LadyCrimson

To be able to have cookies on whatever day you want cookies? Definitely the (store) baker.

I like that look a lot. Although, as you mentioned, the boots aren't the best. I like the leather type armor/fancy hats posted earlier, too. Especially the hats.

Argh. Body says "you're sick, you're sleepy, lie down." Brain says "you've been (mostly) in bed for a week, can't sleep." Catnaps of 45 minutes, coughing wakes me up, wide awake. Repeat. I look like this, only with messier hair: Can't last forever tho. Next week will be better! And I'll be my normal cheery self again. As cheery as I ever get, anyway.

I remember that thread. I'd still be against shutting them down/forcing them to remove the excessive menu items. I might, however, say they such places should always have a "lighter" menu for people to choose from, as well. Doesn't have to be big, just that they have something. It's still not their "fault" if some go there and eat themselves silly, vs. eating some and taking the rest home to have for dinner over a couple more nights, or whatever. I am, however, a little dubious about places that have those contests like "if you can eat our 6 pound plate of food in 10 minutes, win a t-shirt/it's free/get a pic on The Wall!" I know it's all in good fun (and it made for a funny TV show....) but that's giving prizes for superhuman excess as a sort of marketing tactic, not just having it on the menu for people to option from. And then there are the HappyMeals...

But individually, it is vague. Some overweight people may not ever have any serious medical (cost-wise) issues and then just drop dead, costing no one anything. And some alcoholics are still skinny, so you can't use waistline for that measure, you'd have to police what they're drinking to be able to say "you drink too much, we're raising your rates". And where do you draw the line? BMI is a good starting indicator I suppose, but I know fat people (275+ lbs, not tall) who could outwalk me in speed and mileage because they walked EVERYWHERE (yet stayed fat....) while my flat feet/weak ankles can make long distance walking/running a serious pain. And some lazy people who never exercise but may not be fat can be prime candidates for diabetes or other maladies and other such even with a healthy diet. And they can lie about their exercise on forms. How do you rate those people without monitoring their health all the time to see if they're lying? Also, stuff like diabetes, heart attacks, strokes also have genetic tendencies/influences. Sure it's not "easily preventable" in that case, but still, they're very high risk people, right? Almost guaranteed they're going to be a burden on the system one day! Should my scared/health-conscious cousins pay more, because my (skinny, otherwise healthy) Uncle has had 3 heart attacks and his father and grandfather both died from heart attacks? I don't think you should punish individuals for "maybes" at all. It's a "you don't conform thus you're inferior" message. I think you should do something about having a fast food joint every 2 blocks and the seventy gazillion commercials and ads that encourage excessive living, large portions, and the "socializing=eating" mentality. Or something. btw, when I say I might support a "junk food tax" it's because ... well, my household already "supports" the alcohol tax and the tobacco tax, so what the heck...largish chocolate bar costs $1.5 - $2.5, why not make it $3-5. Course, it won't stop me from buying one, since I don't buy 50 of them at a time. It does punish people who just want the occasional treat, but at the same time, it's still then their choice to spend or not.

The fangirl in me squealed. And not for the Muppets.

I have no issue if people could, say, join some voluntary "I'msuperhealthy" govt. program, so they can qualify for better rates than those who don't join/qualify for that program. But I'm not really into forcing people to pay higher rates solely on the premise that because they consume more than, I dunno, 6 drinks a day or 200grams of sugar a day, that they're a higher risk for 40 years down the road and should thus pay tons more now. Nor am I in favor of regulating such products/substances. About the only thing I might support is "junk food taxes" which would cause fast food/junk food/eating out to no longer be super cheap...hence the convenience of them would likely no longer be worth the extra cost, for many people. Such things might then, for many at least, go back to being a weekly treat, rather than a constant at every meal. (edit) and I should say I'm not actually in huge favor of that either...since it punishes people who are healthy. But I'd be willing to try that route. That kind of goes back to the companies (and they way they "push" their products relentlessly etc) that no one wants to touch. Plus there's all kinds of things in life, that other people do, that in some way I'm at least partially paying for (taxes of some kind) through no volition of mine. Like retire. I think people shouldn't be allowed to retire anymore, it's ruining my monthly budget. 2nd edit: maybe the above was a little too snarky. If so, sorry in advance. I'm sick, cranky and it's tax time. Back to bed soon.

*coughwheezesnortcoughwheeze* ...yeah, still pretty sick. It frakkin sucks, of course, but we all know how that is. On the bright side, these are the times when I get my serious money-worth's out of my Netflix sub. So many terrible movies out there, it makes me grin.

*eats a small bowl of rice, vegies, a little meat, with glass of OJ. Then eats a cookie* ...no one better take away my cookies. Or my jerky. I do understand wanting to do something about obesity in general but perceived convenience (vs. planning, cooking and doing the dishes, haha) and an ever-growing sedentary lifestyle are the things we should be looking at, not limiting sugar/booze/fat in gov. regulated fashion. I mean, education efforts are fine. Have no problem with that. But otherwise - what are they going to do? Start monthly enforced state weigh-ins and if your BMI is too high, fine you some huge fee-tax or go to jail? I'm so sick of the nanny-state mentality.

I remember the temple of Eep in 8 (I think it was in an area that wasn't too hard to get to early-ish). I don't remember the others from the later games tho. But as usual, I don't often pay attention to/remember names. I also had no clue it was some kind of tradition...just that it was a weird dungeon where one found ... cheese. Heh.

Ah, that makes sense. I had some vision of a humor-level full of actual magical cats or something along those lines. Of course. ...anyone know if this has one of those developer dungeons you have to find? I used to like those.

I mostly didn't like Anomen's personality. And as I had no interest in romancing him, I dumped him pretty quickly.

*catches up on reading through people's MMX experiences, ponders a bit, then...* ...Meow Dungeon?

I guess I missed something...since I don't speak the language.

Um...no. I fail to see how my eventual decision, over many years, that the films Fincher picks to direct are largely films that don't personally interest me = me placing too much credit on directors for a film's quality. I didn't see any of his films because his name was listed as Director, btw. That's rarely the reason I see any movie. Seeing Seven - and a couple others - were actually accidental random happenings, for example. I didn't even realize some of his movies were directed by him, until later. But over time, I may come to decide they don't make films I care about. So I stop watching. I was not, btw, aware of David Fincher when I bought Fight Club and that wasn't the original reason for my not getting around to watching it. At this point in time, however, it is just one of several aspects that makes me go "Oh yeah I should get around to watching that..." but then still never actually doing it. As to actors...meh. Assuming I'm not in fangirl mode where I'd watch "Monsters from the FenGoo Moon Swamp" just to see them in it, I don't see movies just because certain actors are in them, even if I like the actor. I think Meryl Streep can be marvelous, but she is rarely in films I ever care to watch. And there's a lot of famous actors I admire where I've seen only a few of their films. I'm all about whether I'd like the setting/genre/topic. True enough, although to my understanding this is often largely because of the way films are made and then finalized. Most of the filming "crew" (including, often, the actors) film piecemeal/out of order, see/do many takes of the same scene (with no idea which take is going to be the one used), often in greenscreen these days, at most probably gets to see some dailies, then goes home. How all those scenes look/are put together is not up to them after that, and it may not often jibe with what they were envisioning. Not surprising, really. ...the director (often) still plays a large role after filming stops, however. Not always, but often, especially bigger name directors. Editors, sound, effects etc. as well too, of course.

I have no problem paying for some stuff that benefits all. In fact some things, I'd be willing to pay even more than we already do. That said, I do often have a difficult time believing where my taxes are actually being spent is truly what they say it's being spent on. I also still firmly dislike the US self-employment Soc. Sec. tax laws.

I used to love the Winter Olympics (never cared about Summer Olympics) in the 80's. The luge, the ice skating/dancing, speed skating, the ski jump, and so on. I have a difficult time watching the American network broadcasts of them these days. They're often so .... terribly done. Maybe I can find some cable channel that does it better.

Norton is probably why I bought it. Primal Fear is still my personal favorite role of his. Just likely not my type of setting...hence why I never got around to actually watching it. I also have never seen The Godfather. There's also, for me, the David Fincher thing. Seven appears to (so far) be the only movie David Fincher has directed that I seriously liked (Zodiac was fairly decent too). I haven't liked any other Fincher film beyond the "it's watchable/mildly interesting" level so at this point his name doesn't inspire confidence for me personally.

This is about where my relationship with this cult film is at this point. I even own it but never watched it. From what I've seen, I'd probably enjoy it but wouldn't exalt it.

P.S. Hoffman died? That sucks. Especially the method, if true. Hardly older than I am. Certain drugs one should just say no to, always. Always. I'm so flu-sick it's not even funny. But at least I can mostly breathe so I don't think I'm on swine-flu's death door. Just omg...so weak/dizzy/aching. Isolated myself in this room, surrounded by otc meds. I was disappointed Thera-Flu seems to be gone (hubs went to 3 stores, couldn't find any). Also, it can be really difficult, apparently, to get any cold meds WITHOUT any tylenol (or aspirin - I can't take aspirin) in it. I prefer Advil (joint pain/swelling) and don't want to double-up.

I had to Google Jessie Eisenberg, heh. I can sorta see it, appearance wise. I'm not sure about style wise. Depends what they're doing with the sequel I guess. Irons as Alfred tho...well, I'll give him a chance. Not like he doesn't have the acting chops.

Head feels a fair bit better but now cough/dizzy with chills/spking fever. Orange juice, I need orange juice. And more blankets. Also, laundry machine broke (well the electric push-contact of the closing lid did, anyway). Lovely day.

They looked horrible even when released. That said, if you play them not full-screen (on today's monitors), it's better. I think what bugs me most these days is that tiny gameplay window area vs. the GUI.