning you to watch out for terrorist bombs or check for blood in your poo.
Because some people need to be reminded about the dangerous existence and pernicious activities of terrorists and cancer in our midst.
Just as some furries need to be reminded about the existence of cancerous hatemongers and shitty leeches in their midst.
If you were enjoying yourself inconspicuously in a bar and some obnoxious, recidivist junkie suddenly turned up, begging you and other customers for change, rambling on and on with hate speech and then soiling the barstool, you'd expect the owner, not to mention the other patrons, to challenge him on his behaviour.
I fail to see why furries shouldn't be held to the same standards of decency.
PS: Ooh, look who it is:
http://www.sofurry.com/view/420732
For someone so down on teh gayz, Paden Reilly sure has a homoboner for nude, sexually provocative art of his fursona.
Can someone e-mail this to his church?
We do when it comes up, but I know you haven't dealt with too many Evangelicals, I'll let you in on a secret. The craziest ones, LOVE persecution. They want society to beat them down. One could say it's almost a fetish to them. So I'd rather not give them what they want, it's best to ignore them and know that others are intelligent enough to make their own decisions on how to deal with them.
Hmm... You know who ELSE said, "Oh, sure that guy's a crazy rightwinger, but if we just ignore him he'll get tired and go away. It's not like anyone takes it seriously anyway"?
Germany in the 1920s.
----------
Punch Paden Reilly's face. There is no nobler act furries could do.
If you think Crusader Cat would get elected to high office, you're crazier then he is.
By the way Hitler rose to power in the 1930s, not 20s. In the 1920s the Great Depression hadn't happen yet (they were roaring remember?) 1929 was when the Great Depression happened, and when people are bored and out of work, stupid things happen.
Game over! You lose!
Flayrah's highest rated stories are highlighted in our annual roundups; though I could probably do more. I'm open to ideas. Bear in mind that a high rating by itself does not necessarily signify high quality. As you noticed, we currently highlight longer stories for this exact reason, although I've tried to balance the algorithm for different story types — such as reviews, which often include extensive quotes, and/or high numbers of links.
These pieces tend to be original "feature" work representing the best we have to offer; they include Fred's retrospectives, some of Isiah's interviews, my research summaries and your own piece about ponies. The goal is to hook occasional readers and to encourage contributors to provide such work with the knowledge that it will be promoted after rolling off the front page. Newsletters, announcements and newsbytes are excluded.
Being concise while also conveying significant information is likely to raise the rating of your stories and comments. The best stories are comprehensive yet concise when it comes to individual details.
High-rated comments help keep your other comments afloat, as your average ranking is used an an "initial vote". If people recognize that you are a valuable speaker most of the time, it gives you license to be occasionally controversial (though if you persist in arguing unpopular viewpoints you will quickly burn through your karma).
The front-page rating block doesn't have much prominence because, at least initially, it didn't do a good job of promoting good content. Arguably it's better now that we have a larger audience and more votes; however, it covers different content to that in the header (often non-opinion work such as videos or "feel-good" stories).
I think it's good to have a variety of opinions as to how to balance the interests of our readers and contributors. When it comes to recent opinions, I was not sad to see them fold on the front page; I was happy that the system was working as designed. I would note that the pieces concerned were not censored and remain on the site, despite the urgings of some to remove them. As for alcohol, I fear recent medication makes that inadvisable.
Hi Fred,
I give you really appreciative comments sometimes, especially for your history related posts. As valuable a contributor as you are, not all contributions are valuable. Actually, because of source, I think this one is spam. I think that's the most accurate term.
When I posted I didn't have time to pad my comment with niceties, so I just gave direct feedback. It wasn't intended to be mean, the intention was to inspire better content. It could be better if it told us about "original creators, working artists, insight on culture, or critique of business."
Is there any content like that to be found about this program? If there isn't, I think that's a good sign to pass on it and spend time on one of your better posts.
I also put in a little mention that I work in the animation business, and this is a professional opinion you can hear elsewhere, and why. I think Cartoon Brew (a good source that you use) would back it up. They would not post this content.
Love, Patch
The Animation Xpress article/press release does say, "The Team Force Behind this series includes Rajkumar, Anita s Raja, Balaganesh, Sanjay Balan and Vinoth Kannan and the series will release in English Language," and it includes two samples of concept art. So whether or not it is spam, it is not devoid of content.
Fred Patten
Who?
Dollars to donuts those are not artists, but producers (of crap).
Cartoon Brew has much to say against info with that kind of slant.
I like and respect Cartoon Brew, but I do not agree with it in every aspect. I think that many of Flayrah's readers will be interested in reading about "Talkative Tortoise", if only to be grateful to be warned away from an animated TV series that they will probably never have to watch. And who knows, some of them may actually like it. People have varied tastes. Some people "collect" the Worst Examples that they can find; look at the comments on that Chinese-made rip-off of "Kung Fu Panda".
Fred Patten
Post new comment