Apple! I wish I were in London right now. Not just because I love the city and have a number of friends living "over the pond," but because Europe's first Apple Store is opening up there this weekend on Regent Street (in a pretty cool location just off Oxford Circus). Sure it looks to be much like the stores in Chicago, New York, L.A., and Tokyo that I've already been to, but these "flagship" Apple Stores are all so cool that I'd like to keep up with them as they open up if I can.
Ze! It's always cool when one of my favorite sites gets a little notice, and this time it's a really good one. Ze Frank's latest triumph: "Punctuation Substitution for Passive Aggressive Communication Solutions" is making its way around the blogosphere, and is too funny. If you like it, be sure to check out all of the other crazy and cool things he's made for ZeFrank.com ("How to Dance Properly" is what he's most known for, and is still one of his best).
Berg! The site for Blade: Trinity seems to have been updated with more images and information. While I enjoyed the previous Blade films, this one has me really anxious because it has one of the funniest guys on the planet in it... RYAN RENOLDS!! First coming to prominence as "Berg" in Two Guys, A Girl, and A Pizza Place Renolds then drifted through a number of guest appearances in films (like Dick) and TV shows (like Scrubs) before hitting the big time in Van Wilder. Now he's got a primo part in the latest Blade film, and seems to have really buffed up in a bid to become an action hero...
Of course, it doesn't hurt that hottie Jessica Biel is along for the ride playing Whistler's daughter...
Porn! My workload is so overwhelming just now that I can't really take on anything more, but every once in a while an offer of work comes my way that I'm sorely tempted to take anyway. This morning I got a rather serious email wanting me to develop an e-commerce site for porn! I've accumulated a pretty diverse body of work over the years, but haven't done any work involving pornography before. Sadly, I don't have any time available before Spring of next year, so I had to decline. Such a shame, because having porn in my portfolio would certainly spice things up a bit!
Rated! Also in my email box was a request from a "concerned parent" to add ratings to my blog so that it can be properly identified as "adult content." Apparently, her 14-year-old son was searching for cartoons on the internet, stumbled across the "DaveToons" here on Blogography, saw a cartoon image of me being Janet Jackson at the SuperBowl, then became "traumatized." To this I can only reply: what the f#@%?!? I assume this is the image in question:
Well, whatever. I certainly don't want to be in the business of "traumatizing" any kids. But then I took a look at the RSACi web site to figure out exactly how I am supposed to rate my site, and am even more dumbfounded. I mean, take a look at what your options are! How am I supposed to choose?
In all honesty, I think this is pretty ridiculous, and have to wonder what the ramifications of adding a rating to your site might be. I mean, if I rate my site as "Mild expletives" and somebody comes along and decides that "crap" isn't "mild" can I be sued? Will Google refuse to index my site if I have ratings in place? Does it really matter anyway? Geez. Maybe I'll just forget about it and instead request that parents monitor their kid's activities on the internet rather than asking me to babysit for them.
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
I have long had an RSAC rating on my website, to cover myself for mild sex and violence comment on the site. As far as I know, the actual impact on the blog traffic is minimal. But I’ve received no complaints about inappropriate material.
But how do you decide which “level” to use?? Is “crap” a mild expletive or something harsher? What defines “mild?” Also, if I have cartoons of myself shooting a gun at a mobile phone or shooting at cars driving slowly in the passing lane… is that “artistic” in context and suitable for kids since it is a drawing? And what about Janet Jackson’s breast? I show it, but it is completely non-sexual. Since she is a musical artist, would this be “artistic” in context?
The entire ratings game seems useless to me because it’s all interpretive, and what I consider “mild” or “artistic” may not be as such for somebody else. I can’t help but wonder if MY interpretation would be subject to legal action if somebody felt my rating was misleading.
“Crap”, “darn” and “damn” are pretty mild, and I think you can get away with a “1” rating even if you use “s—” and “f—“. And, no, I don’t think you’d be subject to legal action. You provided the warning and you never said that your site was lily white and pure. I don’t think people can criticize you for that.
I’d up your violence level perhaps to a “2” for the clown clobbering, however. That’s a step above clobbering fantasy characters, although I’m sure it’s still a fantasy that a fair number of people have had. 🙂
Here’s the thing though… while I say I’d LIKE to beat a clown with a baseball bat or set a clown’s ass on fire… the accompanying cartoons do not actually show the beating or a clown on fire. And I never shoot people in the cartoons… I shoot their car or their mobile phone or whatever (and no blood is shown). As far as I am concerned, my blog is completely free from violence except in a theoretical sense. I would consider my blog no more violent than Saturday morning cartoons.
All that being said, I probably will at least make an attempt to rate my site. Whether or not people agree with my assessment worries me a bit (particularly my belief that any nudity or violence is “artistic” in context), but I guess it’s better than nothing.
Oh well. If nothing else, I TRIED to be responsible! 🙂
Can we rate people for their sense of proportion?
* Family murdered before your eyes = traumatised
* Seeing a picture of a cartoon breast = well, that’s a bit odd.
Spot the difference.
Trauma is defined as “an emotional wound or shock that creates substantial, lasting damage to the psychological development of a person, often leading to neurosis” or “an event or situation that causes great distress and disruption.” Either description seems excessive given that we’re talking about a cartoon here, but to each their own.
In my defense, it was a nicely rendered cartoon breast! 🙂