Shirt.Woot

lisabethjo wrote:I've tried to find the shirts on the tee turtle site and can not.

They were taken down shortly after my post yesterday.

Correlation does not equal causation. You'd have to interview parties, check dates, review sketches. That's fact finding. Y'all are haters who overthink and jump to conclusions and get emotional...think I saw "slimeball" in one post. Lovely.

Mavyn wrote:I'm reminded of when a teacher accused me of cheating on an exam. She pointed out that only me and the guy sitting behind me chose to match letter to number, rather than matching number to letter.

I was a straight A student, he averaged C's.

My response was something along the lines of ' I can't believe you think I cheated off his paper!'

It worked then, too.

You're a straight A student and you write, "...only me and..." D'oh!

krodo wrote:You're a straight A student and you write, "...only me and..." D'oh!

20 years ago I was a straight A student. Now, no one grades my papers.

Mavyn wrote:20 years ago I was a straight A student. Now, no one grades my papers.

Nobody but krodo...

krodo wrote:Correlation does not equal causation. You'd have to interview parties, check dates, review sketches. That's fact finding. Y'all are haters who overthink and jump to conclusions and get emotional...think I saw "slimeball" in one post. Lovely.

But if you want causation, you actually need a carefully controlled experiment that minimizes the many confounding factors at play here, and even then, you'd just reach a conclusion that says there is likely a causation because there is only a small chance of this occurring randomly.

In other words, it's infeasible to demand true causation. There is enough evidence (disregarding some of the far-fetched comparisons) to suggest that ramyb's designs are not original and are likely taken from others' concepts. Too bad there's mudslinging and general witchhunting...

krodo wrote:Y'all are haters .... Lovely.

chennai8 wrote:

Bleach...characters...why?!?

How low Aizen has fallen...

goldenthorn wrote:It was correctly written, so I'm not quite sure what you're pointing out. Mavyn was the object, not the subject, of the sentence, so she was correct to write "only me and... ?"

Heh. I thought I was being faulted since 'me' should be listed second, though it is not a rule. ;)

goldenthorn wrote:Yeah, I thought that might be a vague possibility, too. I was taught that while "me" should (in the classroom/technically) come second when there are only two pronouns/blahblah, in literary use "me" can be listed according to importance in the sentence, whether it's two or more. So, in your original sentence, you as "me" are okay to be first, to emphasize your importance in the sentence over the classmate's. I obviously am no grammaticienne, though (LOOK, AT MY COMMA, ABUSE, WHAT), so it's all just style to me... and I am STYLIN'.

I believe the problem is that it should be 'I' instead of 'me.' In the sentence "She pointed out that only me and the guy sitting behind me chose to match letter to number, rather than matching number to letter" "me and the guy" is the subject of the subordinate declarative clause which starts after the word "that." As the subject of a clause, the correct word is 'I' as you would never say "me chose to match letter to number" unless you happen to be cookie monster.

clarinerd wrote:I believe the problem is that it should be 'I' instead of 'me.' In the sentence "She pointed out that only me and the guy sitting behind me chose to match letter to number, rather than matching number to letter" "me and the guy" is the subject of the subordinate declarative clause which starts after the word "that." As the subject of a clause, the correct word is 'I' as you would never say "me chose to match letter to number" unless you happen to be cookie monster.

Isn't "she" the subject? "She pointed out that only I and the guy sitting behind me..." doesn't seem right at all. As a general rule, I thought "I" should be used when "I" am the subject: "He and I ran." and not "He and me ran."

Either way, trolls troll.

Now if only a grammatical error invalidated the argument...

It's "only I and the guy sitting behind me chose to match letter to number" (but it does sound kind of weird).

...I can't believe after this whole thread, I chose to comment on the grammar.

BootsBoots wrote:...I can't believe after this whole thread, I chose to comment on the grammar.

If only we have an English teacher here to set everyone straight ...

Narfcake wrote:If only we have an English teacher here to set everyone straight ...

I saw the "Grammar Signal" flashing in the sky, good citizen! I was in the middle of grading essays, but a woot grammar emergency takes precedence!

The correct usage would be "only I" because one would never say "only me chose to match." Crisis averted!

I also cannot believe this thread has turned into a grammar lesson. :P

fishbiscuit5 wrote:I saw the "Grammar Signal" flashing in the sky, good citizen! I was in the middle of grading essays, but a woot grammar emergency takes precedence!

The correct usage would be "only I" because one would never say "only me chose to match." Crisis averted!

I also cannot believe this thread has turned into a grammar lesson. :P

That's what I said! You have offended me by copying my answer. A quick bit of research beforehand would have shown that I clearly had created a similar post already, but you were obviously too lazy or just didn't care that you were infringing on my post. I demand you take your post down immediately. Copycat. ;)

Completely off-topic (or back on topic, or something), but wait, Ramyb is the same Ramy as the one who completely gamed the system at Otakon?

I'm really glad that someone linked me to this thread, because I won't buy his stuff on principle and now I won't inadvertently break that principle.

BootsBoots wrote:That's what I said! You have offended me by copying my answer. A quick bit of research beforehand would have shown that I clearly had created that answer already, but you were obviously too lazy or just didn't care that you were infringing on my post. I demand you take your post down immediately. Copycat. ;)

There is no way to know whose post was first and throwing around unfounded accusations happens way too often here at Woot.

BootsBoots wrote:That's what I said! You have offended me by copying my answer. A quick bit of research beforehand would have shown that I clearly had created a similar post already, but you were obviously too lazy or just didn't care that you were infringing on my post. I demand you take your post down immediately. Copycat. ;)

I accept your accusations of laziness because they are 100% accurate. :P

BootsBoots wrote:That's what I said! You have offended me by copying my answer. A quick bit of research beforehand would have shown that I clearly had created a similar post already, but you were obviously too lazy or just didn't care that you were infringing on my post. I demand you take your post down immediately. Copycat. ;)

Now hold on just a minute there Boots--I believe I said the same thing several posts before you, so really mine is the original answer and you all are copying me. ;)

taternuggets wrote:There is no way to know whose post was first and throwing around unfounded accusations happens way too often here at Woot.

Hay, I through aground unfoundered assignations way before yew deed!

clarinerd wrote:Now hold on just a minute there Boots--I believe I said the same thing several posts before you, so really mine is the original answer and you all are copying me. ;)

No, no. I was "inspired by" your post. There's a big difference. ;)

BootsBoots wrote:No, no. I was "inspired by" your post. There's a big difference. ;)

There's only one way to sort this all out and that is to put them side by side and look for substantial similarity. Now since you can't own facts of language no one is liable for copying anyone for pointing out the correct answer. However, anyone who used similar expression to the original is liable for copying. Let's have a look shall we...

Clarinerd wrote:As the subject of a clause, the correct word is 'I' as you would never say "me chose to match letter to number" unless you happen to be cookie monster

BootsBoots wrote:It's "only I and the guy sitting behind me chose to match letter to number" (but it does sound kind of weird).

fishbiscuit5 wrote:The correct usage would be "only I" because one would never say "only me chose to match." Crisis averted!

Now Clarinerd with a timestamp of "May 4, 2012 7:55 PM" is the original content creator. Both Boots' and fishbiscut's comments were at least 12 hours later giving them plenty of time to infringe.

If we look at Boots' answer she provided the factual answer and the statement that it sounds weird which has no overlap with Clarinerd's statement. Therefore, I order an immediate apology by Clarinerd to Boots for bringing false accusations and wasting the court's time.

However, if we look at fishbiscuit's answer, there was evidence of infringement of copyrightable expression shown in bold and the modified portions shown in italics do not amount to enough to constitute fair use.

I thereby order the immediate takedown of fishbiscuit's post and a sincere and heartfelt apology to Clarinerd for copying to be put in its place. Would the bailiff please begin distributing the pitchforks and torches.

fishbiscuit, I recommend you start running......

crazydoglady wrote:I'm not sure why you are asking for patience - about a year ago when I started hanging out here regularly there oldtimers who were brutal in their assessments of Ramy's work and newcomers who attacked the oldtimers and put Ramy on a pedestal... and the occasional newcomer who would ask what the fuss was all about. Anytime a newcomer was respectful enough to ASK (as opposed to assuming they knew better than the people who had been wooting for a long time, to paraphrase mrwednesday) there were explanations and links to past reckonings and even other websites posted in response - that was how I got my Ramy education. For the past 4 or 5 months it appeared that he'd been cleaning up his act and the anti-Ramy comments have been more about his dominance of the reckoning than references to his past behaviour, so if you've been around 4 months or less I don't think you need to feel defensive.

I haven't been a member for long (my boyfriend always ordered for me, until Christmas this year when I signed up to get him a shirt) and only recently began following the discussion threads. The first times heard of scandal with ramy/seki, I used that 'search function' up there on the right and did an hour or two of reading until I had a pretty good sense of what had gone on. I have since avoided voting for or buying ramy shirts.

What is my point here? It is better to do your own research for yourself rather than expect someone to feed you the info - which will be biased to their position anyway.

That being said, this is a really low and disrespectful thing ramy has done. Unfortunately, I doubt outrage will change anything.

mrwednesday wrote:
I thereby order the immediate takedown of fishbiscuit's post and a sincere and heartfelt apology to Clarinerd for copying to be put in its place. Would the bailiff please begin distributing the pitchforks and torches.

fishbiscuit, I recommend you start running......

Yes, but I submit to the court that I like Fishbiscuit's post better, therefore it should stand. Also, I don't think the court has taken into consideration the precedent set by the case of "Haters Gonna Hate" in 2010.

No one is crediting me for the entire derailment of this thread. I know my rights!!!!

Mavyn wrote:No one is crediting me for the entire derailment of this thread. I know my rights!!!!

What derailment? This thread has been as on-topic as any typical thread here ...

clarinerd wrote: As the subject of a clause, the correct word is 'I' as you would never say "me chose to match letter to number" unless you happen to be cookie monster.

And all I could think at this point was what if it is the cookie monster in disguise. Now that would be cool. Anything you'd like to share Mavyn? Also, if you are the cookie monster, what do you think of that shirt?

On a side note, someone stole one of my two RamyB shirts - Family Breakfast - this week. No point really, just wanted to share.

loridi wrote:And all I could think at this point was what if it is the cookie monster in disguise. Now that would be cool. Anything you'd like to share Mavyn? Also, if you are the cookie monster, what do you think of that shirt?

That's no cookie monster. That's just a fuzzy blue spider!

loridi wrote:And all I could think at this point was what if it is the cookie monster in disguise. Now that would be cool. Anything you'd like to share Mavyn? Also, if you are the cookie monster, what do you think of that shirt?

On a side note, someone stole one of my two RamyB shirts - Family Breakfast - this week. No point really, just wanted to share.

>.>

<.<

In some circles, I am known as the Cookie Queen. Because my cookies bring all the boys to the yard.


(Oh no, I started a sentence with because! Which circle of hell is that?)

FWIW, I downloaded the entire thread and posted it to usenet (alt.binaries.grammar.police) and piratebay for your torrent pleasure. Feel free to make all the prints and memes your collective hearts desire.

fishbiscuit5 wrote:I saw the "Grammar Signal" flashing in the sky, good citizen! I was in the middle of grading essays, but a woot grammar emergency takes precedence!

The correct usage would be "only I" because one would never say "only me chose to match." Crisis averted!

I also cannot believe this thread has turned into a grammar lesson. :P

I'm not an English teacher, but I am a copyeditor!

"I" is correct, but since I'm also a writer (playwright, woo!), I think it sounds off even though it's grammatically correct. If I were writing it, I'd say "only the other guy and I chose to match" because putting "I" closer to the verb makes it sounds less weird.

Mavyn wrote:>.>

<.<

In some circles, I am known as the Cookie Queen. Because my cookies bring all the boys to the yard.


(Oh no, I started a sentence with because! Which circle of hell is that?)

I could be wrong on this, but I've sort of come to view the "don't start a sentence with 'because'" rule as something elementary school teachers tell kids because kids are more likely to use a fragment rather than a complete sentence if they start with "because." Like, I think there's nothing wrong with this:

"Because my cookies bring all the boys to the yard, I am known as the Cookie Queen in some circles."

But then the original post is "wrong" because "Because my cookies bring all the boys to the yard" isn't a complete sentence on its own.

I'm also perfectly fine with ending a sentence on a preposition, because I think the wording you have to do to get around that just sounds forced and awkward. But at work I'm kind of the lazy copyeditor who bases rules around "whatever involves the least amount of correction I have to do" while others are so set on being 100% precise. They'd go in and change "while" to "whereas" in the sentence I just wrote because "while" should only be used temporally and ohmygodwhyamistilltalkingaboutworkmakeitstop.

kestrad wrote:Completely off-topic (or back on topic, or something), but wait, Ramyb is the same Ramy as the one who completely gamed the system at Otakon?

I'm really glad that someone linked me to this thread, because I won't buy his stuff on principle and now I won't inadvertently break that principle.

Yes.
He and his former partner left quite a path of interweb controversy on their kawaii trail of tears.

I echo many who thought things had changed recently. Apparently not.
I swear, my 'to do' list of house poxes never ends!

Back to lurking!

I apologize for interrupting this grammar-debating thread, but I wanted to make two serious, non-jokey points. [ETA: and one jokey non-point]

First, I think we should have given Ramy more credit for this:

Narfcake wrote:They were taken down shortly after my post yesterday.

I understand that many will feel that Ramy should have taken them down immediately (well, or shouldn't have created them in the first place, but that horse is already out of the barn) instead waiting until he was shamed by Narfcake, but I want to give Ramy credit for taking them down. I am not an artist; I don't have the personal history with Ramy and what's-her-name that many have. What I do have is significant experience dealing with young adults who make mistakes, get defensive when called on them, and take slow but stumbling steps towards growth and maturity - and take plenty of backward steps along the way. The forward steps are rarely as obvious as we'd like them to be, and often taken more begrudgingly than we'd like, but if our goal is encourage Ramy to become a more mature person and artist, it's important to recognize both the steps backward and forward. After making some huge, enormous mistakes, I think this was a small step forward and I applaud Ramy for doing it.

Secondly, I do not believe that it is helpful to retaliate against Ramy. Many woot.artists have been open and honest in this thread about how they develop ideas and check to see if others have done them already, and about how Ramy's actions have made them feel. I think Ramy knows that he's done wrong and his reaction to having it pointed out to him seems to be defensiveness. Mocking him, here or in the Derby, is unlikely to garner the result y'all are seeking. It doesn't model good behavior and it undermines the suggestions that have been made to Ramy.

Next time, on Dr. NeuroPsychoSocial Psychoanalyzes Woot - On the sidelines, looking in: is the recent focus at woot on the exclusion of Pluto a reflection of wooters' own experiences of a childhood on the sidelines, looking in at the "cool kids" but never really belonging? We'll explore what it means to identify with the marginalized plutoid, and answer that question everyone is asking: who's the solar system's REAL DADDY?!?!

loridi wrote:On a side note, someone stole one of my two RamyB shirts - Family Breakfast - this week. No point really, just wanted to share.

Perhaps they were just inspired by it. There's no way to really know.

odysseyroc wrote:Perhaps they were just inspired by it. There's no way to really know.

Perhaps they were just inspired by it. There's no way to really know.