×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Texas Governor As E3 Keynote Speaker Causes Strife

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the keynotes-inciting-riots-a-new-popularity-tactic dept.

Games 272

Zonk pointed out a post on Joystiq highlighting a recent tantrum thrown by the ESA. Apparently the ESA didn't appreciate the framing GamePolitics chose to use for a story about E3's Keynote speaker and Texas Governor, Rick Perry. GamePolitics continues to call Perry into question as a choice for keynote speaker, saying: "While there are surely many Christians among E3 attendess, there are just as surely many who aren't. Aside from the fact that Perry was a bizarre keynote choice from the get-go, his divisive comments indicate that the ESA should rescind the offer. We have to ask again: why is E3 2008 being politicized? The answer, we suspect, has much to do with embattled ESA boss Michael Gallagher."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

272 comments

ESA? (4, Funny)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644563)

What's the European Space Agency got to do with gaming?

Re:ESA? (1)

jdigriz (676802) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644661)

I was thinking the same thing.

Re:ESA? (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644943)

I was, too.

I'm still not sure exactly what ESA is being discussed. Something to do with gaming, it seems, but nobody in the article actually mentions it, and the article itself is so completely boring and uninformative that I'm not interested enough to find out.

Re:ESA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645317)

It took me a while to figure out which Michael Gallagher [wikipedia.org], turns out it's the one labeled "(US politician) (appointed 2003), American presidential adviser".

Re:ESA? (1, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644743)

I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again: Editors really need to learn how to use the <acronym> and <abbr> tags. It would make things so much more convenient.

Don't be silly (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645287)

It's clearly the Entomological Society of America, who was concerned because of E3's promotion of buggy software.

Yeah, they were pretty bugged about the whole thing.

Oh, Rick Perry, what the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644567)

I loved you as the frontman for Journey, just get back to touring already.

Don't stop, believin' Hold on to that feelin' Street lights, people.

Re:Oh, Rick Perry, what the hell (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645149)

I loved you as the frontman for Journey
I thought Rick Perry was the guitar player for Aerosmith. That's quite a family, with two famous rockers and a governor of Texas.

Re:Oh, Rick Perry, what the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23646211)

You're thinking of Steve Perry.

Ted Kennedy may be walking around fine now... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644587)

but I guarantee you that Mary Jo Kopechne isn't. Kennedy might've dodged justice this time, but eventually he'll have to answer for what he did to that poor girl...

So (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644601)

How does using one's beliefs to exclude him from an event fall into anything but discrimination? Sounds like the same thing the Christians are always accused of doing.

Re:So (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645059)

How does using one's beliefs to exclude him from an event fall into anything but discrimination? Sounds like the same thing the Christians are always accused of doing.
Its not his religious beliefs, but rather what statements he makes in regards to them as a public figure. If, for example, I'm white, that doesn't automatically make me racist. but if I talk about how non-whites will go to hell, it would. and it would be the racism, not the white that would exclude me from being an appropriate speaker for an event with both groups.

In the same way, its not being Christian that is the problem here, but his statements in regards to a good proportion of the people who may attend the keynote and the hell-ward direction he indicates for them.

Re:So (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645269)

What. Like it or not, Christianity says that non-Christians will go to hell. If you don't believe that then I guess you've got nothing to worry about and his comments shouldn't bother you. It's not like they affect how he administrates his state. That's a tenant of the religion and there are plenty of Christians in office. Would you outlaw that religion?

Re:So (2, Insightful)

Bat Country (829565) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645675)

To the extent to which it applies to a debate such as this, that religion already is "outlawed."

As are all others.

The separation of church and state is one of the foundational concepts of the USA, and vocally religious politicians should be raising red flags everywhere - not just at E3.

Although it's not specifically illegal to be a hate-mongering racist and religious bigot - and a politician at the same time if it doesn't get in the way of his policies - it's still considered to be pretty bad form considering the stated goals [wikipedia.org] at the foundation of the USA.

People who are stridently against the foundational principles of my country are typically not invited to my fucking fondue parties.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645789)

s/tenant/tenet/;

Re:So (5, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646245)


"It's not like they affect how he administrates his state. That's a tenant of the religion and there are plenty of Christians in office. Would you outlaw that religion?

No, but it is extremely desirable for politicians holding public office to compartmentalize their religious views and try to keep them private, especially when said views are offensive to many of their constituents. Believe it or not many people dislike it when the person running their state or nation tells them they are going to go to hell for their personal religious views. It is a statement which is a strong indicator of bias, and that the person saying it believes you are an inferior to him because of your personal religious views. Doesn't really matter when its one private citizen holding this view about another. It matters a lot when its the chief law enforcement officer of a state or nation saying it, because that person makes life and death decisions which influence large numbers of people, someone who has a LOT of power over your life. Try being an officer in the U.S. military these days because the deck is stacked against you if you aren't devoutly religious(preferably born again Christian).

Religious people just don't get it, but separation of church and state, is just as much in their interest as it is of atheists and minority religions. The founding fathers implemented it because many of the people in America fled to America to escape state sponsored religious persecution in Europe. They knew first hand how horrible it was to live in a country where the government favored one religion and persecuted, often brutally, all the others. The Spanish inquisition sucked and it is a logical outcome of letting religious bias permeate government. The only fair and equitable way to avoid state sponsored religious bias is to keep religion out of government all together. The founding fathers did the right thing in separation of church and state, and religious people need to "get" that.

If people were really religious for the right reasons they would have no problem keeping their religion private. They would realize religion should be something between an individual, their god(s) and maybe the members of their their church. As soon as you start inflicting your religion on others, against their will, you cross a dreadful line where your religion has become a weapon, and not a path for self enlightenment.

Just curious, how many self proclaimed atheists or agnostics hold high elected office in this country? Very, very few, because they are for all practical purposes precluded from getting elected in this country, they are practically outlawed from holding high public office now. If you want to get elected to any serious political office in this country its a simple fact you are going find Jesus or at least Jehovah, one way or another, even if deep in your heart you don't believe in it. That creates a seed of hypocrisy and dishonesty to self in a lot of politicians that flowers in to a lot of corrupt elected officials.

Re:So (1)

yourpusher (161612) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646343)

Well, my belief system says that you're a douchebag. What, I should have kept that to myself? Huh. I wonder if that advice might apply elsewhere. Funny, eh?

Re:So (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23646379)

That's a tenant of the religion

No, it isn't. The tenant would be the man that lives in the basement. I suspect you mean "tenet", in which case you would find the statement "non-Christians will go to hell" to not be exactly the truth. Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father save through me" which isn't exactly the same statement.

Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645275)

> In the same way, its not being Christian that is the problem here, but his statements in regards to a good proportion of the people who may attend the keynote and the hell-ward direction he indicates for them.

What the hell has that to do with electronics or gaming? You're still saying he should be excluded because of his beliefs and I don't see how it's relevant to the function at hand other than there are some people who don't like him.

Re:So (5, Informative)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645133)

No one is trying to exclude Perry from going to E3. They're simply point out that his endorsement of an extremist preacher make him a rather bizarre choice of E3 keynote speaker.

The article is quite bizarre though, since they could point out one of the many things that have made him incredibly unpopular in his home state (and led him to almost be defeated by a ridiculously underfunded Democrat in a red state). He's a completely incompetent governor who's best known in his state for trying to push through mandatory vaccines for his drug company friends, toll roads for his transportation friends, or vetoing bills he'd pledged to support only after the legislature had adjourned and could do nothing about it.

Which I suppose might make him a great E3 keynote speaker. Maybe they have a long history of incompetents.

try not to be *too* stupid (5, Insightful)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645179)

Having a politician give a keynote speech at a gaming convention makes as much sense as a game developer giving the keynote address at a brain surgeon's convention. Or a blues guitarist making a keynote speech at a convention for criminal lawyers. Or Willie Nelson giving a keynote for the DEA.

I know the governor signed a law to provide incentives to game developers, and sure, let him make a speech at the E3. Knock yourselves out. But to give the keynote address when he's not in the industry makes no goddamn sense, as does your blathering about "discrimination".

Rick Perry? Bleeh (4, Informative)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644647)

If you need to have your drug or toll road rail-roaded through the state legislature at the expense of hard working tax payers for no community gain, then you call Rick Perry. I can only imagine what conservative or money pocket lining initiative Rick Perry is up to in speaking at E3

Re:Rick Perry? Bleeh (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645957)

Which is why I personally think it is hilarious that it is almost always the war mongering,payoff taking,poor screwing,corrupt as hell politicians that claim to be big on Jesus and the bible. Apparently they forget the whole "Love thy neighbor as thyself" bit or the whole "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God" bit.


Of course that fact that ANYONE would agree with Hagee who has stated on many occasions that the ultimate goal of Christians should be to help get World War III started to hasten the return of Jesus and that Hitler was doing the work of God just boggles my mind. It just goes to show you a sleazy politician will go wherever the money is no matter who's butt he has to kiss. But that is my 02c,YMMV

Religion vs politics (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644695)

Why can't people just keep them apart? Most of the mess in the world would never happen if people could do just that.

Re:Religion vs politics (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644869)

Because most religions fall into politics. For example, if your religion has a commandment disallowing stealing, then most people wouldn't be to happy if stealing was permitted. Then there is the issue of say I have a Christmas tree in my store along with a nativity scene which should be allowed under the "freedom of religion" part of the constitution, however some person that doesn't share my religion is offended so I can't do that. So really, it is almost to where it isn't a matter of just the people with a religion but also those who don't want anything to do with religion and any mention of religion offends them.

Re:Religion vs politics (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645019)

Oddly enough, given how much whining there is from the Christian contingent on this one, it turns out that indeed, you are allowed to have a nativity scene in your privately owned store. If your customers don't like it, they're free to go elsewhere. Even the ACLU agrees with this, and has defended it in court.

What you aren't allowed to do is put one in, for example, city hall. Because that's public space, intended to be used by and represent all people, even those who don't happen to share your religion.

Amazing the not so subtle distinctions the "Christians are being persecuted" crowd likes to plaster over to try to come off as victims.

Re:Religion vs politics (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645303)

Actually, you can't necessarily put a nativity scene up in a workplace without risking a lawsuit.
Not by your customers (who are free to just f*** off) but by your employees.

You can be claimed to be forcing your religion on employees which is actionable. It isn't as cut and dry as the city hall example, since no one would have standing to sue if you were the only employee. But it could be claimed that the employee's right to a nonhostile workplace overrides your right to freedom of religous expression.

(And speaking of rights - Captcha: tortures.)

Re:Religion vs politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645051)

You can do whatever you want and offend whoever you want in a private business. The fact that many businesses are afraid to offend people because it might cost them a customer is another matter. But just because you might offend someone, doesn't mean anything.

Idiots being stupid, film at 11 (0, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644701)

Bagging a governor as a keynote speaker is generally a good thing PR wise. Some dipshits who can't see that is nothing new, and can't resist tunring an ordinary thing into yet another opportunity to flog their fringe political positions is all too common.

Summary after reading the links: Nothing to see here, move along.

please furnish examples (4, Insightful)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644921)



Some dipshits who can't see that is nothing new,

Ok, who were the governors that gave previous keynote speeches at E3?

You shouldn't be surprised that people on Slashdot would question Perry's credentials for speaking at a video game industry expo. Like President Bush, Perry can't figure out a way to properly archive his emails for longer than a week [capitolannex.com]. They just don't have the server space, he claims. And this guy grasps technology well enough that he should be treated as an inspired speaker at a video game convention?

Clearly, his administration could easily sort out how to archive all staff email. They're just claiming technical ignorance while it's convenient for them to obfuscate their communications. When it comes to Perry ramping up a run for the White House, oh, he's a technical genius!

Seth

fringe political beliefs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645193)

Objecting to public officials with a record of inflammatory public statements about otherwise innocent segments of the citizenry is "fringe"?

Sadly come to think of it you might be right in the current decayed state of our great democratic experiment. :/ Damn those immigrants, gays, and atheists for ... well, for just being around and not being WASPy I guess. If only our citizenry were only Fine, Upstanding White Men of Wealth and Means!

GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (5, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644723)

It seems fair to ask whether GamePolitics is motivated by anti-Christian or anti-religious bigotry in their coverage. There's no information to suggest that the keynote speech was going to have a religious theme or message of any kind.

A lot of game companies are located in Texas. The governor of Texas seems like he might have some interest in that.

The ESA is doing a poor job lately and the TX governor seems like a poor choice for an E3 speaker. Most people might suggest someone in the game business instead.

But none of that is an excuse for bigotry against religious folks in general or any particular religion. What other reason would GamePolitics have for their attack?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644811)

You might want to look at Perry's history.
Gamepolitics was good to bring this up.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisje (471362) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644815)

Well now, who really needs an excuse for bigotry against religious folks? Hell, they's been doin' it amongst themselves fo' so long now, I reckon us here atheists might as well chime in.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644897)

You seem to assume that GamePolitics is anti-religion ("But none of that is an excuse for bigotry against religious folks in general or any particular religion.").

Any particular reason for that assumption?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (4, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645063)

Because there was no other reason for them to otherwise make special note of the religious nature of attendees.

I've never noticed if my doctor is or is not religious, nor my daughter's crossing guard. I don't know if her teacher is at school either.

The very fact that they cared enough to call attention to this highly irrelevant detail makes them seem anti-christian at the least, if not completely anti-religion.

And for those who dare claim religion is somehow relevant, I'd love to know how you believe a Christian governor is a less qualified speaker at such an event than a non-Christian governor would be. Obviously when framed in that context, it isn't relevant at all.

The fact that this person has nothing to do with the industry is relevant, their knowledge of computing is relevant, but their religious beliefs are completely irrelevant and did not bear mentioning.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (4, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645289)

I've never noticed if my doctor is or is not religious, nor my daughter's crossing guard. I don't know if her teacher is at school either.
A key question here is why don't you know about the religious beliefs of these people? And why do you know about the religious beliefs of the Governor?

Religion is a personal issue. Once you start to make anything private a part of your public life, you invite scrutiny.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645409)

No kidding. People who think this is a big deal need to ask themselves if they'd want Obama to speak at E3. If the answer yes, then do they still want Obama to speak even after he's been associated with a pastor who preaches that God damns the United States and that AIDs is a white conspiracy to kill black people.

Now if anyone wants to start trying to defend Obama's association with Wright, keep in mind that the dirt that GamePolitics raised on Perry is both less controversial than Wright and less related. Perry listened to a single Hagee speech. Obama listened to Wright for twenty years and claimed him as a mentor.

The remarks that they're calling out Perry on are both a universal part of all Christian faiths (so all Christians believe them) and completely irrelevant to atheists. If you're an atheist, what do you care that Christians know you'll be going to Hell? You don't believe in it anyway!

The GamePolitics article can be reduced to this: Perry is a Christian, therefore he's bad. Why is he bad? Because he believes in Christianity.

Forgive me when I don't get all outraged about it.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1)

number11 (129686) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646233)

The remarks that they're calling out Perry on are both a universal part of all Christian faiths (so all Christians believe them)

That's not true, actually (except for certain values of "Christian"). Many Christian faiths do not believe that "non-Christians will be condemned to Hell". I'd suggest you look up the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) or Unitarian Universalists as examples. And over the last few hundred years, the more mainstream sects have gotten away from that belief, too.

Maybe you ought to get out more.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645423)

Well-said; thank you for answering my question!

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645667)


It could be your are seeing backlash from the fact the Republicans have been shoving their Christianity down everyones for a number of years now. Not saying its necessarily right to apply "turn about is fair play", but you can understand why a lot of people have settled in to deep, deep hatred of right wing Republicans who wear their Christianity on their sleeves, and American flags on their lapel, like Perry and Bush. It does seem more than a little odd a gaming convention would choose a lighting rod like that as a keynote, especially since game developers and players probably don't trend toward conservative Republican, nor do they go to a game convention to listen to politician blather especially one as far to one side of the spectrum as Perry. I would say it would be just as odd and inappropriate to have Obama or the Clinton's keynote a convention like this. If you can find a politician who publicly acknowledges being an avid gamer now that might be a great keynoter. I don't think you will find one of any prominence though since gaming has been so demonized I doubt any successful politician would ever admit having played one, let alone being an avid gamer.

The Republicans have, until recently, been extremely adept at exploiting bigotry to get elected, bigotry against gays, against right to lifers, against opponents of the stupid war in Iraq, against atheists and agnostics, against most religions outside of Christianity and Judaism, against Democrats, against pretty much everyone except white, fundamentalist, pro war Christian Republicans. Bigotry against gays alone pretty much one the 2002 and 2004 elections for the Republicans.

The Bush administration has been applying all kinds of unconstitutional litmus tests for people serving in the executive branch over the last seven years, and quite blatantly excluding Democrats, gays, and right to lifers for non political jobs, in the Justice department in particular. They nearly destroyed the Justice department by passing over highly qualified applicants from top law schools, using litmus tests, in favor of under qualified, born again Christians from terrible law schools run by Christian universities. Just google Patrick Henry College and you will discover its become a fast track for placing fundamentalist Christians in top positions in the executive branch which kind of smacks of bigotry and discrimination against people of other religions or no religion at all. Just read Patrick Henry's mission statement:

"The Mission of Patrick Henry College is to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding. Educating students according to a classical liberal arts curriculum, and training them with apprenticeship methodology, the College provides academically excellent baccalaureate level higher education with a biblical world view."

If they were just a fringe college it might not matter but the fact is this College has in fact been fast tracking their students in to top positions in the U.S. government. If the Republican's hadn't so completely botched the last seven years, their long term plan was to turn the U.S. government in to a blatantly religious institution, in violation of the separation of church and state, where these people would be using your tax dollars to inflict their religious views on you.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (2, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646089)

Republicans have been shoving their Christianity down everyones [throats]
Which political party advocates higher taxes for larger government-run social programs (usually with genuine references to Christian charity) again?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23646197)

Trick question, both of the major parties.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645717)

> a Christian governor is a less qualified ...

I refer you to:

"""If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas."""

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1)

TCFOO (876339) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645891)

I don't see why his religion is so important. Would it mater if he was Christian, Jewish, Muslim Atheist, or Hindu? What bearing does religion have on video games, besides the niche market for religious games?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644925)

Why is it that most Christians do their best to jump to conclusions so that they can cry "bigot bigot!"? You said it yourself, and it's probably as simple as that - the ESA covers a lot more than just Texas - GamePolitics calling them on that has as much to do with Christianity as choosing the Texas governor does 'anti-other-states' - that is, nothing.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (4, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645015)

I know this is Slashdot, but it's more interesting to discuss an article like the GamePolitics one if you actually read it. GamePolitics attacked the TX governor on the basis of his religion.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (2, Informative)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645993)

GamePolitics attacked the TX governor on the basis of his religion.
Well, that and the fact that he has absolutely no qualifications for the speech beyond "there are some game studios in Texas" and "he signed a bill someone else wrote that handed out tax money to studios and filmmakers [dailytexanonline.com]". This isn't some kind of high school graduation ceremony or motivational speech, this is the keynote for a technical exposition. I suppose the whole text of the article was easy to overlook in the face of the whole Christian thing, which I do have to agree was in bad taste and basically single-handedly destroyed any chance of having a serious discussion about why the hell a governor is speaking at a games conference.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645029)

Why is it that most Christians do their best to jump to conclusions so that they can cry "bigot bigot!"
It's called a persecution complex, and you should probably replace "most Christians" with "vocal Christians" since they're really two different groups.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1)

strabes (1075839) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646429)

Probably for the same sort of reason you jumped to the conclusion that "most Christians" do this. People have agendas and will do what it takes to get their message heard.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (-1, Troll)

IMightB (533307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645425)

don't you know that cristians have a permanant persecution complex? It's built-in to their religion

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644963)

Before the past few years (coincidentally, also before the Bush Administration years) I would have agreed with you about your last statement. But there has been so much bigotry, hatred, and plain intolerance exhibited by religious extremists (almost synonymous with the right wing zealots) that I think "live and let live" is not the proper motto to live by in this day and age, but instead "an eye for an eye" or "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I am not ashamed to admit "good men" here means anti-religious people, or at least anti-religious extremists.

Paradoxical or hypocritical as it may sound, I think we need to fight intolerance with intolerance.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645503)

Paradoxical or hypocritical as it may sound, I think we need to fight intolerance with castration.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645007)

Sure, it's fair to ask. I don't see it, though. From what I have seen, living in Austin, TX, Perry hasn't done a whole lot for the video game industry. He's signed a strings-attached bill that it seems he had little to do with- his biggest claim is that he is very, very, very business friendly and he lives in a state that is generally friendly to the industry. It's a business conference, so that may have something to do with his presence. But having him as the speaker politicizes the event. Having this type of scrutiny towards a public figure, Christian, atheist, or any other denomination, isn't untoward.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (0, Troll)

jaspeers (550101) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645023)

"It seems fair to ask whether GamePolitics is motivated by anti-Christian or anti-religious bigotry in their coverage. " Who's the bigot? The incident they mentioned involved the Governor agreeing with the infamous preacher Hagee, who said non-Christians will "burn in hell." Wait--who's the bigot here? How is it okay to think that a large group of people--most of the world--will and should burn for eternity in a pit of fire, but it's not okay to condemn people who believe such evil fairy tales?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (4, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645099)

What does that have to do with E3 or the ESA? Why would GamePolitics bring it up to attack someone?

It's completely off topic and not relevant to anything.

GamePolitics might as well have said the TX governor was fat or had the wrong skin color or some other nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with the subject. But they chose a religion-based attack. Other than bigotry, what might cause someone to make that choice?

anti-bigot bigotry?? what planet are you from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645123)

Um. Is it bigotry now to point out that a public figure has in the past issued bigoted statements? Perry is on record saying some rather inflammatory things about, just for example, atheists and homosexuals (JFGI). You might not like people like that yourself, but you've got to face that they're citizens just like you and deserving of equal governmental service.

As a texpat, I can also assure you that Gov. Goodhair is no more qualified to be a keynote speaker at a technical conference than a potted plant is. Post Reconstruction (thanks yankees!) we've tried to elect the weakest possible people to the Governorship, and Perry is about the figurehead-iest example of that possible, surpassing even our current President in terms of intellectual vapidity and over-reliance on underlings to do anything more complicated than play poker or fart.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1)

rtechie (244489) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646177)

It seems fair to ask whether GamePolitics is motivated by anti-Christian or anti-religious bigotry in their coverage. There's no information to suggest that the keynote speech was going to have a religious theme or message of any kind.
How is pointing out Rick Perry is a right-wing nut (in general, GamePolitics just gave one example) "anti-Christian" or "anti-religious"? Rick Perry is the one who is anti-religious, and (in Christian nomenclature), an Anti-Christ or Anti-Christian, because he feigns Christianity but does not actually hold to Christian values.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (1)

FelixGordon (1132635) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646395)

I think a lot of athiests would prefer that the opinions of religious people be completely disregarded.

In that light, it's sort of funny really, taking issue with the vocal Christian being chosen as the E3 keynote speaker, not that the same guy is, in fact, a state governor.

Good day for the bored at work (2, Funny)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644751)

Congratulations on today's topics, first we get a "lawyer bashes GPL" thread, and now the Pharyngula crowd gets to jump all over the Christian Republican Politician. If he'd just owned Microsoft shares, this would be perfect.

Re:Good day for the bored at work (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644849)

Congratulations on today's topics, first we get a "lawyer bashes GPL" thread, and now the Pharyngula crowd gets to jump all over the Christian Republican Politician.
Do you really think anyone cares that the guy is a Christian?

Religious Fundamentalism of any stripe is almost always antithetical to the ideas behind a free and modern society.

Re:Good day for the bored at work (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644889)

Just trying to be cheeky there; the guy has nearly all the proper attributes despised by the average /. crowd.
And that was before I realized he was W's replacement as Texas Gov.

Perry Hater (3, Insightful)

mojatt (704902) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644779)

The only reason Rick Perry is even Governor of Texas is because G.W. Bush was elected Commander in Chief!

Until recently I lived in Texas with Rick Perry as Governor. Never liked his policies, his political decisions or personal choices on a wide range of topics. Not only that but the guy is a complete buffoon when it comes to technology, he's solely in the position for money and power (the worst type of politician IMO). The guy had to know that GW was going to run for Pres., assuring him the top seat in Texas. Shame, shame on him.

Re:Perry Hater (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645053)

...he's solely in the position for money and power (the worst type of politician IMO)
What other kind is there? Cite examples of living people, please. There isn't much upside to the job otherwise.

Re:Perry Hater (1)

mojatt (704902) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645353)

...he's solely in the position for money and power (the worst type of politician IMO)
What other kind is there? Cite examples of living people, please. There isn't much upside to the job otherwise.
That's the thing, not sure I can. I just didn't want to get too preachy by saying that all are greedy and self-serving, that our political system is broken and needs a major revamp, that I'm sick of being stuck with only two parties, etc, etc... that's just begging for a flame war. :P

E3 in a by gone day (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644789)

I remember when E3 used to be a real convention and not a , "I know so and so and we can get press tickets to get in!" event. The convention had so much going for it and the event planners ruined it by making it invite only. Honestly who cares what Mr. Perry's religious affiliation is. Let him be the key note speaker. Heck since I've started who cares about race and gender. Have we gone back to 1960 here? We're all human beings. Who cares what our beliefs, skin color, or birth place is. :-)

New Game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644805)

Panty Twist

Editors: Something's missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644857)

Sometimes I read a Slashdot story, and I wonder if I'm an idiot for not knowing the context.

Sure, I know what E3 is, but what is ESA? What part of the keynote speech was divisive? Why does the religion of E3 attendees matter?

Maybe everyone else already knows these things, but just one sentence of summary in the blurb would really help me out.

New internet meme! (1)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644865)

First we got Rick Rolled.

Now we're going to get Rick Perry'ed.

What is the internet coming to?!

E3? ESA? What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23644907)

How about making sensible posts rather than posts only the worst morons would understand? Not all of us are idiots that play computer games. We're not all lazy idiots that live in our parent's basements.

So, what did they learn? (5, Insightful)

Loopy (41728) | more than 5 years ago | (#23644979)

Reading the original complaint about Perry giving the keynote, they have these "odd" feelings about the choice because the only thing they can see tying him to the video games industry is Perry's signing of some entertainment-related legislation. Forget about the ESA's mission statement of "serving the business and public affairs needs of companies that publish video and computer games," or that governors have much to do with legislation and other areas that directly affect their state's business and industry. In the end, the complaint seems to focus on some nefarious right-wing sub-plot linked via the ESA chairman having "deep Republican roots, as does Perry."

Then, in another article, they link the "E3 speaker" to "divisive" comments regarding his belief in non-Christians' path to hell in questions asked of him _on that topic_ way back in 2006, as if those have a particular bearing on anything he might say at E3 2008.

First mistake: claiming agreement with someone who shared basic beliefs as proof that he'd get up on stage and proselytize. Hate western religion much?

Second mistake: not researching someone's "quote" because, since it agrees with your bias, it must be true.

One wonders whether a professed atheist, an Islamic mullah or Wiccan priest, instead of one of those dastardly Republicans, would get the same scrutiny or presumption of bias or other "odd" or "bizarre" feelings.

Re:So, what did they learn? (2, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645437)

Well, I'd say you're probably right to wonder ... I'm pretty sure they would. Perry is a bad choice all around. You can spend some time reading the millions of links to websites with stories about him, but this is a good one to start with:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/25/texas-doomed/ [badastronomy.com]

Mr Perry has made some blatantly ill-advised choices. Supporting Rudy for Pres was one of them. His views on many topics that relate to gaming either directly or indirectly make him quite a questionable choice. Perhaps Jack Thompson was busy and Perry was the second choice? -- not really a fair comment, but it sounded funny to me.. sigh

While searching through Google'd info about Mr Perry, see if you can find his name near 'video game' anywhere except on the explanation of the DMCA on his official website. I had trouble finding anything. Try searching with the -E3 option.

Choosing a politician to speak in an election year is practically BEGGING them to politicize the presentation. Being republican, and a Bush crony, it's hard to imagine that anything good will come of this. That said, it is not a foregone conclusion that it will totally suck either, it just seems a bad choice. There is not much to say about Mr Perry and video games except he likes game creators to have their businesses in Texas instead of elsewhere... really? How does that make him relevant to E3? I have to admit I can't find any reason that he should be on the short list, never mind the final choice. YMMV

Re:So, what did they learn? (3, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645537)

One wonders whether a professed atheist, an Islamic mullah or Wiccan priest, instead of one of those dastardly Republicans, would get the same scrutiny or presumption of bias or other "odd" or "bizarre" feelings.
I bet the mullah would if he was speaking at a porn convention. Government intervention in video games is such a hot-button issue, it's no surprise that getting government officials as keynote speakers raises as much ire as eyebrow.

I think pretty much everyone would much rather both parties just shut up and kept the government out of the games business. On the one hand you've got Democrats like Tipper Gore (needs no introduction) or Hillary, Lieberman, and hell, just about all of the rest of them [gamespot.com] etc. who want a nanny state that tells you what you're permitted to think, say and do; and on the other hand you've got Republicans like Joseph Pitts [watchblog.com] or Mitt Romney [pcworld.com] who want... a nanny state that tells you what you're permitted to think, say and do. (For what it's worth, Perry keeps his mouth shut about however he feels.)

And of course regardless of who does it, once that nanny state is established, it opens the door for people like the one-and-only (we all hope so dearly) Jack Thompson to come in and really fuck everything up.

Fundamentalist (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645715)

First problem: The guy has no technology chops.
Second problem: He's a fundamentalist Christian. A Buddhist or Jewish fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion. A Wiccan fundamentalist doesn't care if you believe he or she can perform magic.

A Christian or Muslim fundamentalist believes that human lives are expendable if extinguished in the name of God. They deserve neither respect nor even common courtesy. If not for their religion, they would be correctly labeled sociopaths and imprisoned for inciting and participating in violence and wars of aggression.

Re:Fundamentalist (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646273)

A Buddhist or Jewish fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion. A Wiccan fundamentalist doesn't care if you believe he or she can perform magic.
It might be time to research the term fundamentalist. ie one who returns to the fundamentals.

A Buddhist fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion. Check, Buddhism is almost totally inwardly focussed.

A Jewish fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion unless it comes to one of the many points of law dealing with separation of the Hebrew people from the Gentiles. If the JF is not a Sadducee, then he doesn't think Gentiles get into Heaven. If he is, then he doesn't believe in Heaven.

I claim no knowledge of Wiccan beliefs... Skipping

A Christian or Muslim fundamentalist believes that human lives are expendable if extinguished in the name of God. They deserve neither respect nor even common courtesy. If not for their religion, they would be correctly labeled sociopaths and imprisoned for inciting and participating in violence and wars of aggression.
A Christian fundamentalist believes that all (human) life is sacred, and that "turning the cheek" is the best option (violence in defense of others only). The fundamental (original) Christians purportedly went to their deaths without a fight. Medieval crazies believed all life to be expendable and used God's name to fool the unlearned.

A true Islamic fundamentalist doesn't think life is expendable either. An Islamic terrorist might, but they're not the same thing.

Christian (or Islamic) Fundementalist != Holy War (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646357)

He's a fundamentalist Christian. A Buddhist or Jewish fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion. A Wiccan fundamentalist doesn't care if you believe he or she can perform magic.

A Christian or Muslim fundamentalist believes that human lives are expendable if extinguished in the name of God. They deserve neither respect nor even common courtesy. If not for their religion, they would be correctly labeled sociopaths and imprisoned for inciting and participating in violence and wars of aggression.


You are terribly misusing the word "fundamentalist", and in so doing, lumping those that simply believe strongly in their religion into the same basket as terrorists. There are plenty of Christians or Muslims that you, I, and themselves, would consider fundamentalist that are not, in fact, dedicated to Holy War. Certainly there are sects/factions of both religions that are, but it is a disservice to members of both religions to lump all of them into the same category of psychopathic terrorists.

I ask you this: if you stuck a gun in the hand of the Governor of Texas, led him to a roomful of atheists (or Muslims), and told him that he was free to shoot whomever he wanted with no repercussions if he felt they deserved death for not yet being "saved", would he pull the trigger? I think not. He may be a fundamentalist, but I doubt he is a complete and total nutjob.

I would consider a religious fundamentalist to be somebody to believes that their particular views on God/Deity/Force of choice have a monopoly on the truth, and that those that do not share those beliefs are damned to (or at least tending to) Hell/Unenlightment/Eternal Unpleasantness.

I think those that hold those views are loony, since they have of course have no way of confirming their views, but that doesn't make them psychotic maniacs.

Nor do I think that the only religious nutjobs are Christian or Muslim. There just happen to be a lot more members of those religions than most others, and they have had plenty of time to get real pissed off... There are violent Bhuddist monks, and I am sure that you can find a Wiccan or two, somewhere in the world, that thinks their beliefs are worth somebody else's life. There are certainly some Jews (extreme Zionists) that believe that the killing of others is justified in order to set up their version of an ideal holy land. By no means are these views shared by most (or even many) of the adherents of those traditions, but every group has some bad apples that get carried away.

SirWired

Re:So, what did they learn? (1)

rtechie (244489) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646235)

Then, in another article, they link the "E3 speaker" to "divisive" comments regarding his belief in non-Christians' path to hell in questions asked of him _on that topic_ way back in 2006, as if those have a particular bearing on anything he might say at E3 2008.
If Rick Perry was Grand Wizard of the KKK would you still want him as the keynote speaker at E3? I mean, it's not like racism has anything to do with gaming so it's unlikely that he'd comment. Or does such a bad reputation mean that you don't want your event associated with him?

Re:So, what did they learn? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646255)

Forget about the ESA's mission statement of "serving the business and public affairs needs of companies that publish video and computer games," or that governors have much to do with legislation and other areas that directly affect their state's business and industry.

Didn't anyone pay attention to the presidental race in 2000? There were comments made that Bush was qualified by leading one of the largest states. But, being a native Texan, I remember the accurate comments that the Governor of Texas was about the 3rd or 4th most powerful elected position in the state. I'd say first was the lieutenant governor, second and third are between the comptroller and the railroad commissioner. Fourth is the governor. It's not so in all states, but in Texas the governor is a neutered puppy figurehead. Well, so I guess it was a good training ground for Bush, but certainly not a prominent position in legislation. The lieutenant governor sets the legislative schedules and has much more to do with what gets passed than the governor. If the governor doesn't want it passed, the veto could be overturned. If the lieutenant governor doesn't want it passed, he can make sure no one ever votes on it, much like being the chairman of every committee in the US Congress silmultaniously. Oh, and for those wondering, the comptroller controls the money and the lotery, and the railroad commissioner controls everything transportion related, like the trucking industry.

One wonders whether a professed atheist, an Islamic mullah or Wiccan priest, instead of one of those dastardly Republicans, would get the same scrutiny or presumption of bias or other "odd" or "bizarre" feelings.

It happens all the time. Usually the people give better excuses than "I don't like him because he's black" but that's quite often the cause of the complaints. More than once a perfectly qualified black person was doing something public and I heard someone say something about "affirmative action" or something, implying that he wasn't qualified or that a white person would have been able to do the job better. Hell, when it comes to affirmative action, those that benefited from the idea most are the ones against it. Bush got into Yale because of who his daddy is, despite the fact he was underqualified. Yet if a black person gets in because of who his daddy is (black), that's somehow a bad thing. The people most against affirmative action in politics are people that got what they have because of who their parents are. Yet, somehow, they don't think that hypocritical. Or, better yet, listen to some of the mysoginst stuff the talk radio people say about Clinton or the comments on Obama (black being downplayed in favor of the Muslim target painted on him). So yes, when Democrats or Liberals or whatever are chosen for something, there are people that will question why and make personal comments about it.

Rick Perry - Mister 39 (3, Insightful)

mgbastard (612419) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645095)

Governor Perry is known now as Mr. 39 in Texas. He won the last governor's race, for his third term, in 2006 with only 39% of the popular vote. 61% of Texas Voters don't want him either.

The election is a plurality, so there is no runoff, no second choicing on the ballot. There were four serious candidates.

Re:Rick Perry - Mister 39 (2, Informative)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645329)

Had it been a two way race between him and the Democratic candidate, Perry still would have won. So I don't think that that 39% really means that much. On the other hand, Perry is widely disliked. Although Christian conservatives have supported him in the past, it has become clear to them that Perry's political ambitions far outweigh any principles he might hold. After all, his initial support of requiring a cervical cancer vaccine [cbsnews.com] showed to people like me that he can be bribed into doing the right thing even if it pisses off the Christian Right.

Personally, I voted Kinky [kinkyfriedman.com].

Re:Rick Perry - Mister 39 (3, Informative)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645549)

After all, his initial support of requiring a cervical cancer vaccine [cbsnews.com] showed to people like me that he can be bribed into doing the right thing even if it pisses off the Christian Right.
Kinda scary when people consider forcing people to inject themselves with chemicals "the right thing." Whatever happened to freedom? Silly question..

I'm serious--left or right--one wants to control your bedroom and read your email, and the other one wants to control your pocketbook take care of you (and if you don't like it, screw off). Meh. I would have voted Kinky too had I lived in Texas!

Re:Rick Perry - Mister 39 (2, Informative)

distilledprodigy (946341) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645413)

Saying that "61% of Texas Voters don't want him either" is completely disingenuous. It would be more accurate to say that "61% of the Texas voters didn't vote for him.", which only means that 61% wouldn't choose him as their first pick.

Using your logic, 71% of the Texas voters didn't want Bell, 86% didn't want Friedman and 85% didn't want Strayhorn. If you were completely honest, you'd mention tat Strayhorn was a Republican and decided to run as an Independant because she felt she couldn't defeat Perry in the primaries. So it is likely that a large % of the vote for Strayhorn would have gone to Perry. By the same token, Friedman was moderate, but more conservative than liberal-- so some of his 14% would have gone to Perry as well.

The problem, as you mentioned, is that the election is a plurality... This is why we need to adopt a voting system that allows a voter to weigh candidates.

This article is about as relevant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645151)

...as E3 is now post-retooling.

No surprise at the responses really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645199)

/. has become the primary nest for people who think they know, but don't. For people who 'know' they are intelligent, but are not.

My comic relief during the day is when I see a /. topic related to my profession. I then go and read the comments for a good laugh.

"Lookout! A christian with a microphone! Runaway!"

-A non-christian anonymous coward

Giving Perry what he wants (2, Informative)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645231)

My illustrious governor wants to be Vice President. Although he is a Christian Conservative, he was a backer of Guilliani when it looked like Guilliani would be the nominee and would need a southern conservative as a running mate. Of course he quickly swtiched to supporting McCain as soon as that became convenient. Within Texas, Perry's political ambitions are no secret.

Right now, Perry is trying to raise his national profile among conservative Republicans. Giving a "controversial" speech where is pushes Christian values is exactly the kind of thing he wants to build up the reputation he needs.

The best thing that could happen to Perry is if he got ridiculed by liberals for wearing his Christianity on his sleeve. We hare giving he exactly what he wants.

Non-christians condemned to Hell? What? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645283)

Even the Catholic pope says this is brain damage. It's a religion where we are supposed to leave that kind of judgment up to a higher power and give life guidance-- you shouldn't be a rapist or a murderer, okay?? It's not particularly great if you worship other gods either; but a Christian who commits minor adultery (say, fooling around on his wife?) is no better than a non-christian who doesn't, and anyway worshipping another god is a minor issue between you and a deity whereas screwing around on your wife is a crime against another person.

You don't magic up your own pass to Heaven because you give a nod to the right all-powerful creator.

Re:Non-christians condemned to Hell? What? (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645491)

a Christian who commits minor adultery (say, fooling around on his wife?)

How is that 'minor' adultery? Sounds to me like, well... adultery. Unqualified and plain adultery with no excuses.

In fact I'm not clear that there is such a thing as minor adultery. Jesus - whose teachings most Christians seem to hold in some regard - certainly felt quite strongly [skepticsan...dbible.com] about it:

5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Even the thought of it is enough. You didn't actually do anything with her... but you wanted to, right? And you would have, given the chance? Guilty as charged.

Re:Non-christians condemned to Hell? What? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645543)

I said fooling around in that context. Typically if there's flirting/groping/whatever but no actual sex it's termed "fooling around," whereas we don't call it "adultery" until there's some sort of penetration.

In matters of the heart, I have no comment on that exact stance; however, when in love, a man tends to not agree with his own urges and simply drives himself straight back to the woman who owns his heart.

Re:Non-christians condemned to Hell? What? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23646325)

"And you would have, given the chance?"
Your guilty whether or not you would have given the chance.

Re:Non-christians condemned to Hell? What? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645653)

"..whereas screwing around on your wife is a crime against another person."

A crime? a think not.

Your not even considering situations where the wife knows and agrees with it.

Worshiping another God is FORBIDDEN in the Bible.

Re:Non-christians condemned to Hell? What? (3, Informative)

AaronW (33736) | more than 5 years ago | (#23645865)

Actually according to the 1st commandment it is acceptable. It says basically "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", meaning that you can worship other gods, but that he is the formost or main god and any others are lesser gods. Many people disregard the "before me." but it is there.

light your torches and sharpen your pitchforks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645741)

people like perry should be booed and pelted with rotten fruit wherever they go.

So... This all stems from a bad headline. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23645845)

This stems from a headline in reference to Tex. Gov. Perry acknowledging the statement "Non-Christians will burn in Hell".

Uh, that's one of the core principles of pretty much every variation of the Christian faith. How is that controversial? Yeah, it might be "inflammatory", but not controversial.

Pretty much anyone that identifies themself as a strident Christian should have no problem with that statement.

As a non-Christian Atheist, the proper response is "Well, since I don't believe in Hell, it doesn't really matter, now does it?"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...