Azumanga Daioh

[Dja Majista]

funny ass anime.
And I thought this was a very funny pic of it I found.

It's my wallpaper now. Osaka-san is my inspiration.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Don't stretch the page you mortal.

[Dja Majista]

sorry, not like anybody but you cares.



this is a really funny clip from it. Osaka-san is day dreaming here.

[Dja Majista]

damasta said:

sorry, not like anybody but you cares.



this is a really funny clip from it. Osaka-san is day dreaming here.

btw, I will follow up with a little piece of advice that I go by for every anime.
sub it don't dub it.
Their dubbing is at least acceptable for everyone else but becomes terminally tragic when you get to Osaka-san who trades her real spaced out voice and earns a very country southern voice actor in her place.
Whoever decided to pull a voice actor straight out of a barn, and try to represent her as any Japanese person... needs to be shot. twice. and the second time should be fatal... slowly fatal.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

sorry, not like anybody but you cares.



this is a really funny clip from it. Osaka-san is day dreaming here.

No page stretching has to be the most annoying thing because you can't reach the buttons, and you have to scroll. And I'm on my downstairs widescreen monitor so I know it's stretched on a normal one.

Just make it a thumbnail, it's what I started doing to my pics so everything loads faster.

[Sinistrous]

My familiarity with this show goes as far as that image where one of the girls kicks off her shoe and it lands in a garbage truck (and its variations), though that clip reminds me of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZgoCPt1vA) in a "I <3 METH" sort of way.

[Dja Majista]

haha that was funny. she kicked her shoe off as far as she could and a garbage truck came along and caught it
well, unlike The Melancholy Of Haruhi Suzumiya, azumanga is very episodic. There is almost no plot. In fact, while there are indeed 26 episodes, it was originally shown in Japan with 5 minute clips from an episode every weekday then all of them together at the end of the week. There is some slight underlying plot every once in a while mainly dealing with Sakaki-san, but ultimately, you can really just tune in at any point in the series with almost no foreknowledge whatsoever.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I might really need to get into this...

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

haha that was funny. she kicked her shoe off as far as she could and a garbage truck came along and caught it
well, unlike The Melancholy Of Haruhi Suzumiya, azumanga is very episodic. There is almost no plot. In fact, while there are indeed 26 episodes, it was originally shown in Japan with 5 minute clips from an episode every weekday then all of them together at the end of the week. There is some slight underlying plot every once in a while mainly dealing with Sakaki-san, but ultimately, you can really just tune in at any point in the series with almost no foreknowledge whatsoever.

Posting again to get rid of this page stretch...

You know what... better yet...

[Dja Majista]

I was gonna take care of it after my roommate and I got done watching fight club but thanks.
Psiquis's old link to it doesn't work anymore, but veoh tv will give you all of them save for episode 7. you'll have to go to youtube for that one

[darthrevan]

damasta said:

I was gonna take care of it after my roommate and I got done watching fight club but thanks.

You watched Fight Club? I have to read the the book for English Class, but at least we are going to watch the movie after we are done.

nocturneinbm said:

My familiarity with this show goes as far as that image where one of the girls kicks off her shoe and it lands in a garbage truck (and its variations), though that clip reminds me of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZgoCPt1vA) in a "I <3 METH" sort of way.

I liked Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu (writing the romaji title makes me feel smartz), but once I followed the link and heard it, I could not stand it. Did you recognize Kyon's voice? It is Regal from Tales of Symphonia. He is actually in quite a few things (Tales of The World: RM, Wolf's Rain, Chobits, Advent Children etc.)

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

I was gonna take care of it after my roommate and I got done watching fight club but thanks.
Psiquis's old link to it doesn't work anymore, but veoh tv will give you all of them save for episode 7. you'll have to go to youtube for that one

Watching all these rated R movies? Wow, you're becoming a man... I'm proud.

[darthrevan]

admin said:

damasta said:

I was gonna take care of it after my roommate and I got done watching fight club but thanks.
Psiquis's old link to it doesn't work anymore, but veoh tv will give you all of them save for episode 7. you'll have to go to youtube for that one

Watching all these rated R movies? Wow, you're becoming a man... I'm proud.

I saw my first R rated movie when I was five but that doesn't mean that I was a man (my parents wouldn't let me back to that family's house again).

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

darthrevan said:

admin said:

Watching all these rated R movies? Wow, you're becoming a man... I'm proud.

I saw my first R rated movie when I was five but that doesn't mean that I was a man (my parents wouldn't let me back to that family's house again).

Yea but you guys were never allowed. I remember not being able to say "suck" when we were doing his myspace. Doing adult things doesn't make you an adult, it's how you handle it. Honestly I hardly watch rated R movies, but I was never really denied the privilege, as long as the movie wasn't too out there. I could always play "M" games.

I wonder what his mom and dad would say? They probably wouldn't care as long as it isn't in their house. I remember a long time ago David telling his Dad and mom I had carmaggeddon, and that game was gruesome. You could run over people and their body parts went flying.

[Dja Majista]

You watched Fight Club? I have to read the the book for English Class, but at least we are going to watch the movie after we are done.

It was awesome, great plot. Very funny. And there's an insane twist around the end that I did NOT see coming. Tell me how the book was.

darthrevan said:

admin said:

Watching all these rated R movies? Wow, you're becoming a man... I'm proud.

I saw my first R rated movie when I was five but that doesn't mean that I was a man (my parents wouldn't let me back to that family's house again).

I concur. It takes a man to go against the flow, not with it. I don't really care what the rating is, as long as it's a good movie.

But yeah, I'm sure they wouldn't flip out too much. Both my parents still seem to insist that 18 is the magic number no matter who you are. Something I found very annoying.

Speaking of manly children's movies. Has anyone heard about the Golden Compass?

I liked Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu (writing the romaji title makes me feel smartz), but once I followed the link and heard it, I could not stand it. Did you recognize Kyon's voice? It is Regal from Tales of Symphonia. He is actually in quite a few things (Tales of The World: RM, Wolf's Rain, Chobits, Advent Children etc.)

Regal's voice sticks out to me like a sore thumb every time man.

[darthrevan]

damasta said:

Speaking of manly children's movies. Has anyone heard about the Golden Compass?

I heard about it. Isn't it supposed to be very against the Bible?

[Dja Majista]

oh yeah, definitely. The author of the original series claims he wants to kill God in the minds of children. They say the movie was taken from the least offensive of the books, and they tried to take out a lot of the stuff that would offend Christians. But if their ultimate goal is to get people to buy the books, I think they should at least reflect it's true nature in the film, or at least to the audience before they watch it. My problem with it is that it's just very deceptive about its theme.
It's good that word is getting around though. It would suck for unknowing parents to take their kids to a children's movie only to walk out of it.

[darthrevan]

I hate when movies or tv shows try to change a person's beliefs, definitely in an offensive way. I'm alright if the author claims that God doesn't exist. With freedom of religion and speech, that person has all the write to say that. Just as much as an author can claim that God does exist, and I agree with what you said about it being deceptive.

by the way, congratulations on your 1000 ^th post.

[Dja Majista]

Dude! 1,000! Man I'm glad you told me. I saw it coming but it still snuck up on me. Now I can gaze at my newly earned 4-digit number...
ahhhhh...

OK. time for 1001.

[Sinistrous]

darthrevan said:

nocturneinbm said:

My familiarity with this show goes as far as that image where one of the girls kicks off her shoe and it lands in a garbage truck (and its variations), though that clip reminds me of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZgoCPt1vA) in a "I <3 METH" sort of way.

I liked Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu (writing the romaji title makes me feel smartz), but once I followed the link and heard it, I could not stand it. Did you recognize Kyon's voice? It is Regal from Tales of Symphonia. He is actually in quite a few things (Tales of The World: RM, Wolf's Rain, Chobits, Advent Children etc.)

Hahaha, there I go again. I didn't even watch the clip or pay much attention to the title, I just picked that link off of a search. So yeah, I didn't notice it was a dub. That guy's voice really doesn't work at all.

I won't get started on Fight Club. Good book, can't say the same about the movie - one of the reasons I'm actually glad the folks didn't want me watching all those ultra-violent films as a youngster.

I also haven't heard much about that Golden Compass thing (mostly because I don't really keep up with new pictures - for example I still haven't seen Children of Men), but it appears fairly harmless to even a group like the Catholic Church - the inspiration for the story's Magisterium, so sayeth wikipedophilia. "Atheism for kids" my eye, anyone -believer or not- can question their own or someone elses dogma.

Here's some press thingy about it in case anyone's looking for more info:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/14/npullman114.xml

[Dja Majista]

hmm, children is where I draw the line. IMO, atheist or not, anyone will benefit from taking their kid to church. From a purely Structuralist perspective, church serves as an excellent media for instilling a moral code in any child. In the Christian belief, we are required to make or confirm our decision after maturing in the form of babtism...


"It is wrong that children watching these films should not get the opportunity to see the more balanced picture of religion."
-Keith Porteous Wood (from Joseph's link)

This assumes that the target audience, children, have the ability to decide for themselves which side of religion is right and which is wrong. I will go so far to say that a balanced view of the religous argument at such an age is not necessary.
We're talking about children here. Very different from a adults. Their minds are impressionable, and unlike ours they should not be expected to make decisions about something as deep as faith until they have matured.
On the other hand, I think differently of taking a child to church, aside from the benefit of an improved morality, it isn't nearly as much of a brainwash as atheism can be. The idea of God's existence sort of just serves as a premise to back up the moral stories children are taught in church. After reaching maturity, that premise always proves easy to question for anyone. And that's when the decision to get babtised or not comes into play.
Teaching a child that there is no God at an early age hardly aids the idea of a balanced view in the future, when it's actually crucial. If anything, it's a lot harder to introduce to someone the idea of God for the first time than the absense of him.

Just my two cents. Anybody disagree? Anybody want to play devil's advocate? I'm always open for rebuttal.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

hmm, children is where I draw the line. IMO, atheist or not, anyone will benefit from taking their kid to church. From a purely Structuralist perspective, church serves as an excellent media for instilling a moral code in any child. In the Christian belief, we are required to make or confirm our decision after maturing in the form of babtism...


"It is wrong that children watching these films should not get the opportunity to see the more balanced picture of religion."
-Keith Porteous Wood (from Joseph's link)

This assumes that the target audience, children, have the ability to decide for themselves which side of religion is right and which is wrong. I will go so far to say that a balanced view of the religous argument at such an age is not necessary.
We're talking about children here. Very different from a adults. Their minds are impressionable, and unlike ours they should not be expected to make decisions about something as deep as faith until they have matured.
On the other hand, I think differently of taking a child to church, aside from the benefit of an improved morality, it isn't nearly as much of a brainwash as atheism can be. The idea of God's existence sort of just serves as a premise to back up the moral stories children are taught in church. After reaching maturity, that premise always proves easy to question for anyone. And that's when the decision to get babtised or not comes into play.
Teaching a child that there is no God at an early age hardly aids the idea of a balanced view in the future, when it's actually crucial. If anything, it's a lot harder to introduce to someone the idea of God for the first time than the absense of him.

Just my two cents. Anybody disagree? Anybody want to play devil's advocate? I'm always open for rebuttal.

I'll make this post brief as it's so late and I crashed on accident. Children should get a good sense of morals. Generally, today's churches are good for that . I can't say *all* churches are/were however. I don't think children at a young age like that should even worry about baptism personally. I waited until I matured and then chose to do it.

[Sinistrous]

Bear in mind that what I'm saying about the movie is mere assumption based on what I've heard/read and I could be entirely wrong about its nature. [/No really I do]

damasta said:

hmm, children is where I draw the line. IMO, atheist or not, anyone will benefit from taking their kid to church. From a purely Structuralist perspective, church serves as an excellent media for instilling a moral code in any child. In the Christian belief, we are required to make or confirm our decision after maturing in the form of babtism...

Where, precisely, are you drawing this line of childhood/maturity you speak of? 10, 13, 18? Because I can't see the difference either way: the very young children probably won't even see the parallels with the church in the movie while the older ones that decipher the similarity will have already been exposed to a fair amount of anti-dogmatic sentiment.

Also, no one's going to deny that taking young people to church yields some benefits. I don't think that the movies aim will be to simply dissuade church attendance either, as parents more or less have the call on whether young children attend or not.

"It is wrong that children watching these films should not get the opportunity to see the more balanced picture of religion."
-Keith Porteous Wood (from Joseph's link)

This assumes that the target audience, children, have the ability to decide for themselves which side of religion is right and which is wrong. I will go so far to say that a balanced view of the religous argument at such an age is not necessary.
We're talking about children here. Very different from a adults. Their minds are impressionable, and unlike ours they should not be expected to make decisions about something as deep as faith until they have matured.

Of course not, but no one's making any huge decisions here. Judging from that press release, this is an attack on religious organizations (if anything at all), not faith itself.

On the other hand, I think differently of taking a child to church, aside from the benefit of an improved morality, it isn't nearly as much of a brainwash as atheism can be.

That's completely a case-by-case scenario. Also, for future reference, you might want to watch your wording a little more carefully.

Again, the idea I'm getting from the picture is not so much a question of faith as the organizations that form behind such beliefs. The book may or may not be different, but that is not relevant, unless you want to go burn some books.

[Dja Majista]

nocturneinbm said:

Bear in mind that what I'm saying about the movie is mere assumption based on what I've heard/read and I could be entirely wrong about its nature. [/No really I do]

damasta said:

hmm, children is where I draw the line. IMO, atheist or not, anyone will benefit from taking their kid to church. From a purely Structuralist perspective, church serves as an excellent media for instilling a moral code in any child. In the Christian belief, we are required to make or confirm our decision after maturing in the form of babtism...

Where, precisely, are you drawing this line of childhood/maturity you speak of? 10, 13, 18?

haha somewhere in there. It depends on the person. Someone who is old enough to say they agree or disagree with the message AND why is mature enough. Again, this ability to reason such things comes at different ages.

Because I can't see the difference either way: the very young children probably won't even see the parallels with the church in the movie while the older ones that decipher the similarity will have already been exposed to a fair amount of anti-dogmatic sentiment.

I could be wrong here too, but if I'm not mistaken, the man wrote this book with the children audience completely in mind. So therefore, it's not a question of children being able to draw metaphors, because the author probably makes his message coherent enough for a child to understand. I don't think he'll take a very subtle approach to representing the God figure here. Could be wrong about the movie, but I know I'm right about the book.

Also, no one's going to deny that taking young people to church yields some benefits. I don't think that the movies aim will be to simply dissuade church attendance either, as parents more or less have the call on whether young children attend or not.

I believe a big part of his message is to push against the organized aspect of religion. Not sure exactly how the movie will target the church.

Of course not, but no one's making any huge decisions here. Judging from that press release, this is an attack on religious organizations (if anything at all), not faith itself.

The author has some good points, which I apologize for my negligence in regarding them. He points a lot of fingers at the power abuses found within the various churches (primarily the Catholic church), which I think is legitimate. This corruption is certainly a concern for many churches.
You may be right. The movie may never take a direct attack on faith (after all that may be unwise when regarding Christian audiences.) And with that, I can honestly I'm not so much concerned about the movie by itself. However, it's objective is clearly to improve book sales, which is something I can honestly say I am not all for.

Freedom of speech, expression blah blah blah. All these things are important no doubt. I support them when it comes to a rational and mature audience. But when your audience is children there always needs to be a line. From what I heard of the books themselves, they appear to have a very direct agenda. As the author of the books, Phillip Pullman has directly stated that he intends to "kill God in the minds of children." It may just be me, but it seems like his trilogy here isn't worried about raising children up to be open-minded about religion.

Funny. I just had a thought. Do you think this whole thing might backfire on him? All these children who read these books are going to grow up, hear the words right from Pullman's mouth, and consequently, requestion everything he told them. I mean look at this:
"kill God in the minds of children"
That just sounds so brainwashy. I mean I don't mean to bash him; I love that he's direct and honest (except for this whole movie scheme). But I'm thinking now that it may have been unwise of him to state his intentions so directly and publicly.

On the other hand, I think differently of taking a child to church, aside from the benefit of an improved morality, it isn't nearly as much of a brainwash as atheism can be.

That's completely a case-by-case scenario. Also, for future reference, you might want to watch your wording a little more carefully.

eh? Elaborate sir. You can throw a jab or two at me, I don't mind. #box8yy#

Again, the idea I'm getting from the picture is not so much a question of faith as the organizations that form behind such beliefs. The book may or may not be different, but that is not relevant, unless you want to go burn some books.

I love books. The only issue I have with this set here is that it targets children with a topic that I don't see suiting them very well (and that's putting it very lightly).

[Sinistrous]

I mention specifics in regards to the age group because children's books generally have a somewhat specific audience there. For example, remember the Redwall books? Those were mostly aimed at 13 - 15 year olds (or something). What would you say is this books aim in age group? Being simply aimed at children isn't very specific.

I'll leave most of your other points on hold for now, until we can get that answered since it seems more clear that we're restricting discussion to the books now, limiting movie discussion to how it will promote the book.

Anyway, since you asked so nicely =P...

On the other hand, I think differently of taking a child to church, aside from the benefit of an improved morality, it isn't nearly as much of a brainwash as atheism can be.

That's completely a case-by-case scenario. Also, for future reference, you might want to watch your wording a little more carefully.

eh? Elaborate sir. You can throw a jab or two at me, I don't mind.

The bolded phrase could easily be construed as you admitting that teaching children about God is without exception some form of brainwashing (isn't nearly as much of) whereas teaching children atheistic philosophies is only brainwashing on some occasion (can be). And linguistics aside, there are plenty of cases in which children are brainwashed to hideous extents by Judeo-Christian church groups as opposed to the minority of parents that tell their kids that God doesn't exist (and I honestly don't see how the latter could be interpreted as brainwashing at all).

[Dja Majista]

nocturneinbm said:

I mention specifics in regards to the age group because children's books generally have a somewhat specific audience there. For example, remember the Redwall books? Those were mostly aimed at 13 - 15 year olds (or something). What would you say is this books aim in age group? Being simply aimed at children isn't very specific.

I'll leave most of your other points on hold for now, until we can get that answered since it seems more clear that we're restricting discussion to the books now, limiting movie discussion to how it will promote the book.

Courtesy of wiki. Pullman states:

If I think about the audience I’d like to have, I don’t think about a particular age group, or a particular gender, or a particular class or ethnic group or anything specific at all. ... I’d like to think that I’m telling the sort of story that holdeth children from play and old men from the chimney corner, in the old phrase of Sir Philip Sidney. 'Everyone is welcome, and no one is shut out, and I hope each reader will find a tale worth spending time with.'

You're asking for specifics? You won't get any. But I will not neglect this preceding statement either. Written by the author of the wiki article:

Although the series is marketed to young adults, the audience includes many adult readers.

My retort: to be marketed to does not necessarily imply to be exclusive to; just as the audience includes many adult readers. No doubt adults read to their children as well.

He writes so that young children can understand. That is what's most important here. And by no means is the message itself ambiguous. It's quite straightforward, if you would like to read the summary on wiki.

Anyway, since you asked so nicely =P...

eh? Elaborate sir. You can throw a jab or two at me, I don't mind.

The bolded phrase could easily be construed as you admitting that teaching children about God is without exception some form of brainwashing (isn't nearly as much of) whereas teaching children atheistic philosophies is only brainwashing on some occasion (can be).

brainwashing, brainwashing (for lack of a better word, understand that I am using this one very liberally). Undoubtedly, the idea of Sunday school is indeed a degree of brainwashing, just as is telling a child there is no God. Both ways, it is a forced and imposed view by an authoritative entity upon an impressionable one (<<my definition for brainwashing here ).

I'm arguing that teaching a child atheistic beliefs is a more dangerous brainwashing in that it proves to be a more difficult dogma to question objectively even as the subject matures. On the other hand, Christianity is a much more reversible dogma in that it is let go of most freely.

And linguistics aside, there are plenty of cases in which children are brainwashed to hideous extents by Judeo-Christian church groups as opposed to the minority of parents that tell their kids that God doesn't exist (and I honestly don't see how the latter could be interpreted as brainwashing at all).

And I'm not condoning that either.
There aren't many cases today where churches make people believe something by force.
We're talking about the effected society. (Which includes most developed nations, almost all of which are democratic to some extent. The adults here are generally free to believe what they will with little to no government restrictions.) Not a past or theoretical society in which a church has authority over the state. In those days, yes, Christianity was not to be questioned, which personally I think shows a lack of faith on their part.

[Sinistrous]

Of course he says that, but that doesn't mean shit to me, if you would pardon my French. I should have phrased my points better, my apologies. I have no doubt that the Redwall books were aimed at both young and old as well, but who ends up with most of them? Middle-schoolers (grades 6 - 8, for those who aren't familiar). Have you ever seen Easy Rider? Really big movie with college kids and hippies, not quite as much elsewhere (though it's not exclusive at all either).

But I ramble again. Let me be frank: have you actually read this material, not just the wikipedia summary? Because as far as you know, someone trying to get the book banned could have wrote that there (the true curse of wikipedophilia).

Aside from that, I would advise against using the term 'brainwashing' with your own definition, especially considering how that word is often used. I understood what you were saying, but it's a term used to describe "any technique designed to manipulate human thought or action against the desire, will, or knowledge of the individual" (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9016186/brainwashing). Essentially, you're using it incorrectly, though I do see the point you're trying to make.

[darthrevan]

I just saw Azumanga Daioh at anime club (missed the 1^st episode of a group meeting. We got to episode 8). I thought that it was okay. There a few laughs here and there, mostly with the perverted teacher. I like the part where they were folk dancing, and that one girl had to dance with the teacher. Another part is when they took pictures with the person in the cat suit, to find it was that teacher inside.

update: I just looked at this post I just made, then I looked at my info at the left. It said that I'm offline. I just made a post and everything, and it says that I'm offline.

Weird...

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

darthrevan said:

I just saw Azumanga Daioh at anime club (missed the 1^st episode of a group meeting. We got to episode 8). I thought that it was okay. There a few laughs here and there, mostly with the perverted teacher. I like the part where they were folk dancing, and that one girl had to dance with the teacher. Another part is when they took pictures with the person in the cat suit, to find it was that teacher inside.

update: I just looked at this post I just made, then I looked at my info at the left. It said that I'm offline. I just made a post and everything, and it says that I'm offline.

Weird...

It had you under invisible mode.

[darthrevan]

Oh that's why. Duh

Anyway back on topic.