Amentep

No.... gods no! Please tell me this was intended as humour, that I have failed to read the sarcasm intended. The wasn't enough? With something like that, you can never ever have enough smilies to show you're joking! My heart attack has stopped now, thank you! Sorry for the trauma!

Even with my problems with FO4, I thought it worth the money I paid for it. So what? I did and I feel cheated. Next time I am going to look for some reviews before buying. So I was responding to Chilloutman's implication that having problems with a game means that person didn't like the game and/or felt cheated out of the money they paid to Bethesda by providing a counter example to that sweeping generalization in myself. EDIT: Incorrect negative, bad sentence structure

Played Renowned Explorers over the weekend. Also some Dungeon Siege III.

I haven't watched Heroes since the end of the first season. Didn't see any reason to return on the reboot but I hoped it'd be good for the people who had liked the show.

Its not splitting hairs, its using the correct terminology to refer to the correct thing correctly. I Am Legend isn't a remake of Omega Man anymore than Omega Man was a remake of The Last Man on Earth. All three are different adaptions of the novel (with differing levels of fidelity to the source). Nosferatu (1922) and Dracula (1931) are both adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel (the 1931 movie via the Hamilton Deane stage play), but Dracula (1931) isn't a remake of Nosferatu. However the Werner Herzog 1979 Nosferatu with Klaus Kinski is a remake of the 1922 Nosferatu but the 1979 Dracula with Frank Langella is a new adaption of the stage play that 1931 Dracula was an adaption of so it is neither a remake of either the 1922 and 1979 Nosferatu films or of the 1931 Dracula. Based on your argument - that anything that adapts the same material is a remake - The Dark Knight is a remake of Batman (1989) which is a remake of Batman (1966) which is a remake of Batman (1943) despite having little in common other than the fact they're adapting the same character from other media. not to put too fine a point on it, but what in the hell are you doing? is a category that the razzies folks is utilizing. am suspecting that the razzie folks would laugh themselves apoplectic if the "winners" o' one o' their awards argued with any seriousness that the reason their movie/performance did not deserve mention were 'cause o' mislabeling. and yeah, is a category that will indeed have fuzzy gray areas 'cause it is meant to limit an artform. is a category no doubt imagined into existence by folks whose closest brush with scientific method were listening to a bunch o' nerds discuss the plausibility o' lightsabers during their time at usc film school. and most pointless and ill-considered is that you is arguing with vol in an attempt to get him to see the validity o' the categorization in question. find self arguing serious with vol over what is largely nonsense has happened to us once or twice and is always embarrassing. *shrug* HA! Good Fun! Eh...I even mentioned in my first post that strict adherence to the categories really wasn't the Razzie's intention. Vol then disagreed with me, so I disagreed back with some logic. Nothing really to see here.

And out of the haze, I teleport to a tall building to stop the Brotherhood from getting Nuclear reactor parts. Note to Self: If I was playing a video game, I'd almost think I'm nearing the end of the game. Too bad real life doesn't work like that. Later, I jet packed around. Note to Self: Because nothing says "don't tread on me" like jet packing around in the wasteland Aww, who's a nice mutated deer? Note to Self: Wash hands afterwards, look like they got a mutant strain of mange. Brotherhood of Steel patrol off in the distance Note to Self: Kinda creepy if you didn't know what it was. Went for a swim. Explosions happened. Note to Self: I think these two things weren't related. Someone isn't a history buff or an art lover. Note to Self: I suspect Supermutants. Or Raiders. Probably not Feral Ghouls - not they care about art, they just don't care. I don't think I want any milk after all Note to Self: Makes you wonder how many hits of Jet was needed for "Yeah I'll take these severed heads and put them in our refrigerator" to sound like a good idea... And another one down, and another one down, another Turret bites the Dust Note to Self: Are you ready? Hey are you ready for this? Are you hanging on the edge of your seat? Ballistic weave - now putting fashion into your wasteland protection. Note to Self: Still no real lady's hats. This wasteland sucks. Ballistic weave clothing in action Note to Self: Soooo much more comfortable than that vault suit. Raider Survivalist? What a Misnomer Note to self: More like "Raider Explodiest" am I right? Apparently he was a Van Gough fan by his starry night exit Note to Self: I wonder if any Van Gough's survived the war? Curie models a new top-of the line ballistic weave dress; for when you want to fight and for when you want to...not fight. Note to Self: Should look for me one of these...

Even with my problems with FO4, I thought it worth the money I paid for it.

Its not splitting hairs, its using the correct terminology to refer to the correct thing correctly. I Am Legend isn't a remake of Omega Man anymore than Omega Man was a remake of The Last Man on Earth. All three are different adaptions of the novel (with differing levels of fidelity to the source). Nosferatu (1922) and Dracula (1931) are both adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel (the 1931 movie via the Hamilton Deane stage play), but Dracula (1931) isn't a remake of Nosferatu. However the Werner Herzog 1979 Nosferatu with Klaus Kinski is a remake of the 1922 Nosferatu but the 1979 Dracula with Frank Langella is a new adaption of the stage play that 1931 Dracula was an adaption of so it is neither a remake of either the 1922 and 1979 Nosferatu films or of the 1931 Dracula. Based on your argument - that anything that adapts the same material is a remake - The Dark Knight is a remake of Batman (1989) which is a remake of Batman (1966) which is a remake of Batman (1943) despite having little in common other than the fact they're adapting the same character from other media.

This was some time ago, I seem to recall being on one strong pain medication the first day, a second lighter pain medication the second that I weaned myself off of. However I had foot surgery around the same time and I may be remembering that. Dunno.

I didn't really have any issues with it. I was on pain medication for a couple of days, didn't develop dry socket which would be the real pain problem and *bam* right as rain.

Had all of my wisdom teeth out at the same time. Woke up and the dental surgeon was like: "Hey how are you doing?" Me: "Grbrlmfff okay i gueff..." Dental Surgeon: "Great! Would you mind going back to sleep? We're not quite finished yet."

No it isn't; a remake is literally when you make something again. An adaption is not a remake. Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO was a remake of the original PSYCHO down to using the original script. But if he had a new script written that re-adapted Bloch's novel it'd be a new adaption of the existing novel not a remake of the previous film.

Lemmy had turned 70 about 4 days before he died (just as Bowie had turned 69 just two days before he did). I really liked Alan Rickman; he was one of those actors who you always knew was going to be good in a movie - even if the movie itself maybe wasn't as good as you'd hoped it'd be. RIP Mr. Rickman.

No.... gods no! Please tell me this was intended as humour, that I have failed to read the sarcasm intended. The wasn't enough?

The guards just think you're really happy to see them.

It's more of a Japanese take on western action-RPG.Interesting oddity but sadly quite flawed. I'll agree it is flawed, but despite that I still really enjoyed it immensely.

Fantastic Four isn't really a remake or a sequel either but a new adaption of an existing property. That said I'm not sure the Razzie categories are supposed to have strict adherence.

Connected?

My experience (which may not be Nonek's) is that there is no single instance that leads to someone using the ignore function of the boards, but a multitude of instances that lead a person to believe that its better for them to not engage a person. I wouldn't take it personally, I sure don't (but then I doubt if I'd actually notice if someone put me on ignore).

I see the ignore function as equivilent to the real world ability to walk away from Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. Sometimes its best just not to engage eye contact.

I just wanted to point out it wasn't exactly a new claim for those who hadn't heard or who had forgotten.

Link? On Celebrity Big Brother Ms Bowie was apparently (I read this in the Metro) complaining before his death that Mr Bowie had purposely turned their son Duncan against her, because the gentleman no longer speaks or has any contact with her. Seems a little strange to discount her sons own feelings and logic as a grown man and blame Mr Bowie, but then again i'm with Philip Larkin on families. She's claimed that for years, including in her autobiography (IIRC).

Last part is too much? How? Anyhow, I stand by my assertion - video games are a luxury item and you don't have to spend any money on them at all. I won't assert that there cannot be positive benefits of piracy, but any use of cost of legal game vs "quality" or "household income" is a rationalization because at the end of the day no one has to have a video game.