Intro

And that is why this site exists: “no reason” is as good as any other reason.

Then again, there is a device used in many movies that has little or no reason and is known as a “McGuffin”, or “MacGuffin” or “maguffin”. It is a term for a device or plot element in a script or movie that is deliberately placed to catch the viewer’s (or reader’s) attention and thereby drive the logic of the plot. It is a device that serves no further purpose. A McGuffin will not pop up again and it does not explain the ending or anything else in the story. A McGuffin exists for “no reason” other than to drive the story along. And that, my friend, is the impetus of this site.

In BWOOC, I will expound on Music, Literature, Philosophy, Science, Travel, Art, and Cinema, and basically anything else that has caught my attention for one reason or another. Why? Why not? It’s my site, I can do what I want with it. I am not selling anything, I do not need it to be popular, and I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, it just exists for, … no res- no wait, there is a reason, of sorts.

Basically, whenever someone asks the question, “What have you been up to lately?” colloquially shortened to, “What’s up?”, I can point them here, to my virtual den, a kind of virtual man cave, if you will. Here they will be able to comment or engage in polite conversation about the various subjects I present.

A Quirk? Foible? Idiosyncrasy?, of this site will be the heavy use of links to specific things under discussion. Sometimes the links are entire concepts that may be prudent to go and read in order to understand what is being discussed. Other times they are merely suggestions for edification. Sometimes it will be a link to source material that is either directly quoted or paraphrased.

Since the Internet, World Wide Web, or whatever you want to call it, is such a huge library of “organized chaos”, a lot of what is found on the Internet is generally a big time-suck. So please keep in mind that the links to subjects, sources, and media, are not to be taken as freaking dogma carved in stone.
-see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_CgPsGY5Mw
Instead, think of them as concepts and/or ideas to be used as jumping off points for further research or study, or exploration.

Yes, I have encountered that particular type of person, the type that is proudly and arrogantly ignorant. “I don’t believe anything Wikipedia has to say.”
-to which I would reply, “Umm, yeah, then I guess you don’t like to go to the Library because it is too full of old books and just believe whatever your clique of friends tell you? or what the television or movies want you to believe?”

-see http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/dont-believe-everything-you-read-the-great-wikipedia-hoax-1683536.html
Many will miss this point (including the authors of the article): “They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia twice caught the quote’s lack of attribution and removed it.

It is a free online encyclopedia that can sometimes contain erroneous information just like anything else, but it is constantly being reviewed, culled, and edited for erroneous content. It isn’t perfect, take it with a grain of salt, in fact, you should take everything you read, hear, or see with a grain of skepticism. Better yet, look at it realistically like this article suggests:
https://nextbison.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/should-you-believe-wikipedia/

At the bottom of almost every Wikipedia article is a thing called, get this, a Bibliography. It is a list of attributions and citations of all the source material used to write the article. If you disagree with the main point of the article you can, using a modicum of intelligence, read up on the linked material yourself and come to your own conclusion. It really is that simple.

But, if you use the line about not trusting Wikipedia or any other compendium of knowledge, you need to explain why you disagree, with citations! Otherwise refuting an argument’s point purely on the fact that it comes from a certain source is to risk appearing like a complete and utter fool as you would be guilty of Bulverism.

(Bulverism basically describes a type of logical fallacy where one derides or ridicules the source of the material rather than examine the content of the material, also known as argumentum ad hominem.)

Rules. Yeah, gotta have ’em. There is a reason for that too. Ever heard of, excuse the coarse language, the Greater Internet F**kwad Theory? a.k.a GIFT? No? Check out the link!
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory

I am allergic to Trolls, Troglodytes, and Fanboys. That is why there are some rules for the comment and forum sections. For their own safety, said creatures should stay away as they will be shot, gutted, drained, smoked, jerked, packaged, labeled, and sold to wandering D&D players as trail mix for their game immersion. Yeah, I am that kinda guy.

Some rules of thumb are as follows:

  • If you denigrate, bully, flame either the site, or another user, you will be banned.
  • If you spam the site with useless sales and marketing crap, you will be banned. If you post anything pornographic or obscene, you will be banned.
  • If you take on the role of a ‘fanboy’ regarding any subject, you will be banned.
  • Any form of, or discussion about Piracy will get you banned as well.
  • If you begin a debate regarding religion or politics, you will be warned, and if the discussion becomes too heated, a ‘cool-down’ period will be imposed.

As irreverent as the Wheel of Organized Chaos is, I only ask that you treat the site as if you were visiting a close friend’s home, … you wouldn’t do the things mentioned in his or her home, right? So I would ask that you not to do them in mine.

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Intro

  1. Hamstah,

    Good to see your blog is up! Very interesting take on the accuracy of Wikipedia. I tend to agree that it is as accurate as any other source. My reason is that back in the stone age(pre-internet) every story in the local paper, or on local TV news, of which I had personal knowledge, contained at least one factual error. EVERY story, without exception. So now every story I read on the internet(or anywhere else) I assume to have at least one error. Everything with a grain of salt.

    Anyway I do have a question regarding your rules. I quite agree with banning religion/politics, it is SO tiring to start reading comments on virtually any story unrelated to r/p, only to see how quickly one or both is dragged into the conversation, and then quickly degrade to flaming. My question is, what about philosophy and ethics? It seems there is a grey area on the border between philosophy and religion, where will you draw the line? I suppose this could also apply to topics on world history, which is loaded with religion and politics. Again, where do you draw the line?

    Cheers,

    Grendal

    Like

  2. Welcome to the Den, Grendal.
    Yes, even though philosophy and ethics are a grey area, the subjects will be allowed. Since both subjects require a modicum of intelligence to discuss, it is my hope that they will be discussed in a like manner.

    Then again, I have to approve every comment that appears, so I can always put the breaks on when things get out of hand.

    Like

  3. Been following you since Fallout 3. Maybe 2 and 1, but I get confused in my dotage.

    Do you have a registered user list? I’d like to join. If not, s’ok. But would like to see it.

    Acaiguana (Nome De Plume).

    Thanks.

    Like

    • hmmm, not really. It is just a little blog I threw together. The writing project is something I do off and on when I am not fooling around with games. I keep it private due to a few plot lines I submitted in 2014 as a lark on No Mutants ended up being almost exactly like the Fallout 4 opening plot. The “discussion” with an incredibly dense fanboy starts here: http://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/why-do-you-enjoy-fallout-3.202595/page-3 (I stopped going to NMA because it was too full of such fanboys)

      I’m not being too paranoid am I? Anyway, the Mountain Home plot summary and sheer amount of background material gathered is enough for 3 novels, only I kind of suck at character interaction. Is that what you wanted to see? Send an email to buffhamstah@gmail.com for the password. Warning, Mountain Home is incomplete and some things are subject to change. It also lacks a good ending, it has one, I’m just not happy with it.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s