Amentep

Nah, the computer was an Apple II computer, but it didn't have any apple branding as it was a fictional "Chess Wizard" with voice announcing. J&B Rare Blend scotch that MacReady pours into it was real, though.

Pretty sure that Carpenter's The Thing does have product placement; I seem to recall them showing the beer they're drinking fairly prominently and its a real brand. Possibly some other day-to-day items in the break room / kitchen. Been awhile since I saw it so my memory could be cheating, but atm I can't find conclusive evidence one way or the other. It'd have been rare for a relatively big budget film of the time done by a major studio (Universal) to not have some kind of product placement, no matter how minor. Not since the 2011 prequel film, The Thing.

The victim says that was not how she behaved. Hillary's affidavit is her swearing to the court she was told those things, so either she was told those things (whether the person telling lied or not) or she lied to the court under oath (cue discussions of later Hillary activities, I'm sure! ). Ultimately the motion never got reviewed in court (again as near as I can tell) so there doesn't appear to be any real determination in regards to veracity. Regardless a defense attorney is legally able to challenge witnesses testimony and to test evidence on behalf of their client, so again while I don't like a lot of what Hillary has done in government in modern days, I can't fault her in this case for...well...being a defense attorney.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-post-publishes-fact-check-on-rape-victims-story/article/2604360 As I understand it, Clinton gave this affidavit of information provided to her as part of a motion for the court to require a psychiatric evaluation be done for the girl. Which, obviously, would be something you'd want to have happen if you'd been told things that might put into question the truthfulness of the accuser's story. As to it not "being allowed" in court, as near as I can tell, the defendant took a plea deal with the prosecution before the request ever got considered by the judge (at least the documents that are being used pro- and con- this issue online don't seem to have a ruling from the judge one way or the other on the motion that I, non-lawyer, can tell). Again nothing I've seen here seems out of step with the idea of trying to give the client the best defense possible

volo are you going to constantly make this inaccurate and scurrilous accusation and never produce any links to support your view? Do you not ever feel you should try to support these types of comments? Dude, you were given the links to the whole story like two weeks ago. This is why Gary Johnson stopped smoking pot. To be fair, the links provided didn't say she laughed at the rape victim; she laughed when remembering a scenario where she lost faith in lie-detector tests (which, lets face it, are unreliable) as part of her job (which she didn't take on under her own judgement but as court appointed council for the defense) to provide the most complete defense to her client she could do within her power. I understand the appeal to emotion that "OMGZ, Hillz defended a rapist! And then laughed (years later)!" gives. I understand that Hillary may have even felt her client was guilty - but as a lawyer her client was entitled to the best defense she could offer. That's the way the US Judicial process is supposed to be. She's not obligated to character assassinate the child victim though. If you're referring to her presenting the defense that the alleged victim fancied older men and couldn't differentiate between fantasy and reality, then it still falls under the "best defense she could offer" if the claim was one that could be substantiated in the court (which apparently it could, since it was allowed in the trial) I'm no fan of Hillary, but I can't fault her for doing her job to the best of her ability as required by her status as an agent of the court. And criminal law isn't always pleasant.

volo are you going to constantly make this inaccurate and scurrilous accusation and never produce any links to support your view? Do you not ever feel you should try to support these types of comments? Dude, you were given the links to the whole story like two weeks ago. This is why Gary Johnson stopped smoking pot. To be fair, the links provided didn't say she laughed at the rape victim; she laughed when remembering a scenario where she lost faith in lie-detector tests (which, lets face it, are unreliable) as part of her job (which she didn't take on under her own judgement but as court appointed council for the defense) to provide the most complete defense to her client she could do within her power. I understand the appeal to emotion that "OMGZ, Hillz defended a rapist! And then laughed (years later)!" gives. I understand that Hillary may have even felt her client was guilty - but as a lawyer her client was entitled to the best defense she could offer. That's the way the US Judicial process is supposed to be.

That's actually one of my favorite scenes in games in general. I look the clip up on YouTube occasionally just to revisit the moment. Although they drive the scene better than I did. lol. There's a scene in SAINTS ROW 2 that really transcended for me, when The Boss is drugged and the Sons of Samedi kidnap them/attack the base. The character I was playing, plus the voice set I'd chosen made the scenario attack both gripping and daft at the same time. You weaving around on drugs shooting up badguys before finally tripping over a couch after the fight. It sealed me as a fan of the game. Truly hated they changed the voice sets in SRIV since the one I was using wasn't there anymore. On a totally different note, when I played Dragon's Dogma I spent a lot of time exploring. I loved going out at night with a lamp on and how it changed the ambience. But one thing is I saw walking around a waterfall - games had taught me that secret stuff can be hidden behind them, so I walked up and...there was a cave that led to a temple. Wandering around the temple I got into a fight with a cyclops. Couldn't get far because I hadn't even gotten the quest to go to the temple yet. But it really made the exploration work for me, finding that cave and that cyclops.

I'm playing Titan Quest Anniversary Edition. I had to start over because I realized I'd recreated my old character and was wanting to try something new.

At that link, the first picture related to Anita Hill is in association to a donated pin; the second appears to be related to a photograph (that I should mention isn't listed on the website holdings) and trying to contextualize the event within a historical context. So yes, they talk about people, but in a way that relates them to their history. Right now - yes - it seems that they think that the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings are best contextualized in context of bringing social issues to the forefront of the conversation rather than in the context of the second African-American Supreme Court Justice. But again I'd be interested in knowing - did they ask Thomas directly for a donation (and did he refuse) and, if not, why not and did anyone try to voluntarily donate anything related to him and was actually refused to have it accepted? Because at the end of the day if all you have are items that represent Anita Hill, and your museum is designed to use those items to explain history, then Anita Hill is going to dominate the conversation.

That would be pretty bizarre. Although he is still serving, so he might not fit the criteria for an exhibit. Is there an Obama exhibit? It would be interesting if they managed to get a reason out of the museum, instead of just relying on conjecture. There are also plenty of other conservatives in recent government posts, so if this really were a political issue, I'd imagine Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell would also be snubbed. They don't really have exhibits - as I understand it - on people. The items related to Obama (First Lady's Dress worn to the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, a "Librarians for Obama" pin, a portrait of Obama, etc) would be in the exhibition of post 1968 history, I believe. A search of their holdings show nothing connected to "Clarence Thomas", "Condoleezza Rice" or "Colin Powell". That said the only item associated with Anita Hill is a donated pin with "I belive Anita" on it. When they create the exhibits, they can only do so with what they actually have in their holdings, so the obvious question I'd have about this potential snub is did anyone try to donate items related to Justice Thomas and the museum refused the donation? Or is this a case of not spending time on someone that they have nothing in the collection to relate his story to? A lot of questions to ask on this one, I think, before leaping to "libruls".

Most stuff I watched on videotape until about 2007 or so because of work or school keeping me busy nights.

I'm still mad that Pretender, Profiler and The Others were cancelled for Vince McMahon's XFL.

Both concerns would be addressed with a teleporting Segway, let me tell you...

http://www.thewrap.com/cnn-instant-poll-hands-debate-victory-to-mike-pence-over-tim-kaine/ So the general consensus is Pence won the debate over Kaine. This doesn't change people's view on who to vote for in the presidential debate as it applies to VP only How many people actually vote for a VP candidate instead of Voting for a Prez-VP ticket?

I had a dream where I owned a teleporting Segway and could teleport back and forth large distance on it, then ride it around locally. Also Mickey Rooney was pestering me to let him use the Segway, and people I knew was mad at me for no longer having a work commute. Then I woke up and found I still had to drive to work. The end.

Apocalypse in the comics was a "survival of the fittest" type to the nth degree, as I recall; he mostly supported mutants because he deemed them more fit to survive than non-mutants. There's a little hint of that in the movie, but not so much.

I actually couldn't watch Supergirl because of Calista Flockhart's Cat Grant. I understand the appeal of such a character, I guess, but not one that I'm enamored of. Supposedly the CW move will minimize her involvement (because Canada) so maybe it'd be more to my tastes. I might see if I decide to watch all the arrowverse crossover this year. Anyhow, I'm looking forward to watching the new Westworld.

23 years - sounds like a lot when you count it up...

Remind me to never ask a Hockey fan to clarify his/her point...!

Tee-hee.

Sure, there's some objective statements; but things like the Republican saying he gave him a "blank stare" when they first met or the Democrat who said he was clueless and didn't want to learn (or something like that) seem...a bit character assassinationy - although they may actually be true. That's why I wrote.

Democrats and Republicans complain about a third party candidate (who used to be Republican). The question, of course, is do they raise fair complaints, or are they putting this out there because both sides are afraid Johnson is "stealing" votes from "their" candidate?

Hasn't that been the problem for years, though? That it is more important to vote for a "winner" than it is to vote for who you want to represent you? Therefore the goal is to win at all costs? This has been my explanation for the "if you don't vote democrate/republican you are throwing your vote away" types.

Shouldn't it be 12 years (this is 2016, join date is 2004)? Anyhow... I started on usenet rec.arts.games.* heirarchy around 1993. Was a lurker on Interplay's threaded forums around 1999. Joined Black Isle in around early to mid-2000. Joined Obsidian in Feb 2004.