Maddox on Sony

[Jess Ragan]

More Sony hatred? You betcha! And nobody does seething hatred better than Maddox.

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c....u=sony_bullshit

 

JR

[ninjarabbit]

It is kinda funny to think that personally I am making more of a profit than Sony's game division.

[madhatter667]

Maddox is probably one of the most hilarious guys I have ever seen. Anyone read his book (Alphabet of Manliness)? It's the funniest $15 I have ever spent. Totally checking out this rant.

[JB]

Am I the only person on Earth that finds him grossly over-rated?

[madhatter667]

That's funny, because from what I can tell, he's not well known outside of dorky internet circles. Over-rated perhaps, but still quite funny in my opinion.

[Xizer]

 

Haha. I love that image.

 

That article is 100% fact. I have to applaud Maddox on this one. Sony are being a bunch of douchebags these days.

[Albert]

Never read anything by him before, but I have to agree with him pretty much on every count.

 

..Al

[Atarifever]

Am I the only person on Earth that finds him grossly over-rated?

Yes and no. How can you be under-rated as a guy who writes funny stuff about nothing on an ugly internet page? Thus, that he is of any note at all makes him over-rated. However, he is funny.

 

 

This is perfect:

they sued Lik Sang into oblivion. So what was this grave infraction committed against Sony that not only threatened the very foundation of this giant multi-national corporation, but warranted destroying the lives and careers of a group of dorks running a gaming website? Simple: they committed the mortal sin of selling Japanese PSPs to European gamers. Oh no! Not that!

 

When I read the law suit, I did a double take to make sure I read it correctly. Sony is suing to prevent people from selling PSPs? Great move, morons! Because if there's anything Sony needs right now, it's fewer people buying PSPs.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Atarifever

[JB]

Am I the only person on Earth that finds him grossly over-rated?

Yes and no. How can you be under-rated as a guy who writes funny stuff about nothing on an ugly internet page? Thus, that he is of any note at all makes him over-rated. However, he is funny.

I just don't find him nearly as amusing as most people seem to.

[AtariJr]

too bad that the general public wont really ever feel this way.. like i said before, i dont think anything can really stop Sony, as much as id love to see it happen. but then again, well see how willing mommies and daddies are to spend 600 on a toy for thier kids, and then have to dish out more for any games they might want.

 

I still remember when the DS came out, and parents bitched at me (when i worked at toys r us) becuase they didnt want to spend that much money.. and that was only 150... they usually turned around and bought the gba instead. I have a good feeling that after the holiday rush, where they will sell out of ps3 just beucase hard cores will buy it anyway, the ps2 will end up selling a lot more than its successor.

 

Now if only sony made thier own version of a sega cd and a 32x before this, the ps3 might end up something like the saturn with its psp doing as well as the gamegear, and the ps3 being too overpriced next to competition like the saturn was to the playstation. id personally love to be at the party sega will hold when sony falls on its ass for good. i miss you sega.

[2600Lives]

I personally think he's a douchebag. He's like Seanbaby (whom I love) minus the humor. It was his take on Christopher Reeve that really got me hating him. I'd love it if he were paralyzed to see how he would feel.

[Jess Ragan]

I personally think he's a douchebag. He's like Seanbaby (whom I love) minus the humor.

 

Hell, these days, Seanbaby is like Seanbaby minus the humor. I don't know if it's because he's hit the mainstream, or if his brand of humor has lost its flavor in the last five years, or because there have been so many imitators, but Sean just isn't as laugh-out-loud funny as he used to be.

 

JR

[jbanes]

I'm with you JB. I can't seem to figure out why everyone thinks that Rant + Swearing = Teh Funny.

 

It's not that I disagree with the guy's points (I've made most of them myself), it's just that he can't seem to find a semi-intelligent way to express them. Or at least something close to appealing humor. I'm sorry, an animated GIF of a turd is not my idea of "funny". More like "disgusting" and "revolting". It reminds me of an 8 year old telling fart jokes. I would like to think that most people outgrow such "humor" by the time they hit 20.

[ZylonBane]

It's not that I disagree with the guy's points (I've made most of them myself), it's just that he can't seem to find a semi-intelligent way to express them.

If that's what you're looking for, you're entirely missing the point of Maddox.

[2600Lives]

True, Seanbaby has lost a lot of his old zing. Still, it's nice to see ANY new material from him.

[Atarifever]

It was his take on Christopher Reeve that really got me hating him. I'd love it if he were paralyzed to see how he would feel.

Not to start a fight, but, the hatred of another human being aside, he has a valid point on Christopher Reeve. His main point is that everyone thinks Chris Reeve is Christ Reeve, just because he put money into researching cures for paralysis, after he became paralyzed. It's like Dick Cheeny putting money into heart research, or Regan suddenly putting money into alzheimer's. These people aren't heroes; they're looking for cures to their own problems; big whoop; Hitler would do that.

 

Now, saying they're terrible for that is also wrong. However, this blind belief that pursuing a cure for a disease you have is somehow noble doesn't make sense either. It just makes these people exactly as concerned with themselves as most everyone else.

[2600Lives]

But, Reeve was fighting against a government that didn't WANT anybody to be healed of paralysis. They use their skewed 'morality' as an excuse to stop furthering an area of medical science that could hold unlimited potential.

 

I had a neck injury very similar to Reeves'. I spent a year in a wheelchair and another 8 months or so of physical rehab before I could walk again, and that was after I was told that I'd likely never walk again. I was fortunate, though, that no permanent nerve damage was done (only a lot of damage to the vertebrae). I understand entirely where he was coming from. It's funny how someone can sit back and say things about someone like Reeve when they've never been in their situation. Simple as that.

[narutofan]

Oh yeah... that was... hilarious?

[madhatter667]

The humor of Maddox is that he is a blatant prick. He usually only picks on/gipes about things that are silly, and pretty much nonsense anyway.

 

I agree with the view point on Christopher Reeve. Someone only caring about finding a solution to a condition AFTER he/she has fallen victim to said solution means absolutely dick. That is just human nature, and should be recognized as such, and not praised like some great act.

[Jess Ragan]

It's funny how someone can sit back and say things about someone like Reeve when they've never been in their situation. Simple as that.

 

Well, that's kind of the point. Charity is generally selfish in nature... either it's done to soothe your own personal guilt, or because you feel a common bond with the people supported by the charity. People generally don't give large amounts of money to a particular charity unless they feel they have some personal stake in it.

 

You can criticize me for saying this, but think of a time when you gave to a charity without being coaxed by guilt, feeling a kinship with the charity, or having some spare change you wanted to empty out of your wallet. I doubt you're going to find too many examples.

 

JR

[madhatter667]

We've donated to the Fire Fighter's fund, and I have donated money to a housing project for poor and battered women. I have no connection personally to any of these, and guilt is something I feel very rarely.

[Atarifever]

I agree with the view point on Christopher Reeve. Someone only caring about finding a solution to a condition AFTER he/she has fallen victim to said solution means absolutely dick. That is just human nature, and should be recognized as such, and not praised like some great act.

Now, I'm not using me as an example of a great human being, because trust me, I'm not. However, I volunteer at a food bank, despite the fact that I'm not personally starving. In fact, there are people volunteering at this food bank who have to find time to do it, despite raising kids and working, and whatever else, making their volunteering 100 times more difficult than mine. Some of them are even, gasp, disabled. No one has ever shot a documentary on them for having a ton of stuff to do and still finding time to come in and help out at a charity they have no real self interest in. I have a friend who is in a wheelchair who works with women's rights groups. He certainly has no self inerest in women's rights, and, like Reeves, he is in a wheel chair. I haven't once seen him being interviewed by Barbera Walters. However, if Tom Cruise got cancer tommorow, and sunk a bunch of his time and money into cancer research, we'd see him on so many TV shows it's not funny, and the words "inspirational" and "giving" would be thrown around more times than I care to think about.

 

Is it good to donate money and time to a charity that helps a lot of people AND yourself? Sure. Is it better to donate money and time to a chairity that will never give you something back in return? Yes.

[misspent_youth]

Everybody gets something out of donating to a charity, whether it is more concrete, like trying to cure a disease you have, or less concrete, like the good feeling you get from helping others. There is no such thing as giving to charity out of a purely selfless place. For that reason, saying that those who contribute to charity when it's easier and for 'less altruistic' reasons such as medical self-interest or even tax benefits are somehow not as good as those who contribute when it's more difficult and out of emotional self-interest is dishonest. The fact is that society is bettered when charity is given, regardless of the reason.

[Atarifever]

Everybody gets something out of donating to a charity, whether it is more concrete, like trying to cure a disease you have, or less concrete, like the good feeling you get from helping others. There is no such thing as giving to charity out of a purely selfless place. For that reason, saying that those who contribute to charity when it's easier and for 'less altruistic' reasons such as medical self-interest or even tax benefits are somehow not as good as those who contribute when it's more difficult and out of emotional self-interest is dishonest. The fact is that society is bettered when charity is given, regardless of the reason.

Don't bring that selfish gene bullshit into this. It's as retarded an idea as there has ever been. The lengths one has to go through to support the idea that no one can be altrusistic are much more complicated than just admitting to altruism. It's an answer for a question that doesn't exist.

 

Also, thinking that feeling good because you help cure a child of cancer even though you don't have it, and donating money (and in the process, moving past the other people on the tratment list) and helping yourself are the same thing, is blatently naive. Sure, maybe you get a little warm feeling from giving money or time to charities; that is hardly the same thing as getting THE ABILITY TO WALK from your donation. I doubt there are many people who think the warm fuzzies are an equal reward with being given sensation below your neck. Thus, it seems to take a little more to get some people to give a crap.

[misspent_youth]

My point stands, and childish denial aside, you get something out of acting charitably either way. Just because one is more satisfactory/valuable than the other objectively speaking means nothing. The point is that both are motivated by self-interest. You're right, it takes some people more than others to act in their self-interest, but I fail to see how that invalidates the act itself on the part of those who require more than the warm fuzzies to act, which seems to be the general point people are making about Reeves' charity work. Doesn't it often take an extraordinary event to make people do even the simplest things?