Amentep

Actually very logical old fruit. If you only have a day left, you don't care about the consequences. So in your heart of hearts, you might be saying "I'll use my last day to get revenge or take what I want by force", right? Anyway, as others have stated, 24 hours just isn't long enough to do anything major. I couldn't even fly back to my country. The best you can really do is go to your favorite (nearby) place and spend time with loved ones. Of course it also means that if your remaining family was all in one area, you could kill them all without an issue as there would be no one left to punish (or if you can't kill them all but don't like them, you wouldn't care what happens to them so could do whatever crimes you want). In essence the punishment hinges on the idea that you don't want bad things to happen to your family.

Pretty sure the Hot Chicks thread was nuked each time because some posters couldn't resist posting naked / semi-nudes in the thread despite multiple warnings from the mods not to post nakes / semi-nudes in the thread.

Saw Batman v Superman:Dawn of Justice Top Line: A good film that suffers from some poor editing - both in film and in script - that results in an overlong story that perhaps isn't as satisfying as it should be.

Comment on...?

Is there a source for this? Long time ago I've read a theory about that River might be a reborn vampire hunter... therefore drawing a very wide circle back to the Buffy tv show. Apparently from a Joss Whedon interview in 2005 although the full quote provides some further context: http://blog.whedonesque.com/post/21862101801/spike-in-firefly-season-6

... The whole point of doing it is so it will be pointed out. That's trolling 101, and Bruce does it all the time. In all seriousness, Bruce purports to be fine with prostitution and not fine with an open marriage. Even if they were honestly held opinions rather than the forum equivalent of Gawker clickbait (no surprise Bruce would defend them, they're peas in a pod) there's literally no point even arguing with someone that disconnected with reality; the level of cognitive dissonance that would be required to honestly hold both opinions renders it utterly pointless. I always thought of trolling as intentionally riling people up, not posting logical inconsistencies so someone will point them out. Learn something new everyday, I guess.

They forgot to use the blue "serial" color for Kirk Alyn (they instead use the motion picture color, green). Adam West did Batman as voice only (The New Adventures of Batman cartoon) but only has movie (Batman the Movie) and TV (Batman 66, Legend of the Superheroes) bullets. Bud Collyer should have 3 VO bullets as he did Superman on radio, for the Fleischer brothers/Famous animated shorts and for the early Filmation Superman tv cartoons in the 60s (The New Adventures of Superman, Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure and the Batman/Superman Hour) The Wonder Woman list misses Cathy Lee Crosby from the original TV Movie that preceded the Lynda Carter TV show. David Boreanaz VOed Green Lantern in Justice League: The New Frontier where NPH VOed The Flash... Basically everytime I see that infographic I find something else wrong with it. Must...stop...looking.

I'm sorry but as far as I can tell those two statements are inconsistent, either Gawker did right, or they did wrong. You say you "can't blame Gawker" because Gawker is a trash media outlet - you are then absolving them of guilt, and you're absolving them of responsibility for their actions. Blame (v) assign responsibility for a fault or wrong. Absolve (v) to make (someone) free from guilt, responsibility, etc. Guilt (N) responsibility for a crime or for doing something bad or wrong You are saying "I can't assign responsibility for wrong to Gawker, but I also can't make them free from responsibility and guilt for doing something wrong". That's not consistent, and IMO its a terribly goofy position to take (particularly when you've already acknowledged in a previous post that Gawker wouldn't have the right to broadcast more "morally wrong" videos of murder and rape). I get it, you don't like Hogan and you don't think he's a morally good person. Lots of people agree with you. But that doesn't allow him to be a victim of a criminal act and not receive justice of some kind. PS - I like mercurial too. Capricious has more negative connotations to me (but that may be a context I provide than is there).

really? Look who you're arguing with. Are you really surprised they're inconsistent? I know Bruce can be mercurial, but really this seemed an inconsistency worth pointing out.

really?

So as long as you deem the activity "morally repugnant" Gawker is okay to film it in secret and post it on the internet? Guy murders another guy and Gawker has secret film footage and neither guys permission: Okay to post, murder is morally repugnant. Guy rapes a woman and Gawker has secret film footage and neither the rapist nor the woman's permission: Okay to post, rape is morally repugnant. Do you not see how goofy it is to absolve Gawker of its own responsibility because the "secret film footage" was of an action you, personally, find morally repugnant?

To be honest, to me, it sounds like you're victim blaming. You seem to be a step away from suggesting that because he was doing something you find morally wrong that he was "asking for it" to be secretly filmed and distributed online.

Are you seriously saying that something between consenting adults is "worse" than something done without consent? Because AFAIK Hogan and Heather Clem were consenting adults in what they did but they did not consent to being filmed or to having said film distributed by Gawker. Yes for me much worse, this is a subjective judgement I have been very lucky in life, I have always had very good guy friends, I mean we share everything about ourselves and we completely trust each other and can rely on each other. Some of friends I have been friends with for 15-20 years Most of my friends are married or have serious girlfriends and I am also always very good friends with the ladies ..but its a real respect and friendship that is outside my male friends. I was raised in a matriarch society and I really appreciate my friendships with women, in fact I often enjoy doing things with women that most men would find boring, in other words " women things " But for a man to be true friends with a women he has to learn to not act on any physical attraction if it surfaces , its fine to be attracted to a lady friend but you must control how you respond. So there was and always is immense trust between me and all my guy friends about there lady partners, for example my friend would go away for a month for work and I would come down from JHB and stay with his fiancee for weekends. We would party together, sleep in the same house and even the same bed but there was never anything that made the situation uncomfortable The level of trust was unequivocal and this only made our 3 friendships more durable . So when I hear about someone who is prepared to let his wife sleep with someone like Hogan I lose immense respect for how dysfunctional that relationship really is...despite the fact they probably think " we have a open relationship which makes us stronger as a couple " Get divorced and then sleep with who you want....but seriously a wife and her husband being happy with that is just .....appalling for me So yes what Hogan did was morally worse, spiritually worse and a mockery of what a marriage is So you are applying a value judgement to their actions and I guess because you find their actions to be "morally wrong" you think Gawker is okay to show the sex without their consent because they were doing something you consider morally wrong? But, I'd argue, two wrongs don't make a right. It makes two wrong. But in Hogan's case, sleeping with another man's wife isn't illegal, videotaping them in private and distributing without their permission is. (As an aside, I'm not entirely sure why you are arguing about men & women being true friends; there's not any indication I know of that implies that Hogan's goal was to be Heather's friend, true or not).

So people say. I don't get it. Guess I just don't have the sophisticated palate.

I'll never understand the public's fascination with uncooked / under-cooked meat.

Are you seriously saying that something between consenting adults is "worse" than something done without consent? Because AFAIK Hogan and Heather Clem were consenting adults in what they did but they did not consent to being filmed or to having said film distributed by Gawker.

"Rode" is a legit word (past tense of the verb 'ride') though, so spell check wouldn't catch it. And I missed it on proofreading. I hope the forum finds the strength to forgive you my son ...this was an egregious mistake of monumental proportions 'I have committed grammatical and spelling errors in my heart many times'

Naaaah...now Albequrque, New Mexico on the other hand is significant...(take the left turn, Bugs!).

"Rode" is a legit word (past tense of the verb 'ride') though, so spell check wouldn't catch it. And I missed it on proofreading.

I didnt even notice it Sometimes I re-read my posts and realize that I'm not the monkey in the room who happens to bang out the works of Shakespeare.

"Side of the rode"? Goodness what has happened to my ability to type a cognizant sentence?

I never say anything, its too easy to assign motivation (intentional rudeness) when the truth is, I don't know why. Maybe they're a jerk, but maybe they're preoccupied with something and genuinely wasn't processing. It doesn't matter. We have a custom here where if you come to a funeral procession you pull the side of the rode and wait for it to pass. A lot of transplants hate this custom and argue that the dead person doesn't care and the family is to wrapped up in their grief to care if some strangers stop by the road and doff their caps. But to me that's missing the point.

My rule of thumb for doors is: If I'm coming to a door, I open it and hold it until everyone coming the opposite way has passed. If anyone is following me through the door, I'll hold it open as I pass through the doorway long enough for them to take control of it, at which point the door is theirs to do with what they want, although I may make exceptions to this if a large group is behind me and I'm in no particular hurry. At no time to I check to see if the people going through the doorway meet some arbitrary physical requirement. But what if you are with a lady, would you open a door in lets say a restaurant? Unless she opens it for me first, yes. But I'd also open the door if I were with a guy, a group, or if alone open it for others. I don't open car doors for anyone, however, that process is too awkward with modern cars, parking lots and/or traffic.

The common complaint that I'm reading in the reviews linked at Rotten Tomatoes (and I'm only skimming to avoid spoilers) seems to be that the movie takes itself too seriously in all its broody darkness. Which was pretty evident from the trailers and Man of Steel, to be honest. Expecting a tonal shift in a sorta-sequel is probably the wrong way to approach the movie, IMO.

My rule of thumb for doors is: If I'm coming to a door, I open it and hold it until everyone coming the opposite way has passed. If anyone is following me through the door, I'll hold it open as I pass through the doorway long enough for them to take control of it, at which point the door is theirs to do with what they want, although I may make exceptions to this if a large group is behind me and I'm in no particular hurry. At no time to I check to see if the people going through the doorway meet some arbitrary physical requirement.