Amentep

"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.

There's still and appeal to challenge the verdict and even if they lose that, IIRC, Gawker can file for remittitur (?) asking for relief against an excessive verdict. Good points and I'm sure they will appeal....whats your view on the severity of this fine Amentep, I know we discussed this in the past and I ended up accepting that its fine for Gawker to be sued. You made a good argument back then but now that the court hearing is real do you still think its fair? As I understand it - and I'm not an expert - the fine actually exceeds Gawker's assets on the idea that Gawker's parent company and Denton have more personal worth that would cover the award/punitive fine. But frankly, given that Gawker were told to remove the tape and didn't in a previous court ruling, I have little sympathy for the company in this defense. And even beyond that, to publish the tape in the first place left me no sympathy for them (and I confess I I would have found it hard to be an unbiased member of the jury had I been called). I am full of sympathy for those not in Gawker's leadership who will lose their jobs if the verdict stands as they're losing their jobs for things they didn't do, but I think its important that companies understand that they cannot continue to exist and maintain such abhorrent business practices. At some point its not a case of "these people can be punished in a way that they can learn from their mistakes as they continue to do business" to "we need to make sure these mistakes cannot be perpetuated by a business that makes no sign that they understand the mistakes, wrong and hardships they continually force upon people", if that makes sense.

There's still and appeal to challenge the verdict and even if they lose that, IIRC, Gawker can file for remittitur (?) asking for relief against an excessive verdict.

"Manterrupting"? Is that actually a thing now?

My memory is rusty (because decades), but I think "no entiendo" is "I don't understand". "No sé" is "I don't know" maybe?

I did French in High School. Unfortunately I did Spanish in college, which meant for awhile I would transition from one to the other (Typically start in spanish, finish in French). I haven't used either for so long I can't remember a lot; wouldn't mind going back and refreshing either though.

Doesn't work in French.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) - a movie that pretty much rests on the lead cast selling the premise (which, IMO they do). The film is twisty enough to keep the general audience guessing, I think. A lot of debate about whether the film ties to Cloverfield or not, but its a waste of thought process IMO - the film's connection to other films (or lack of same) is irrelevant; it's a good, claustrophobic thriller where the audience only knows as much as the main character. Curse of the Faceless Man (1958) - Richard Anderson stars as a scientist whose fiancee is the reincarnated love of a gladiator who were both killed in the Pompeii eruption. The gladiator returns as a lava-encased body(?) from the Pompeii digs and starts a path of destruction trying to "save" his love from Pompeii's distruction. The film tries to imply supernatural and scientific rationale to what is going on, but its ultimately silly window dressing for a non-Egyptian based Mummy film. Fun enough, if you like that kind of film (I have a soft spot for Mummy-type films). Probably dull for those who do like classic "creature features". The look for the "Faceless Man" is effectively different.

Yeah that's fine that its optional, but its why I play all games as single player or with people I know only.

It is what you have to deal with in that setting...which is why I'd never play it. Sounds the opposite of fun to me.

The populace population is popular to populate.

Hmmm, reading this made me remember I never finished 999...

I've gotten rid of a LOT of my game boxes and moved the discs to folders (exception being cartridges which are still in storage). I ran out of room for more boxes, for the most part. :|

Activision owns Arcanum AFAIK (via purchasing Sierra), so any game Obs did would be "Spiritual Sequel" only. Which wouldn't be bad, necessary, since I think Arcanum - while fun - did a lot of things that could be improved upon.

Its Obsidian, so I'm interested...but need to know much more about it.

I call them illustrated books using multiple panels per page and text to craft a story as opposed to picture books which has one illustration a page to illustrate the story; also there is clever use of design and panel-to-panel transitions to create story movement within the visual context. Usually after calling them this, people look at me funny.

LLL!