<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Tgr::Box</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tygerbox.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tygerbox.com</link>
	<description>It is as they say: Just another WordPress weblog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:56:09 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Steam games on a Mac: CrossOver Games by Rubel</title>
		<link>http://tygerbox.com/2008/10/06/steam-games-on-a-mac-crossover-games/comment-page-1/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>Rubel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tygerbox.com/?p=172#comment-90</guid>
		<description>Hi there -- interesting blog entry! I just tried the latest Crossover Games demo on my Mac with Beyond the Sword, and I keep getting this unfortunate problem with mouse focus. Sometime it&#039;ll realize that I&#039;ve pressed a button -- other times, nope. I can usually get where I want via tab and arrow keys, but it&#039;s clunky.

Sounds like you didn&#039;t have this problem at all. Have you heard anything about this? I&#039;ll keep looking around. Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi there &#8212; interesting blog entry! I just tried the latest Crossover Games demo on my Mac with Beyond the Sword, and I keep getting this unfortunate problem with mouse focus. Sometime it&#8217;ll realize that I&#8217;ve pressed a button &#8212; other times, nope. I can usually get where I want via tab and arrow keys, but it&#8217;s clunky.</p>
<p>Sounds like you didn&#8217;t have this problem at all. Have you heard anything about this? I&#8217;ll keep looking around. Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Watchmen having been watched by tygerbox</title>
		<link>http://tygerbox.com/2009/03/08/the-watchmen-having-been-watched/comment-page-1/#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>tygerbox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tygerbox.com/?p=223#comment-66</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re right, some of the violence did get to be a bit much.  I wasn&#039;t expecting to see the inside of that guy&#039;s arm in the street fight scene for example.  But as noted before it IS a &quot;dark and violent story&quot;.  My point was that it was not over played, and not played for gratuitous entertainment.  It was heavy-handed, but still measured, so it got your attention when it happened.  And I don&#039;t really have a problem with that - I would prefer that than seeing heaping helpings of watered down violence as entertainment fodder.

A while ago, I heard an interview with David Cronenberg.  No big secret that his films can be pretty heavy-handed in that regard as well.  But when asked about it, he came back with a very humanistic response.  Paraphrasing: violence done unto human beings is a terrible and horrible thing and should be depicted as such rather than being trivialized.  I liked that.  So that&#039;s why I was OK with rougher content in Watchmen since it was to the point and not over-played (I thought).

No real argument about the freeze-framing the action being sort of gimmicky.  Blame The Matrix I suppose.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right, some of the violence did get to be a bit much.  I wasn&#8217;t expecting to see the inside of that guy&#8217;s arm in the street fight scene for example.  But as noted before it IS a &#8220;dark and violent story&#8221;.  My point was that it was not over played, and not played for gratuitous entertainment.  It was heavy-handed, but still measured, so it got your attention when it happened.  And I don&#8217;t really have a problem with that &#8211; I would prefer that than seeing heaping helpings of watered down violence as entertainment fodder.</p>
<p>A while ago, I heard an interview with David Cronenberg.  No big secret that his films can be pretty heavy-handed in that regard as well.  But when asked about it, he came back with a very humanistic response.  Paraphrasing: violence done unto human beings is a terrible and horrible thing and should be depicted as such rather than being trivialized.  I liked that.  So that&#8217;s why I was OK with rougher content in Watchmen since it was to the point and not over-played (I thought).</p>
<p>No real argument about the freeze-framing the action being sort of gimmicky.  Blame The Matrix I suppose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Watchmen having been watched by revme</title>
		<link>http://tygerbox.com/2009/03/08/the-watchmen-having-been-watched/comment-page-1/#comment-62</link>
		<dc:creator>revme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tygerbox.com/?p=223#comment-62</guid>
		<description>I just saw Watchmen, too, mainly for the same reason (I had a bunch of tabs open with stuff I couldn&#039;t read yet and really wanted to!).  I really dug it -- and I liked the Manhattan-ending-change; the squid was OK, but basically the US+USSR going to war against God was basically cooler anyway...8)  I definitely enjoyed it.  Some of the violence DID get a bit much, and I got _really sick_ of the slow-down-speed-up fight scene gimmick.  (It&#039;d be OK once in a while, but like, 500-times-per-second-of-fight-scene was a bit much.)  I actually thought the Book-Versus-Film article in the AV Club was dead-on.  (Nite Owl &amp; Silk Spectre II seemed to get too-into the fighting and kicking people&#039;s asses thing.)

Rorschach was just about perfect, and Nite Owl did a really good job acting, too.  Silk Spectre II can&#039;t act at all, unfortunately; and I thought Ozy was a little TOO sinister; I think kind of the important point is that he MEANS well, even if he&#039;s bein&#039; basically evil.  In the comic, he seemed to realize the exchange he was making a bit more (and it was hit a bit harder with all of the street scenes) -- in the movie, it was more of an anonymous 15 million (or whatever the figure was), and there was a throwaway line that he&#039;d seen all of the dead folks&#039; faces, but it didn&#039;t really seem to matter much to him, and you figured he was just SAYING that because it sounded good.  

But he DID totally look like Bowie, which was kinda awesome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just saw Watchmen, too, mainly for the same reason (I had a bunch of tabs open with stuff I couldn&#8217;t read yet and really wanted to!).  I really dug it &#8212; and I liked the Manhattan-ending-change; the squid was OK, but basically the US+USSR going to war against God was basically cooler anyway&#8230;8)  I definitely enjoyed it.  Some of the violence DID get a bit much, and I got _really sick_ of the slow-down-speed-up fight scene gimmick.  (It&#8217;d be OK once in a while, but like, 500-times-per-second-of-fight-scene was a bit much.)  I actually thought the Book-Versus-Film article in the AV Club was dead-on.  (Nite Owl &amp; Silk Spectre II seemed to get too-into the fighting and kicking people&#8217;s asses thing.)</p>
<p>Rorschach was just about perfect, and Nite Owl did a really good job acting, too.  Silk Spectre II can&#8217;t act at all, unfortunately; and I thought Ozy was a little TOO sinister; I think kind of the important point is that he MEANS well, even if he&#8217;s bein&#8217; basically evil.  In the comic, he seemed to realize the exchange he was making a bit more (and it was hit a bit harder with all of the street scenes) &#8212; in the movie, it was more of an anonymous 15 million (or whatever the figure was), and there was a throwaway line that he&#8217;d seen all of the dead folks&#8217; faces, but it didn&#8217;t really seem to matter much to him, and you figured he was just SAYING that because it sounded good.  </p>
<p>But he DID totally look like Bowie, which was kinda awesome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on iPhone test and a sleepy kitty by revme</title>
		<link>http://tygerbox.com/2008/10/18/iphone-test-and-a-sleepy-kitty/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>revme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:07:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tygerbox.com/2008/10/18/iphone-test-and-a-sleepy-kitty/#comment-7</guid>
		<description>Awwww!  Kitty!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Awwww!  Kitty!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Making podcasts that don&#8217;t suck: Thoughts from a listener by revme</title>
		<link>http://tygerbox.com/2008/09/28/making-podcasts-that-dont-suck-thoughts-from-a-listener/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>revme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:35:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tygerbox.com/?p=168#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Good article -- and as someone who works in radio, every single point applies there, too.  And, sadly, even amongst broadcast professionals, this advice STILL needs to be said.  (For example, the morning show here on one of our country stations is GODDAWFUL, and it basically hits every single one of these rules.  And I&#039;m in SEATTLE.  A... number 12 market, I think we are.  But not exactly Podunk, Kansas or anything.  Actually, I take that back, they don&#039;t typically do the fake self-deprecation - if anything, that might make them a little more palatable.  Maybe an addendum to that one about how you shouldn&#039;t talk about how awesome you are, either.  In fact, you know? Just don&#039;t talk about your show&#039;s quality at all.  Ever.  

And, confidential to Seattle Country Station Morning Show: Do NOT ever spend time bitching about how you did NOT get nominated for a huge award.  In fact, even if you DID get nominated for it, I wouldn&#039;t even mention it -- or if you do, in passing.  If you WIN, then, sure, mention it, but don&#039;t harp on it.  And, PS:  NO FUCKING SHIT you didn&#039;t get nominated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article &#8212; and as someone who works in radio, every single point applies there, too.  And, sadly, even amongst broadcast professionals, this advice STILL needs to be said.  (For example, the morning show here on one of our country stations is GODDAWFUL, and it basically hits every single one of these rules.  And I&#8217;m in SEATTLE.  A&#8230; number 12 market, I think we are.  But not exactly Podunk, Kansas or anything.  Actually, I take that back, they don&#8217;t typically do the fake self-deprecation &#8211; if anything, that might make them a little more palatable.  Maybe an addendum to that one about how you shouldn&#8217;t talk about how awesome you are, either.  In fact, you know? Just don&#8217;t talk about your show&#8217;s quality at all.  Ever.  </p>
<p>And, confidential to Seattle Country Station Morning Show: Do NOT ever spend time bitching about how you did NOT get nominated for a huge award.  In fact, even if you DID get nominated for it, I wouldn&#8217;t even mention it &#8212; or if you do, in passing.  If you WIN, then, sure, mention it, but don&#8217;t harp on it.  And, PS:  NO FUCKING SHIT you didn&#8217;t get nominated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SF Vet Housecalls by tygerbox</title>
		<link>http://tygerbox.com/2008/09/14/sf-vet-housecalls/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>tygerbox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tygerbox.net/?p=64#comment-4</guid>
		<description>I wish I had gotten the shot I wanted before the Doc picked him up.  He was like a cat baked into a blue loaf of bread.  A loaf of seething anger.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish I had gotten the shot I wanted before the Doc picked him up.  He was like a cat baked into a blue loaf of bread.  A loaf of seething anger.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SF Vet Housecalls by revme</title>
		<link>http://tygerbox.com/2008/09/14/sf-vet-housecalls/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>revme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tygerbox.net/?p=64#comment-2</guid>
		<description>I love the picture of Fred in the bag.  He looks like he&#039;s gonna kill.  Which makes you wonder if it&#039;s good to let him out of the bag.  And, oh my god the Review.  That is HORRIFYING.  I&#039;m, um, kinda surprised the reviewer didn&#039;t burn the place down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love the picture of Fred in the bag.  He looks like he&#8217;s gonna kill.  Which makes you wonder if it&#8217;s good to let him out of the bag.  And, oh my god the Review.  That is HORRIFYING.  I&#8217;m, um, kinda surprised the reviewer didn&#8217;t burn the place down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
