|
Post by Baixo Astral on Dec 10, 2012 9:33:38 GMT -5
He should have tried faking a heart attack instead. What kind of joker would do that?
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Aug 24, 2012 9:10:10 GMT -5
No, not close at all. Weird look, can't wrestle, awkwardly charismatic. Not at all. And she needs to fix her hair.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Aug 24, 2012 9:08:03 GMT -5
Really, REALLY glad I didn't decide to try out the bus route I've been scoping out recently.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Aug 21, 2012 12:29:37 GMT -5
He needs to be in a new tag team every week - they need to have matching gear, and a name, and a finisher name, and little in-jokey stuff... and then, new partner next week, same deal.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 10:52:26 GMT -5
I absolutely agree - the real monsters should be few and far between. The Joker is a lunatic, but supercriminals should be far more common.
And comic books should go kid friendly - that's when they sold the most, when they were aimed at being comprehensible to kids. Mort Weisinger's Superman factory pumped out hundreds of stories to an extremely recognizable template, and it was a golden age. Continuity shouldn't be messing with sales like it is, and I'm someone that adores comicbook (DC) continuity. It doesn't make sense to make everything beholden to it.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 10:03:19 GMT -5
We have a Keurig, so I make a lot of my own, but other than that it's always Dunkin', it's always iced, and there's normally a pile of skim milk and caramel syrup in there.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 9:51:50 GMT -5
It really sucks that this season is 13 episodes.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 9:47:10 GMT -5
Some of the later Metal Slug bosses are just insane - there is this one robot that I think you'd have to be an AI to defeat without many, many deaths.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 9:44:55 GMT -5
Real heroes don't kill - my issue is that Batman circumvents the justice system that can't get the job done of taking these guys down, but has issues with just plain imprisoning them - wouldn't you think that a guy who can basically take down deities as long as he's expecting to encounter them would be aces at not just capturing, but jailing his enemies? It's not like he's against incarceration, and he obviously considers himself above the official justice system - I totally agree with his non-lethal methods, but I think he should be jugging up these mega miscreants. Holy Gulag, Batscrew!
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 9:32:49 GMT -5
For goodness sake. I'm not being serious at all. You should be sure and use the sarcasm emoticon, then.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 9:10:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 9:07:51 GMT -5
So how many people on the list are from outside of North America? The show airs in the US. And is geared towards mostly American pop culture. Why would they include a bunch of foreign people that not many people in the US would remember or know? What he said.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 8:49:51 GMT -5
What does that matter? It's for her to interpret; it could be "showing off this outfit", it could be "I like this pose", it could be something innocent or something not-so-innocent...who cares? It's her business, and none of it justifies it if she's getting pervs commenting on it. Women sometimes wear revealing clothing; it's the way fashion tends to go. The woman at the bar in the skimpy red dress isn't necessarily wearing it so she can get some guy's attention that night; she might be wearing it because she simply likes it, because she wants her boyfriend to see it, because who-gives-a-damn-because-it's-none-of-our-business. Now here's where I'll concede that things can get a bit dicey: I know full well that if I have a daughter in the future, one of the internet lessons I'll try to impart on her is that if she chooses to put up pictures of herself in revealing clothing, in a "suggestive" pose, in a bikini, etc., then unfortunately she has to be prepared for awful creepers to write things to her. If I find out this possible-future-girl does it, anyway, I'm pretty sure I'd be upset with her not listening to me. How do I square that? I DON'T believe a woman is to blame for bringing on creeper attention, because arguing that is a means of justifying creeper behavior ("Your Honor, you shoulda seen the outfit she had on!"). Yet at the same time there's a feeling of that you'd want to tell your own theoretical daughter or whomever "Honey, you have to know better." It boils down to this: there's a saying that says "We need to stop teaching people how not to get raped/harrassed/etc., and start teaching people to just not rape/harrass/etc." It's true; the core of the problem is people with no social intelligence, with no respect for other human beings once they feel they've been sexualized, who cross these lines and make life miserable for so many people. If this core problem isn't being dealt with, then we're resorting to telling girls "don't dress sexy! Don't put pictures of yourself online! Don't do this, that, or the other thing!" That's a scary, scary thought, telling half the population NOT to do so many things that really shouldn't be considered poor behavior. Again, it basically justifies the creepers; "If she hadn't posed like that/dressed that way/etc. then nothing bad would've happened!". No, something bad happened because some creepy freak overstepped the bounds of appropriateness. That said, again, it's tough NOT to tell sisters/daughters/etc. these things, because rooting out creeper behavior is simply not something that'll happen overnight. It's tough not to feel "you have to expect that there are awful people who'll do/say/write awful things". But again, to make that the focus of one's take on it is to ignore the root causes of poor behavior. I could be foolish and leave my XM radio unit visible in my car when I park on the street outside my apartment, and it could get stolen...should I have not left it visible? Yeah, that's probably fair to say. But does scolding me over that really address why some criminal would come by and destroy property and steal somebody else's things? Post of the thread here. That should just be in HMark's sig. I opened this thread, and knew exactly who was going to post in it, and what they were going to say. Let's just say that some people have their tops off, and we can see what is underneath, and it ain't pretty.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 27, 2012 8:48:59 GMT -5
I think they're just gonna make people madder at this guy by barring the press. He irreversibly changed like hundreds of lives. We deserve to see him face the consequences, at least as far as court or something. No, we don't. We'd just be voyeurs. We don't deserve to see any of this, and there is no need to turn it into a circus.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 26, 2012 8:56:26 GMT -5
And Dean Ambrose. Gotta have Dean Ambrose in it, too. Actually, an Anti-Hero Dean Ambrose going against those guys on his own would be a lot more badass. I'm getting more and more to hoping that Ambrose comes in as an evil chef or something, because the "Dean Ambrose should immediately be pushed as our new leader" thing is killing my spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 25, 2012 8:38:23 GMT -5
I loved Scrubs for a while, but I'm now in a long period of "Why the hell could I ever stand to watch that". That happened after two episode of Crapmunity, so I'm gonna say Scrubs is a bunch better.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 24, 2012 10:52:17 GMT -5
I'm gawjuss.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 24, 2012 9:01:30 GMT -5
Wow - I thought it was stupid crap.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 24, 2012 8:50:31 GMT -5
King said Patterson was backstage. Not literally.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Jul 24, 2012 7:40:45 GMT -5
Thought it was great, personally - sarcastic, whiny, snarky heel Punk is way better than sarcastic, whiny, snarky face Punk.
|
|