<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>spamguy &#187; Rule 34</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.spamguy.org/tag/rule-34/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.spamguy.org</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:42:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Your Blog Has Been Denied</title>
		<link>http://blog.spamguy.org/2009/04/30/your-blog-has-been-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.spamguy.org/2009/04/30/your-blog-has-been-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:35:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spamguy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 34]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.spamguy.org/?p=197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mere days after lauding my friend&#8217;s craaaaazy new blog idea, I&#8217;ve already learned it&#8217;s not so crazy new. Behold, Not Hired. It has a catchy title and custom GIFs and everything.
Fear not, wheel-reinventing friend: give it a Rule 34 spin or something and you&#8217;ll be back on top of your field.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mere days after lauding my friend&#8217;s <a href="http://blog.spamguy.org/2009/04/27/187/">craaaaazy new blog idea</a>, I&#8217;ve already learned it&#8217;s not so crazy new. Behold, <a href="http://www.nothired.com">Not Hired</a>. It has a catchy title and custom GIFs and everything.</p>
<p>Fear not, wheel-reinventing friend: give it a <a href="http://blog.spamguy.org/tag/rule-34/">Rule 34 spin</a> or something and you&#8217;ll be back on top of your field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.spamguy.org/2009/04/30/your-blog-has-been-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RUN AWAY</title>
		<link>http://blog.spamguy.org/2008/07/02/run-away/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.spamguy.org/2008/07/02/run-away/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spamguy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 34]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.spamguy.org/?p=126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three words.
Dragon. Masturbating. Castle.
Now click.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three words.</p>
<p>Dragon. Masturbating. Castle.</p>
<p><a href="http://thatotherpaper.com/austin/dragons_sex_castles">Now click.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.spamguy.org/2008/07/02/run-away/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1UP</title>
		<link>http://blog.spamguy.org/2008/03/18/1up/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.spamguy.org/2008/03/18/1up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spamguy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[games]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 34]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.spamguy.org/2008/03/18/1up/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Continuing the thread of disturbing renditions of Super Mario, there&#8217;s also very gay steel worker Mario. Normally I would proclaim this another idea seized by Rule #34 of the Internet. ((Every time I google rule 34 in search of links that define the concept, the top hits never fail to be grosser than before. So, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Continuing the thread of disturbing renditions of Super Mario, there&#8217;s also <a href="http://www.destructoid.com/grotesque-japanese-nintendo-video-game-parodies">very gay steel worker Mario</a>. Normally I would proclaim this another idea seized by <a href="http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list">Rule #34 of the Internet</a>. ((Every time I google <em>rule 34</em> in search of links that define the concept, the top hits never fail to be grosser than before. So, like I need to warn you: clicking on the above link is not a good idea.)) In this case I saw this picture set long enough ago that it actually predates the Rule. But universal gravitation existed before Newton, yes?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.spamguy.org/2008/03/18/1up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Only If They&#039;re Alive</title>
		<link>http://blog.spamguy.org/2007/11/13/only-if-theyre-alive/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.spamguy.org/2007/11/13/only-if-theyre-alive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spamguy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[love]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 34]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.spamguy.org/2007/11/13/only-if-theyre-alive/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m still experimenting with online dating. My tastes are in a constant cycle of repulsion (as was my tenure at plentyoffish.com) and sincere hope. OKCupid is pretty neat with all their doodads, but sincere hope is definitely not in the pipeline when their personality evaluation includes the question:
Would you ever consider having sex in a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m still experimenting with online dating. My tastes are in a constant cycle of repulsion (as was my tenure at <em>plentyoffish.com</em>) and sincere hope. OKCupid is pretty neat with all their doodads, but sincere hope is definitely not in the pipeline when their personality evaluation includes the question:</p>
<p><strong>Would you ever consider having sex in a graveyard? </strong></p>
<p>What the&#8230;? Christ, I don&#8217;t know. There are many nouns both proper and general that I really haven&#8217;t considered. Would I have sex in a monastery? A Chick-Fil-A? The U.S.S. Constellation? Some are great for dares, some need payment in advance to convince me.</p>
<p>With my uncanny ability to make  anything into a Web 2.0 system (I humbly call it a super power), a thought just struck me. What if there were a wiki cataloging people&#8217;s sexual escapades in every possible place? For every noun, there is an article. Post a story, a picture, whatever is necessary to corroborate. Whether the point of this theoretical wiki is to create ridiculously organised reality pr0n—it&#8217;s not—this database would act as the launchpad for <a href="http://xkcd.com/305/">XKCD&#8217;s Rule 34 <em>and </em>Rule 35 of the Internet</a>. More effectively, even, than <a href="http://wetriffs.com/"><em>wetriffs.com</em></a>, which is directly inspired from XKCD&#8217;s Rule 34/35.</p>
<p>Before I&#8217;m decried as a filthy, filthy pr0n purveyor, I assure you it was a novelty idea. It is an Einsteinian &#8216;thought experiment&#8217; regarding society&#8217;s greatest vice: just as no one will be <a href="http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/Twins/index.html">sending twins out into space</a>, I pray no one will have the time or energy to expend on a dictionary of sex locations.</p>
<p>Some dictionary ideas work, like <a href="http://wesclark.com/ubn/">odd Mormon names</a>. Most don&#8217;t, like the <a href="http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/numbers.html">importance of every number under an arbitrary ceiling</a>. (Hint: &#8216;the largest known number <em>n</em> that makes 72<sup><em>n</em></sup> &#8211; 71<sup><em>n</em></sup> prime&#8217; will not floor many people.) Let&#8217;s get through Web 2.0 alive by avoiding the latter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.spamguy.org/2007/11/13/only-if-theyre-alive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
