Valsuelm

Who do I talk to about stopping this stupid policy of closing threads due to length? I PMed a mod a year or so ago and asked why and their response was basically: 'Well.. we've just always done it that way.' It's really a retarded policy. Really.

They are good enough that I consider them to be honorary even-numbered Trek movies. !!!! Star Trek 5 was a masterpiece in comparison.

Is this like one of those things where Trekkies didn't like it but everyone else did? I mean I like Star Trek, but I'm nowhere near a Trekkie. A 'trekkie' is a relative and subjective term. Kind like a 'druggie'. Many users of drugs X wouldn't consider themselves a druggie, but others might after just hearing of or seeing them do it once. Same for 'trekkie'.

Which was horribad on varying levels.... Namutree says he thinks the movie will be ok so long as Lucas is kept away. Well, the fact that he does have some creative input aside, I'd agree with that sentiment in general. I'd also say they might be ok so long as JJ is kept away as well. As bad as Lucas is he at least has some good original movies under his name, albeit all were over 20 years ago now. J.J.'s got ok at best movies under his name with not one of them being original. I figure I got about as much chance at winning the lottery as Ep 7 being good. Possible, I'm hopeful, but I'm not planning on it.

In honor of Tel Aviv's avatar, one of the greatest movies of all time, and a damn good song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od_6M8cFdUA

The only thing that perks my interest even a little is seeing the original cast in action. However, I will likely refrain from seeing it until I get word from some trusted folks that it's actually good. I doubt that word will come and fully expect Han, Leia, Luke, et al to be **** upon over and over by Abrams, Disney, et al. Given the many of the people behind the movie, I expect this new trilogy to make the prequels look good. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

I hold the value of the life of dogs I've had in my life above those of many people I have met, and most I haven't met. As do a great many others who have dogs. That said, the police dog should not have been there, the guns should not have been out, and so on. It was murder. It happens very often. In the couple days this has been discussed police have probably killed a couple of people in cold blood somewhere in the US, and assaulted countless others. The local DA almost never prosecutes, even when there's mountains of evidence against the offending officer. There are some good cops out there, but they really are rare in most police departments. Serpico rare. While most cops might not commit murder, a great many do assault people, and most do look the other way when their co-workers kill, assault, steal, blackmail, frame, etc. Corruption is rampant in militarized police department X, pretty much everywhere. A lot of people are bamboozled by decades of pro police propaganda though. On the news, on TV, in the movies. The police are the good guys, there to protect and serve! I once thought they were the good guys too. Until I saw with my own eyes how they weren't many many times over.

Solution, fire anyone who fired their gun, and don't rehire anyone else. Most police departments are way overstaffed. Also, disarm your average cop. There is no good reason they all are armed with weapons that are primarily lethal. Arm the populace, not government thugs. I'd wager a proper ballistics report was not done, in which case fire all those that would/should be responsible for doing one. Prosecute the policemen who fired more than one round, or can be proven to have actually hit the subject with a round from their gun, for murder. If the evidence isn't available due to a lack of a proper investigation, dissolve the police department, sell it's wares, award all proceeds to the family of the man, and issue an injunction barring that municipality from forming another police department for a period of at least 20 years. Likely none of the above will happen, and the police will get away with murder. That's the norm these days in police state USA. Oh... and possibly most important of all. Repeal all legislation that gives any government worker immunity from anything (an amendment forbidding immunity clauses for government workers is one of the few I'd add to the US Constitution). Then in the future we can prosecute the DA for helping cover up a murder, rather than doing their job.

Separate but equal. No... then we'd have activists in a few years complaining of how one pavement is in a superior position than the other, or in better condition. There is no satisfying these wackoloons.

It is not harassment. I do not know an 'SJ code' is, but I wager I'm probably better off for it as it sounds like some kind of cultural marxist BS. The video is not worth discussing as it's edited, and the people posting it obviously have an agenda around it. Sadly, people fall for this contrived BS.

Wrong. The first step to being a rapist is being a man. Only in the minds of feminists or manginas.

I'd crash your wedding. http://youtu.be/IHJVolaC8pw Jesus it's been 8 years...

As usual:

You're a sociopath by your own logic. Go you. You again seek to impose your view upon all others and marginalize those that don't share it as sociopaths. But you again aren't actually sincere in your view, or it's massively incomplete. I'm sure you don't care how all those folks throughout the world that you support being bombed or killed in the name of cause X think of you. Human beings are social creatures indeed. However, many don't care if they are liked or not. They aren't necessarily crazy, sociopaths, etc. They might just not care what person X thinks. Chances are, given the scenario, that's actually a very good thing for all involved. I'd certainly say that in general anyone who is concerned with being liked on an internet forum full of people they don't really actually know might have some mental issues if anyone does. Certainly anyone concerned with how everyone else thinks about them has issues, that aren't good. That person is near as rare as a unicorn though. Anyone overly concerned with being liked by everyone else or even most people is going to be inherently superficial. The normal view on life and society is contrived, packaged, and sold. Your average idiot these days seeks to conform above near all else so they buy. That is generally stupid to the nth level. As to why people might be on a forum engaging in a debate with people they have no affinity with? The fact that the best debates are often with people one does not have an affinity with aside (there are overall no great debates on this forum that I've ever seen). There are a number of possibilities and reasons that come to mind and I'm sure I'm not thinking of all of them. With all due respect to everyone here who deserves it, I don't come to this forum because I have an affinity with anyone here, nor am I concerned if anyone here likes me. I'm sorry if that somehow hurts anyone here. For your sake I hope it doesn't.

I received at least a few death threats (among a great many other kind of threats, such as promises to do horrible things to my mother) just this last week, with a couple of them being particularly gruesome in how I was to meet my demise. My reaction ranged from 'oh yay, another zit popping twit' to laughing out loud in amusement. I am sorry that you have to deal with that type of vitriol. Hopefully you do not have to do business with such toxic people. edit: How is that an acceptable way to interact with people? Eh. In the gaming world I've come to expect it since the mid 2000s (that's about the time that the Eternal September era started to look like the halcyon days in a relative manner). The kids that grew up in the world not knowing what life is like without a cell phone or internet in general don't have as much of an appreciation for what's acceptable to say and what isn't, as they've always been able to hide behind a computer, text message, email, etc and rarely have to actually face the person they are talking to. Prior to the interwebs some people hid behind the phone, but at least there you have tone, inflection, and the voice of the other person. Nowadays many adults who should know better have even taken to hiding behind technology. It's sadly very common. In yesteryear if you said much of what is often said in the online world you'd eventually get popped in the face by someone. That doesn't happen as much today. Some would celebrate that, but I'd say they don't appreciate the full consequences of that, and I don't think it's a good thing at all for a variety of reasons. As for dealing with this stuff in business? Not so much anymore, but once upon a time I spent a number of years dealing directly with the public daily, as a waiter, bartender, merchandiser, tour manager, and other roles in the hospitality and music business. And heck yes there were some people who spit out that kind of vitriol. You diffused the situation (and you almost never cut off contact as Rosbjerg and many frankly dumb psychologists suggest as that would often have the opposite effect as well as potentially causes great harm), or ignored it depending on the situation. That takes people skills, something that a majority of people in modern times lack. Some say that everyone should serve in the military. While I'm 100% against forcing anyone into any occupation or servitude of any kind, if I had an occupation that I think everyone should do for awhile it would be as a waiter in a couple of different restaurants (high, mid, and low end). So many people have no clue how to handle others, and there's probably no better common profession out there where you learn to deal with all sorts of **** that people throw at you. Of course there are some people that never learn, but many would.

Probably because there's no real harm in it. You get to vent, I get the laughs. All's good. Ah the old stick and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. Yeah, that's not really a thing. There is literally piles of research and evidence stacked up against that old idiom. Those piles upon piles of research don't use absolutes or they are hogwash. While verbal abuse certainly can hurt, it very often doesn't. Key is the context it's delivered in, who delivers it, and the mental fortitude of the recipient. When some dolt I've never met on the interwebs who I will only spend an hour or two with an more than likely never see again, who probably has the mental capacity of a 14 year old even if they're in their 30s says some words meant to be hurtful, it's minorly annoying at worst (in which case I might mute them), or amusing at best. For best amusement I recommend those with a foreign accent speaking broken English, doing their best to hate you in the most vehement vitriolic manner they can. There are some people on the web that can make it look like Khan was only slightly miffed at Kirk. If they are anything, they are funny, not scary.

We generally wouldn't know if law enforcement was involved.... However based on Mike's public statement it wouldn't be a bad bet that they were. As Mike never addresses Gabe directly, which would be a violation of an order of protection if he had one placed on him.

You apparently don't play online multiplayer games much. Then again half of what's ever written in this forum seems to go right over your head as if you never read it. So you might have received them and been too daft to understand them. I received at least a few death threats (among a great many other kind of threats, such as promises to do horrible things to my mother) just this last week, with a couple of them being particularly gruesome in how I was to meet my demise. My reaction ranged from 'oh yay, another zit popping twit' to laughing out loud in amusement.

Except he didn't remove it. Mike, the guy who posted the naughty tweets, voluntarily sold his half of the company to Travis, at least that's what's publicly stated. The amount of 'let's punish that guy!' or 'that guy deserves @)#($!' in this thread is disconcerting inasmuch as it's a reflection of our society. This attitude is in part why we have overflowing prisons in the U.S..

Not really. Their job is to collect revenue and enforce the will of those who run the state and this is generally what they effectively do, despite them being advertised as otherwise and even despite the best intentions of some police officers. Regardless of that. While various states have different statutes, in general Gabe could file a claim of harassment with the police and they would very possibly press charges regardless of the outcome of their investigation (if they even bother to investigate, they often don't) as reasonable discretion isn't common (thought it does exist) in your average police department due to there very rarely being accountability. In addition, and probably concurrently (depending on the state) Gabe could seek to have an order of protection placed upon the guy making the threats. The effectiveness of such things in actually protecting someone is pretty much nil, however they are fairly effective sometimes of messing up the life of the person they are given to (this is particularly true in domestic cases, and because of this are often used as a weapon). If Gabe actually truly believes the guy is a threat, in the end contacting the police won't do much good for him. The police are always only a minute away when you need them in mere seconds. Gabe should opt for some good home security and a gun. I'll wager he's already got both.

While the U.S. marches ever towards dystopia, one would thankfully still be hard pressed today to find a jury to send someone to prison for making such statements as were made on twitter that inspired the creation of this thread. Granted, I'll concede that there may be laws on the books to do so in our police state, as certainly some here such as yourself would think there would/should be, but as of yet it's not happening. Thankfully.

No, it really doesn't. It surprises me that Hurl even had to ask. Trash, and most of the rest of the people here have posted adequate info about themselves that we can safely peg most to be well past 18. I don't always agree with Trash, but he is one of the more informed posters on this forum and in a manner that I wouldn't have guessed less than 30. I'd peg most of the people here as being in their mid 30s or older. Maturity and intellect has little to do with age for much of the populace. Wisdom only comes to those who pay attention as life goes on, and learns from theirs and others mistakes as well as successes. And that's a minority of the population, and seemingly this forum to a slightly lesser extent as well. We live in a world now that encourages ignorance, conformity, institutional worship, almost permanent adolescence, and stupidity. Most of those that are ever going to wake up out of the stupor most people are born into have already at least half done so by the time they are 18.

Worth mentioning is the fallacy that much of the west really is even a democracy. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are snowballed into thinking that just because you get to go to the polls you live in a free nation, in a 'democracy', and/or your vote actually matters. We'll spotlight Australia for a moment, as it often tops these 'happiness polls'. Australia is a Commonwealth state, that exists at the pleasure of the queen, like all the other commonwealth states (such as Canada). If it's leadership ever gets out of line, and actually makes decisions in the best interest of a truly independent Australia (which is not in the Queen's interests) she'll remove it. Don't think she can or will? You've maybe been convinced the English Monarchy is actually just a figurehead (they certainly teach this BS in schools)? Well. she's done it before: http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-forgotten-coup-how-america-and-britain-crushed-the-government-of-their-ally-australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis Speaking of Canada, who do you think signed their 'Bill of Rights' into law? Why the Queen of course when it was deemed prudent to placate the masses with such a thing. Oh, and the G20 is going to be in the land down under soon: I'm sure there will be many Aussies getting the beat down by the minions of their overlords. Wonder how they'll vote in the sham happiness poll.

To some a kiddie pool is deep. To others a standard in-ground pool is deep. To others, both are shallow, and some would even say very much so.