Amentep

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.

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.