Papa Smurf

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']True, but this just defeats the spirit of the question by going through a loophole in the wording. I don't think this really approaches it fairly.[/quote] There's no loophole in the wording. The recording device is a direct way to answer the question. And plus, as soon as we place that recording device out in that forest and prove that a falling tree still makes noise, even when no human is around to hear it, the question is answered (though it's already answered if one is realistic) and thus any more dodgy philosophizing gibberish would need to end. [quote](Although if we wanted to keep ourselves honest we could admit that yes, it's extremely unlikely that this one tree will suddenly flout everything currently known in physics)[/QUOTE] "Honesty is the best policy." Plus, bringing in "honesty" is irrelevant here, because we're not talking about morality. We're not talking about fabrications and spin-doctoring. We're not talking about fake truths. There can only be a question of honesty and integrity when there's a clear problem with what one is saying, and to be clear, I've not seen any clear problems with what the "KREEEEPOW" group has been saying.

[url]http://machomedia.blogspot.com/2006/08/ps3-vs-wii.html[/url] Just found this video on the net. Thought it was pretty hilarious. Figured I'd post it here and see what everyone thinks. I think it's a pretty good way of getting the points across. Plus, a cute and bubbly chick in skimpy clothing is a great visual to go along with the Wii. (Charles, she kind of reminds me of Kristine lol)

[quote name='Lunox][color=dimgray']How could anyone not like Steve Irwin, seriously?[/color][/quote] Because he always struck me as mildly retarded? Maybe I'm just a realist, but the only thing I can say about Irwin's death? [center][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/chappelle_james.jpg[/IMG] [/center]

Starfox 64, pretty much. Graphically, it's dated. There were times when I was amazed we could actually see each other due to the game's low resolution. But surprisingly, as old and quasi-crappy as the game looked, we could still discern the environments from each other, and the two power-ups in the battlefields. So I think Starfox 64 definitely still comes out on top in terms of graphics. The control has remained pretty damn perfect, I think. Though it may relate more to how amazingly fluid the gameplay still is, the fact that we were chaining loop-de-loops for minutes at a time is pretty remarkable and reveals how well the game still handles. It also helps that the N64 controllers themselves are still fairly responsive, even in light of their age. That system and those controllers at my house are going on 10 years old now. Nintendo makes high-quality equipment? Hell yes they do. Gameplay-wise, like you said, the dogfights are still top-notch. It still ranks as one of [i]the best[/i] aerial combat games out there. Regarding the downsides/blemishes of the game...yeah. The character selection was downright weird, with assigning characters based on which controller port you were using (Fox=Player 1, Peppy=Player 2, Slippy is P3, and Falco is P4). The arenas weren't terribly interesting. Corneria is so-so. Had they compressed the arena a bit, it would have been much more exciting. I think Sector Z is actually the better of the two. Since the on-foot combat is pretty lame (Landmaster tank is nice, though it's impossible to aim that thing), and air-based combat is where the game really shines, the lack of ground combat in Sector Z isn't much of a loss anyway. But honestly, those blemishes don't matter once you get into the meat of the deathmatch: dogfights. And the dogfights are fun as hell. And I'd imagine it gets even better when we get Bill and Brandon in on that. Brandon=Slippy, of course. I figure we'll talk about Perfect Dark a bit before either of us post anything, so I'll hold-off on saying anything about that sh-tty game. I will say that Smash TV is fun as hell and, to borrow your phrase, "HARD AS F-CK." We've got quite a library to review, too. PD, GE, classic Doom (yay Doom 3 Resurrection of Evil's split screen classic Doom!), Smash TV, WWE Smackdown, Rampage, Street Fighter 2, Gauntlet 1 and Legends, Galaga, etc. Methinks the original Conker's Bad Fur Day's multiplayer, perhaps. Pretty much any ancient N64 games we dig up in our houses. heh Oh, and about sh-tty games like PD...Starfox Assault was just as sh-tty. lol

Skunks are awesome, especially when you run over one as it scurries across a highway at night. Kathump!

Any of you stupid bastards foolish enough to take a trip out to where I am are gonna be in for a rude awakening. You'll be met with a good old fashioned tar and feathering, then I'll drag you (behind my car) to the Jersey Shore, Ocean City, where I'll proceed to reveal to you the wonder that is the greatest arcades on the Eastern seaboard. So basically a trip to Cinnaminson is a trip down the shore.

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']I see no meaning in trying to rewrite everything I've said in this thread just so you can then call the rewrites equally incomprehensible, declare victory, and give yourself a big pat on the back for taking down another "pseudo-philosopher."[/quote] Where did I ever say anything about victory? Oh, you mean about you not giving me a challenge? That wasn't gloating, my good man. That was the truth. [quote]I don't have the time or the temper for it, and I don't see how it can result in anyone learning a damn thing.[/quote] So let me get this straight. You expect people to learn something from your needlessly, hopelessly, annoyingly long-winded pseudo-philosophical babble that you slop down wherever you can, and yet the moment someone steps up and tells you to actually say something relevant or shut your mouth, you take offense? Then you tell me how you don't have "the time or the temper" to actually counter my points with concise sentences, and to summarize your own multiple page posts into an easily constructed two sentences? Fosterkid, I'm sorry, but if that's the case, then you're acting like a total douchebag and it's no wonder you're acting like someone just ripped out your testicles even when that person just happened to put you on the spot. [quote]If you're interested in knowing what I think (and I doubt you are), then please reread my first three posts more carefully. Everything relevant is already there if you're willing to put some effort in (also doubtful), and I'm not going to continue this.[/quote] Your first three posts don't exist, Fosterkid. Either drop the fake ego and summarize your position in one to two sentences or drop the fake ego, shut your mouth, and stop ranting at me. The choice is yours. I'd advise you to make the right decision. [quote]If you'd really like to, you can even write down in your little record that you totally kicked my ***. One more pseudo-philosopher showed up! Respectable and realistic wins the day, mindshatting crawls back into its hole! High five!!! Beers for everyone!![/QUOTE] I'm sorry, did I piss you off or something? I find this bit just a tad amusing, since throughout the thread you've attempted to flaunt (yes, flaunt) some high intellect, but I'm starting to think it was all a facade, as nothing in my latest post warranted your little temper tantrum; all I did was request that you summarize your entire answer into one sentence. And yet you didn't. From that, I reach one of two conclusions. One, you can't condense your posts and are so sensitive about it that you react like a child when someone requests that you do. Or two, you won't condense your posts because you think slopping out three to four pages worth of that drivel makes you look better than you really are, and gives you some sort of satisfaction because somewhere in your head, you think that people are going to learn something from slogging through four pages of circular rhetoric and non-existent logic. And interestingly enough, I'm seeing a combination of those two conclusions at work here. So what's the deal, Fosterkid? Are you inferior or do you think you're some intellectual gift and that makes you too good to write clearly? [center][color=Red]***EDIT***[color=Black] [/color][/color] [left] Since Faginahead apparently isn't going to even begin to consider summarizing his position, whether he can't or won't (my bet is on the latter), whether it's incompetence or self-absorbed egomania (again, my bet is on the latter), I'm going to do it for him, to show him it can be done. And in fact, I'm going to quote one of his later posts as I do it. [quote name='FarcicalKid]Whether we talk about sound or noise or air waves of varying pressure levels, there's [i]still[/i'] no getting around the fact that we aren't there to know what the hell's going on.[/quote] Run a word count on that. It's 32 words, which isn't terribly more than the 25 word limit I set for him. Note in the above quote, there's a single comma, and there are no semi-colons. I summarized Farquadhead's four posts into one sentence taken directly from one of his replies. Summarization is difficult or impossible? Bull**** Can't summarize or won't? He [i]won't[/i]. Why? Can anyone say falsely inflated sense of self-worth? [/left] [color=Red][color=Black][/color][/color][/center]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']But I'm a twerp who answers objections with something other than personal insults, Jack Nicholson, and specious assertions disregarding any kind of consideration of how we come to know things.[/quote] Don't kid yourself. You reply with rambles that stumble around a point rather than making a point, nothing more. At least I'm direct. And we both know that Jack Nicholson rocks our worlds, so if you take issue with Jack Nicholson, you totally have problems. [quote]I'll reply as considerately as I can when you have something serious to say other than "I'm right and you're wrong because falling things make noise, period."[/quote] Counter it. Counter "I'm right and you're wrong because falling things make noise, period." Counter it without the circular, meandering rhetoric you're so fond of. Counter it without the pseuodo-philosophical drivel you slop into your posts. [quote](I'm curious about your "we create our own chain," but I don't quite understand what you mean)[/quote] We create our own chain in that we set our own limitations. Your limitation is thinking there's some massively profound implication in everything. And your self-imposed limitation screws you over in everything I've seen so far. Don't believe me? Answer the original question in one sentence, using only one to two commas, no semi-colons, and make it all in under 25 words. [quote]Oh, it's popping up, but not where you seem to think. Physician, heal thyself.[/quote] Sorry, I missed the part where you were actually answering any questions with your pointless rambles, and I must have missed where I, direct and blunt as I was, answered the question posed in the original post here. Nice try though. But again, one can only point out irony when there's irony to begin with, and here, there's no irony. You'd have more room to talk if you had actually answered the original question instead of mindshatting all over the place. Plus, you seem to think that this topic needs your own special brand of pseudo-philosophizing when in fact, it doesn't. When people point that out to you, I'm certainly detecting indignant hints in your replies. You seem to think that if people don't over-pseudo-philosophize about everything, they must be simpletons. Oh, by me saying that you would probably try to turn it around, right? I think that if people don't cut to the chase and instead entertain outlandish concepts, they must be morons? I believe that only because what I'm saying is always relevant. I always have something meaningful to say. My views on matters (especially this one) are respectable and realistic. I get on your case (and the cases of people like you) because you're operating under some stupid assumption that the world needs more pseudo-philosophizing. I can keep going, Fasterisk. You're not even giving me a challenge here, despite what you may think.

[quote name='Anti']not that I particularly care...but Smurf, your being incredably atagonistic...I find your assualting Fasterisk and then preaching it to be icredably irrelevent crap, as you put it, to be quite instructing on your personality. I thank you for the lesson.[/quote] Antagonistic? Hardly. Assaulting him? Hardly. Preaching? Hardly. What I was saying is irrelevant crap? Hardly. All I'm doing is cutting through the bull**** here. Nothing more, nothing less. If people think they've got something worthwhile and relevant to say, then say it. Don't clog up a post with drivel and circular rhetoric. And that's all anyone does when they try to apply a deeper meaning to such a stupid-simple and straightforward question like Tree Sound. The answer to "Does the tree make a sound" is exceedingly obvious when you ignore the inane and quasi-retarded urge to create some unnecessary philosophical quandary. It's not a matter of common sense being the "lowest common denominator of belief," because I think that's the load of horsecrap that people use when they think they're smart because they can have some sort of deeper thought process happening. But it's an empty thought process happening because nothing worthwhile or productive comes out of it. When that empty thought process is revealed to be precisely that, then you see the "well, you're just ignorant" popping up. That's how it goes, that's how it's always gone. The pretend philosophers are a dime a dozen, mate. They're useless, even when it comes to philosophy, because they're too concerned with "does a tree make a sound" having some bigger meaning and miss the big picture, the big picture being that the question is outdated and irrelevant as they're trying to relate it to metaphysical existence or human perception or whatever. It's just like how Plato's Cave allegory is not about actual limitations of human perception, because Plato's Cave is actually about how we [i]react[/i] to the world around us. We create our own chain. If I seem antagonistic, that's your flaw regarding emotional hypersensitivity, not my flaw regarding my delivery. So do me a favor. Think about this topic before replying again, and think about why I'm saying what I'm saying. [quote name='sakurasuka][size=1']Of course, we in the know understand that this kind of answer is a lot of spiritual bull that is at best only useful for making you feel good about yourself, and at worst amounts to solipsism and nihilism.[/size][/quote] QFT

I disagree with Box Hoy. John Karr is obviously the G-Man from Half-Life 2. [img]http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/LAW/08/24/ramsey.arrest/story.co.mug.ap.jpg[/img] And then click the following to compare: [url="http://callme.nm.ru/G-man.JPG"]http://callme.nm.ru/G-man.JPG[/url] Bizarre, ain't it? EDIT: Oh yeah, and Karr was released earlier today. Charges dropped. Prosecutor wants nothing to do with it anymore. DNA came back negative. Now the only case that's left is the Duke University rape case that I called even before there was a lack of DNA evidence and the stripper's spotty legal history disclosure. Let's see if I can grab 2/2 for being right.

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']Okay, a bit premature in thinking I'd killed the thread.[/quote] A bit? Okay, yeah. Only "a bit." Get over yourself. lol. [quote]I won't spend much time in reply to how I'm "asinine," "annoying," "wasting everyone's time," "irrelevant," "philosophical," "long-winded," "posturing," "meaning nothing," "time wasting," "'noble,'" "complicated," and "useless."[/quote] No, you see, you confirm it every single time you post with this nonsense. [quote]You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but I'm not trying to impress anyone.[/quote] Who said you were trying to impress anyone? I just think you're a self-righteous and misguided twerp who doesn't know how to write effectively. [quote]Don't get me wrong, I like it when someone appreciates something I've said, but more important to me than that crap is trying to [i]pay attention[/i] to things like these "two sentences" which so obviously seem to be a "simple question" that can be dispensed with in a single sound effect.[/quote] Dude, what are you talking about? The question of the Tree and the Sound [i]is[/i] a simple one. The concepts behind it are neither complex nor profound. The question attempts to poke at what we know to be true. Big freaking deal. It's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, which... [quote]On to the meat of your post, though, you seem to have misunderstood most of my point eariler - or, you think you can sidestep it.[/quote] ...is why I wasn't sidestepping anything. I was actually answering the question with something that was actually relevant, as opposed to meandering ******** philosophizing that borders on pseudo-intellectual babble. [quote]Ignore for the moment the question of whether it's so easy to talk about noise without any "meanings" attached to it (also: while I understand what you're trying to do, personally I wouldn't use the word "noise" the way you're doing, just because in everyday speech no one will ever say "I heard a noise" and mean "I just had a series of air waves with alternating pressure levels stimulate nerves in my ear"). For most of my second post, sound having "meaning" wasn't the issue. To make that point a second time: do we have any right to talk about the "noise" that this tree makes when [i]by definition[/i] we have no direct evidence about it at all? We can talk about how all the other trees in every other trial run have made such-and-such a sound, and not [i]necessarily[/i] have a smoking gun fact-wise for whether this tree, when it falls over, will do the same. Induction goes a hell of a long way, but it's not a guarantee. Whether we talk about sound or noise or air waves of varying pressure levels, there's [i]still[/i] no getting around the fact that we aren't there to know what the hell's going on.[/QUOTE] In that entire triple paragraph, you just said absolutely nothing. People mis-use words in everyday speech. Okay, so what? The general populace is filled with either morons or pseudo-intellectual morons. How does that make my summarization any less correct? The question asks does a tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear the tree fall. The answer is no, the tree will not make a sound, but it will make a noise. Either way, there's an auditory event that occurs. Next, how in the hell is "do we have any right" relevant at all here? lol. Be sensible, dude. Get with the frigging program. I certainly don't give two shats about whatever "rights" regarding human perception/discussion you've invented here, and I really don't think anyone would give two shats about a human being's "right" to talk about a noise a falling tree would make, even when the human being isn't there to directly witness the tree falling. Why? Because we know what happens when things fall down and go boom. Unless the tree is colliding in the vacuum of space, there is absolutely no reason at all to begin to suggest that we actually need to be there to conclude the tree makes a noise when it falls. The very fact you tried to pull that kind of irrelevant crap (and make no mistake, Fasterisk...it is irrelevant crap) is exactly what I'm talking about: you're making a question far more complicated than it really needs to be, simply for the sake of making it complicated, or because you honestly believe it should be that complicated. [center][url="http://imageshack.us"][img]http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5771/eitherwayxc3.png[/img][/url] [/center] Either way, whether you're doing it for the sake of making it complicated, or because you honestly believe it should be that complicated, it's a stupid thing to do, and only fools are attracted to it, because it's a foolish idea in the first place. Are we clear?

[quote name='Fasteriskhead][size=1]EDIT: 11 posts and dead. [i]Damn[/i'] I am good.[/size][/quote] A few hours passed? Are you serious? lol. I've killed threads much better, and we're looking at threads now being dead for weeks (and in some cases, [i]years[/i]), dude. A few hours is nothing. Don't pat yourself on the back quite yet, because you're about to get Smurfed up. See, trying to unpack two sentences, as if there's some huge profound meaning behind them, is asinine and annoying, and a waste of everyone's time, including your own, because in no way does anything longer than DeadSeraphim's "KreeeeeePOW" answer the question. The irrelevant philosophical, long-winded posturing means absolutely nothing--and if meaning nothing is the point...why even post to begin with? Just to waste time? Such a noble goal. You're making a simple question complicated for the sake of making it complicated. Don't be so useless. Now back to the topic at hand. Absolutely there's going to be some type of physical reaction around the tree when it falls. Air will be displaced, friction will be generated, physical matter is going to slam into other physical matter. Will that make a sound? No. It'll make a noise. The word "sound" implicates an attached meaning; we call something a sound when our brains organize and interpret the data and structure an information schema around it. "Noise" is the opposite; it's sound before meaning is attached, before our brains have a chance to process it and tell us what exactly it is. So to answer the question, no. The tree doesn't make a [i]sound[/i], per se. It makes [i]noise[/i].

Shin, wtf? Yeah, Ingrid Bergman is unbelievably attractive, but... [center][b]Cary Grant[/b] as [b]Devlin[/b] in [b]Notorious[/b][/center] [center][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Shinmaru/notorious-19.jpg[/img][/center] Cary Grant is probably the sexiest actor to have ever been. I'm straight and I'd bang him. He's James Bond before James Bond, plays arrogant pricks like nobody's business and yet you still love him for it, he's suave and debonair. His comedic timing is amazing; [i]Arsenic and Old Lace[/i] is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. You rarely see physical comedy like Cary Grant can do it, and you'd never expect it. So I watch [i]Notorious[/i] and, similar to one of the I Love The 80s episodes, think that yeah Ingrid Bergman is hot, but I'd like to sleep with Cary Grant.

[QUOTE=Charles]Those of you waiting for the Black Lite's are needlessly torturing yourselves. Black handhelds suck because finger print smudges are much more pronounced on them. Black handhelds, such as my PSP have been forced to take their place on the back of my shelf.[/QUOTE] I can attest to this. The smudges were dreadfully obvious on his PSP whenever he'd play it at Rutgers. White DS Lite, all the way.

#1 is James, the Site Director. "Desert snake" is a reference to his character in Kill Adam, known as Desert Taipan.

Primary Location: Angel Land or Raccoon City Why I should be in this: because I'm Smurftastic? [quote]?Rubbing Salt in the Wound? Sodom. We had to stroll into Sodom. We?re walking to filth. Agony. The smell of sin. The town reeks of it...the entire damned thing. The city?s a plague upon this land, a pestilence, a disease, a poison that infects people down deep, down into the pits of their blackened souls. We?re still too far away to see the town, but I can already feel the pain and anguish. It?s a howling and stabbing pain, the kind that tears at your heart like daggers. It?ll carve it out of your chest if you give it the chance. We walk a bit farther. The city of woe appears like a specter. The walls are stained with the blood and juices of men and women who couldn?t get away from the fiends and hordes?they glisten like the intestines of a fresh sacrifice on the altar. Sodom. In there, every day is a sacrifice. Every day, something bad happens to someone. If they?re lucky, they?ll only get raped. That?s if they?re lucky. Most aren?t that lucky. They would pray they could be that lucky. The history of this damned place echoes through my head like the voice of the Almighty himself. It?s been too long for this city. The cleansing is going to happen. There are some who say it can?t be cleansed, that it should be wiped out completely. Burned to the ground. Buried. But that?s the idea, I think to myself. Some day, people have said, this entire city is going to disappear. And that?s exactly what?s going to happen. We reach the city gates and a stranger runs up to us. I tense up. My hand reaches across my chest, down into my cloak. If this mortal wants to pick a fight, he ain?t gonna be expecting what I?ve got for him. Most of them wouldn?t. With a wave of my hand, I could boil his skin and make his body fester with disease. I could make him long for death. It?d be sweet salvation compared to what sulfur and brimstone could do to him?charred flesh, extra-crispy. His family would look at him and scream like a choir of banshees straight out of Hell. My hand clenches into a fist. I?m on-edge. Too on-edge. Too high-strung. It?s times like these that remind me what I am and what I need to be. I?m no killer. I kill and slaughter, but I ain?t no killer like the slime in Sodom. The stranger bows down in front of me and my pal. He doesn?t look us in the eye or anything. Guess he?s too scared. Or maybe just too polite. He starts talking, ?Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways.? I don?t know what this guy?s thinkin, but his offer raises the hairs on the back of my sunburned neck. Something?s not right about it. Something doesn?t click. What?s his hand, I wonder. We?re playing a game here, and he might have something up his sleeve. We decline the invitation. We?ll enjoy the night air and walk the streets we tell him. We see if we can force his hand. It works. The look on his face tells us what we?re wanting to know. We see a revelation in his eyes. It?s fear and danger. Sex. Pain. A symphony of terror with high staccatos and strings that grinds like a cheese grater on your ears. He keeps his voice steady. He tries to stay calm, but his eyes scream like the creatures of the night in the lousy parts of town. The offer?s repeated. More force this time. This guy is playing hardball. He means business. He offers us shelter for the night, food, a footbath. Kindness and generosity are the outsiders in this walled-in wasteland?just like us. We ask him his name. Lot. He says his name is Lot. Looks like we?re spending the night at Lot?s place. Things just got interesting.[/quote] Oh, I have some fun ideas how to make either Angel Land or Raccoon City exceedingly dark and disturbing, so I hope even though I'm still kind of new around here, I'm given some fun freedom to warp the world around me.

I guess people enjoy my Smurfitude? [quote name='indifference][color=DeepSkyBlue']At least they don?t come across as wanting to strangle you for not liking it as much as they do.[/color][/quote] I've been threatened before. I'm less scared of Jenn and more scared of those braindead Naruto cosplayers I see in pictures from AX. If we're talking vicious little bastards, I think the "Asiaphiles" are far, far more vicious, because they live in less of a reality than Jenn does. I mean, have you ever heard any sane person drool over how sexy Naruto is, and how they'd like to marry them? ...yeah, I don't really see that kind of creepy stuff coming from Jenn, mate. lol

I can't see how anyone can realistically, honestly, and intelligently take issue with what Jenn has said in the article. In fact, the only two truly relevant replies here have been from Lunox and DeadSeraphim. Theirs are the only posts I see that address the actual issue and point of Jenn's article: that the extremists are downright stupid. This article wasn't about a passing interest being stupid. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that from the article, especially the full version. Jenn's focus the entire time are the so-called "Asiaphiles" who know absolutely nothing about the actual culture in Japan, and whose obsession with Japan stems from brain-dead, sub-par anime, and thus, is horribly, horribly skewed...and then it pisses people off. The "-chan" and "-kun" for example? A few of my former friends found it necessary to do that all the time. They dreamed of going to Japan, because [i]they'd convinced themselves they'd be happier there[/i]. Why? Because they think anime is the reality over there. That's like people looking at Leave it to Beaver and thinking that's what the 1950s were like in the United States. It's stupid idealism. No, that's not even a strong enough term. It's [b][i]RETARDED[/i][/b] idealism. Yeah, that's more accurate. See, having an interest is one thing. I have an interest in British history, and eventually, spending a year or two in Great Britain is something I'm looking to do. I want to make a pilgrimage to William Wordsworth's house. I want to stand upon the bridge Oscar Wilde wrote of in Impressions du Mautin (I believe that's the title). I bust out a British accent here and there because it's fun and goofy. "Good show ole chap" may slip out here and there, as might "jolly good." Even "no worries." But do I think myself to be more British or Australian? Hell no. I'm a bloody yank and proud of it. I may have some weird international language quirks, and my sense of humor may have been shaped in part by Monty Python, but never will you ever hear me say that British culture is so much better than American culture, simply due to some morsels of British entertainment. The focus of Jenn's article is not an interest; it's a retarded idealistic obsession. More power to her. She's saying something that needs to be said. I know I'm tired of hearing stupid giggly fangirls. Incidentally...there's a reason why people around here don't invite me to join them at anime conventions. I'd go around choking as many cosplay bitches as I can. Hell, I'd even dress up like Darth Vader for the full effect. "I find your lack of rationality disturbing."

It was spectacular. I went to see it with Charles on opening night. The theatre filled pretty well, and the audience was going nuts. There were cheers and applause almost throughout the entire movie, starting with the main titles. "Snakes" faded in, then "on a Plane" and the theatre erupted in claps. It was pretty cool. The movie itself was hands-down the best summer movie I've seen in a long, long time. Everything was so exceptionally well-done; the only problem I had with it was stupid acting in the beginning. Eddie Kim sucked pretty hard (though not as hard as [spoiler]the mother tending to the poison in the kid's arm![/spoiler] hah) Those kill scenes were ridiculous, definitely. That's what made them great. [spoiler]The Mile High couple, the pisser, the fat woman, the newlyweds, Mary Kate (my favorite death in the movie), the British guy, the captain and co-pilot[/spoiler]...the list goes on and on. Though I must say there were three things that disappointed me regarding the death scenes: One, [spoiler]the British guy's eyes didn't pop out of his skull when the boa constrictor was wrapping around him.[/spoiler] Two, [spoiler]The two brothers needed to die horrible deaths. I was waiting for it the entire movie. Their survival was depressing.[/spoiler] Three, [spoiler]the baby lives?![/spoiler] WTF is that? Baby is the other-other white meat. Snakes like white meat. Actually, yeah they do, because [spoiler]no black guys die in SoaP; it's all white people[/spoiler]. That baby should be happy. It ruined my movie experience. ~_^ Charles apparently doesn't have such a sick, sadistic streak. I saw him cringing at times, where I was laughing my *** off, hoping for some more brutality. In fact, I was laughing throughout, because the movie was so mean-spirited a lot of the time. ^_^ I'll probably go see it again. Maybe a third time, too. It's that much fun.

I admit, when I read the title of this thread, I figured a quote from Chappelle's Show was in order...the Hall of Fame of Hook-Up History, specifically, how a male friend invented "platonic sleepovers," which led to dry-humping, and eventually, intercourse. Since that quote isn't relevant here (which is terribly unfortunate, because it's a pretty brilliant little tidbit), I'd say go with #1. Your friend sounds like he's ****ing up pretty bad even now, and though I don't know him personally, I think it's better to let his parents know now rather than let the situation have the potential to deteriorate even further.

If anyone has backlogged quests, I'm going through my characters and finishing them. Figure I'll start with Ascalon quests, then hit up Northern Shiverpeaks, etc, go through Tyria, then hit up Cantha. In fact, Duncan (my Warrior) still hasn't beaten Prophecies, so...I'm probably going to take some time and clear out Tyria. All the missions, the quests that I still have backlogged, probably a few final skill caps, as well. Anyone interested?

Everyone really needs to read up on this case before talking about guilt or innocence. Everything Karr is saying is either completely contradictory, or so outrageous that it's a logistical nightmare. Contradictory, for example. He says he snuck into her house to kidnap her, yet his ex-wife, from what I've heard, has said he was home in Georgia at the time. He's said her death was "accidental" and yet strangulation and head trauma (8 inch skull fracture) hardly seem accidental. A struggle? Yeah, maybe, but I doubt it. That wouldn't be accidental; that would be pre-meditated. Things like that don't just happen usually. He's said he had sex with her, yet apparently there's no semen found anywhere, and I'd be awfully surprised if DNA tests come up with anything. Logistical nightmare. All of this supposedly happened [i]in her house[/i], at night, when the entire family was home, the day after Christmas. That means he would have had to... One, get there from Georgia if he wasn't already in Boulder, Colorado. Two, know which room was hers, which would entail a pre-existing knowledge of the house itself, probably with some sort of floorplan, because... Three, he would have had to kill her, then sneak downstairs and deposit her body in the basement, all in that 6-7 am timeframe (if memory serves me correctly), which means her parents most certainly were waking up. Hell, the transcript excerpts from the phonecalls back in 1996 have the brother awake at that time. So he's going to need to know where to go, and when, immediately after killing her. Logistical nightmare? You betcha. Unless something earth-shattering is discovered, I'm going to predict right here and now that a judge will either dismiss this case and Karr will instead be tried for perjury if it ever goes to court, or instead penalized heavily for interfering with an investigation...maybe obstruction of justice. And if this thing never goes to trial, you're going to see the DA dropping the case. She's already laid the groundwork for that, because even she's not terribly interested in pursuing this flawed and haphazard story.

[quote name='Bombu][color=darkred']Simply put: don't get one. Uni time shouldn't be spent sitting in your room and playing on handhelds. Spend you're money at bars and concentrate on getting laid.[/color][/quote] QFT Although, it should be mentioned how many PSPs and DSs I've seen at Rutgers when hanging out in the lounges. But other than that, alcohol and sex are your priorities, absolutely. Had you been figuring on getting a game system in general, and were going back and forth between a few different systems, then I'd say splurge on the DS Lite. However, since beer/clubs and women are in the picture...save it. That 120$ USD will come in handy when picking up women.

I think the big question here is will this TMNT movie have the same impact as the original? By that I mean, even though the actual day of release is identical to the original (March 30th), do we really expect to see lines of kids strung around the block at local theatres, all giddy and bouncy, with their parents looking absolutely tired of seeing the same movie for a third time in a row? Maybe I'm cynical, but I honestly can't see that kind of magic and wonder being re-captured here. Hell, I don't even know if those types of local theatres are still around. The only ones I see these days is the United Artists, Loew's, etc. In terms of the movie itself, though I guess you can kind of pick up on my feelings already, I'm ambivalent. On one hand, there's some nice stuff they can do with CG, provided they do it well, but on the other hand, I think the turtle designs look too much like bobble-heads. I'm hoping we get the Shredder, and maybe a few hints of Krang, because Krang is just awesome. I don't know if they're looking to "re-invent" the film series here, like Nolan did with Batman Begins, but either way, I'm still ambivalent. I'd like to see a really disturbing re-working of characters made more humorous in the films, like Tokka and Rahzar, and even Baxter Stockman. The skin color doesn't really matter to me; all I care about is seeing him transform into the horrid fly creature thing...if they work in elements of David Cronenberg's The Fly, that'll be awesome. Maybe not the gore so much as the walking on walls, the hobbling, the "I'll hurt you if you stay" kind of vibe. Hell, make Baxter a sympathetic character, even. So...yeah. heh

[quote name='Boo][size=1']Ehm... how about 'Bambie'?[/size][/quote] Bambi wasn't sad. I felt the best part of the movie (apart from Thumper's mental insufficiency and speech impediment) was when Bambi's mother died. She had it coming, the dirty whore. With that said, I find some of these choices amusing. I can understand Big Fish and Saving Private Ryan, but even then, the overall message at the end is positive. [spoiler]The father and son become closer by the end of Big Fish, and in Saving Private Ryan, while most of the crew is dead, they've succeeded in their mission, and I think that's extraordinarily positive given the circumstances of World War II.[/spoiler] So that's why I don't really consider those films to be sad, per se. I think they're more heart-warming than sad, because of those positive elements at the end of the film. Those tears are tears of joy, which you don't find in truly sad films. A truly sad film is The Deer Hunter. I challenge anyone here to watch that film and not be thinking about suicide by the end. Or to not sob uncontrollably when the main characters sing God Bless America at the very end of the film. The entire end of the film is deeply ironic in a deeply disturbing way, because unlike Big Fish and Saving Private Ryan...[i]there is no hope[/i]. Hands down, the saddest film I've ever seen, and quite possibly the saddest film in the history of cinema. I haven't seen anything that's ever achieved the same type of absence of hope, the same sense of complete and total depression that The Deer Hunter achieves.