Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th May 2011 21:07 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Games There's fail, there's epic fail, and then there's Sony. You may've thought it wasn't possible, but Sony has just outdone itself on the fail scale, forcing us to add yet another notch. During the congressional testimony this morning, Dr Gene Spafford of Purdue University revealed just how badly Sony managed its Playstation Network servers. It's... Bad.
Thread beginning with comment 472005
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Poor analogy
by Icaria on Fri 6th May 2011 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Poor analogy"
Member since:

You are kidding, right? Even if it didn't initially click, you'd have to be some kind of retarded not to see it now. The 'she was asking for it' attitude is still very prevalent and still a massive issue all over the world.

Upon reading, my mind immediately drifted to

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Poor analogy
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 6th May 2011 09:32 in reply to "RE[6]: Poor analogy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Honestly, this is getting way out of hand. This has absolutely nothing to do with rape or anything even remotely related to it. I'm sorry, but I can't help it that a story about a damn *lack of software security* somehow gets linked to *rape*. That's just *insane*. Maybe you guys should spend a little less time in /4chan/, and not link a completely unrelated and perfectly innocent line to something as horrible as rape.

What's next, no more winking smilies?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Poor analogy
by RshPL on Fri 6th May 2011 10:16 in reply to "RE[7]: Poor analogy"
RshPL Member since:

I admit this uproar about political correctness gets extremely annoying at times... Thom please do your thing and do not get discouraged about making innocent naughty comments. ;) This what makes your articles memorable!
Keep up the good work!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Poor analogy
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 6th May 2011 14:06 in reply to "RE[7]: Poor analogy"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

Thom, you posted it. Its a very clear reference to rape in the English language. It has nothing to do with 4 chan. You show that phrase to 1 million native English speaking women of average intelligence in the United States, and 999,999,999 will interpret that as a rape reference. Maybe your mastery of English isn't as good as it appears. Analogies are the most difficult to master.

Just don't put anything like that in any of the documents you translate. But, I'm glad to learn that you were ignorant of its implication.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Poor analogy
by apoclypse on Fri 6th May 2011 16:19 in reply to "RE[7]: Poor analogy"
apoclypse Member since:

While I think rape is a strong word, your analogy is basically saying that as a woman you want the criminals to take advantage of you, if you happen to have short skirts, pouty lips, and bat your eyelashes. Which IMO is quite offensive. It was a statement that made absolutely no sense in this context and what you said associated with "criminals" could in-fact be misconstrued as rape, because what other criminal would care about a woman who was batting their eyelashes, hiking up their skirts and pouting their lips? Someone who was only interested in thievery would be looking at how expensive her earrings were, or what purse she had, not how short her skirt was. I would like to add that just because a woman did in-fact hike up her skirt, pouted her lips and batted her eyelashes that "she was asking for it" which is what you are insinuating. If that were the case woman would have "criminals" very interested in them everytime they went to a club, or a nice restaurant. Apparently they are "asking for it" there too.

Now, had you said "this is tantamount to someone with a million dollars walking down the street with a transparent briefcase in a bad part of town", then that would have made more sense. Instead you said some sensationalist crap with no real logic behind it and then got offended when people misconstrue what is clearly in the subtext of your statement. Please remove from article it doesn't add anything to the conversation and it was just stupid IMO.

Edited 2011-05-06 16:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4