Amentep

Suicide Squad Comicon Teaser officially released by WB:

Depends on how you were setup, but yes many people on USENET displayed First & Last name.

HOLLYWOOD PARTY (1934) In the history of odd films, Hollywood Party stands as something of an odd film achievement; it is unique to its time and place in film. While it bears similarities to other films that lurched to completion (say, CATWOMAN which started out as a spin-off vehicle for Michelle Pfeiffer and slowly rumbled to a final film production that no longer had a clear goal or identity), it isn't just a long gestating film. And while it has several unnamed directors, this wasn't a result of difficulty in the filming as much as it was something necessitated by the very idea of the film. THE STUDIO SYSTEM Back in 1932-33 when production on this film started, MGM had a problem. The studio billed itself as having "more Stars than there are in heaven" and the result was that the studio had a huge roster of contract actors, directors, scenarists, writers, stage hands, etc. And a problem arose - what to do with these stars when they weren't in an active production. The studio was paying them but not getting anything in return. Anthologies weren't a new concept, and Paramount had success in 1932 with If I had a Million using different writers/directors to guide a star in a story about people given a million dollars by a wealthy dying man. And so MGM set out to do the same. But instead of being an anthology, they'd weave a series of viginnettes together around a theme - an extravagant Hollywood A-List Party. And it'd be a musical comedy (because MGM was one of the premiere musical studios). So how hard could it be for different writers and directors would craft stories for the stars and weave them together in a comedy masterpiece? Well if it tells you anything it took a year in the studio system to finally come together. That's like decades in modern movie time. ENTER...SCHNARZAN Jimmy Durante had been a vaudevillian song and comedian (with partners Lou Clayton and Eddie Jackson) who'd transitioned to a name player with MGM (after being paired with Buster Keaton late in Keaton's shorts series for the company). And the film is built around Durante playing Jimmy Durante, star of the popular series Schnarzan, Monarch of the Mudlands, a play on Tarzan and Durante's schtick as the Schnozzola in reference to his large nose. The Schnarzan films aren't appealing to audiences anymore (neither are the competing films for Liondora (George Givot)) so the producers hit on an idea - Durante will throw a Hollywood Party, invite Baron Munchausen (played by radio Baron Munchausen, Jack Pearl) who has recently acquired some real lions. The producer will buy the lions and refurbish the series by having Schnarzan fight real lions instead of his trusty lion rug. Meanwhile Liondora hearing of this decides he must have the lions for himself. This becomes the backbone of the story, as characters are weaved into the story as things all come together (and/or fall apart) at the party. A CAST OF THOUSANDS On paper the cast seems incredible, aside from Durante, Pearl and Givot we get Lupe Velez (as Schnarzan's Jane and Durante's off-again girlfriend in a nod to Valez marriage (at the time) to Johnny Weismuller), Charles Butterworth, Polly Moran, Eddie Quillan, and June Clyde as the major players. Of more interest to the casual fan we also get the Ted Healey and his Stooges (the last work Moe, Larry and Curly did for MGM before breaking with Healey and heading to Columbia) and Laurel and Hardy. And then there are the bit roles with Ted Kennedy, Arthur Treacher, Bess Flowers amid many uncredited players. In practice the movie is an uneven affair, with comedic moments (which may appeal greater if you're a fan of Durante, Valez, The Stooges or Laurel and Hardy) and Busby Berkly inspired musical numbers. The muscial numbers range from the enjoyable to the labored (while I appreciate the choreography that went into the title song, it starts slow and has a certain amount of repetitveness that makes me wish for more editing. IT IS PRE-CODE, AND BOY HOW! So in 1930 the Hays Code of regulations on the film industry had been enacted, but it wasn't until 1934 that it became rigorously enforced. So this film slips in during the lax period where things were supposed to be cleaned up but the weren't. The result gives us things like the silhouette of an obviously naked woman showering, partner swapping (as Butterworth and Moran's married rich oil tycoons seem to have no problem pursuing other partners at the Hollywood Party - a point implied in the title song's refrain "Hollywood Party! / Nobody sleeps tonight. / Bring along your girl! Go home with someone else's. / Forget about your girl. / She's gonna do all right.") and in general debauchery left and right. AND THEN MICKEY MOUSE SHOWED UP Shades of "Roger Rabbit", there's an interlude where Durante finds Mickey Mouse crashing the party. The two tussle and then the crowd begs Mickey to show a cartoon, which he obliges. The cartoon - "The Hot Chocolate Soldiers" is either an anti-war piece (showing the wounded soldiers coming home after a brutal war) or a euphemism for sex (amid other scenes, hot chocolate soldiers are smothered in bursting white custard from weaponized eclairs gushing their contents on them). Disney was often in need of money in the early years, and I imagine that this kept his company going for a little while longer. Wonder how that worked out for him... SOMETHING TO OFFEND EVERYBODY Its no surprise that something from 1934 would have insensitive concepts that many would find objectionable these days. It goes with the territory of watching old films. Here we have wife swapping, what modern eyes might consider potential date assault (while initially eager to be seduced by a disguised Lionardo, Moran begins objecting to his advances and ends up being kissed in what appears to be a headlock), voyeurism (Butterworth who watches Lionardo's technique on his wife with much interest before he decides to try it on Lupe Valez, who flips him into the bushes), and at least one homosexual gag (the Baron's gorilla after carrying him in and being menacing, joins the party by sashaying down the steps while Durante double-entendre's "Its a chimpanzee / its a chimp-pansy") And that's not to forget Lupe's "Mexican Spitfire" routine (which some find problematic), Lionardo's Greek Aristocrat stereotype, the African Jungle Native Dancers (complete with bones in their nose), Lupe's dress (sure to offend prudes) and probably a dozen other things that I can't remember. Lets just say if you can't get past that this is a period film, it just isn't going to be for you. AND THEN LAUREL AND HARDY SHOW UP The film has a certain moxie that I have to admire. Mind you, I enjoy Durante (ha-cha-cha) and Lupe Valez (she actually gets two of the best gags in the movie). Butterworth's droll reactions (particularly when everyone leaves him to dance) and the Three Stooges cameo work well. As mentioned above the musical numbers - while not MGM's finest - work for the most part (Eddie Quillan and June Clyde's young lovers song and dance is both fun and weird; Quillan in particular has this great expression as the two start to dance with themselves(!) that is so over the top its amazing). But the show stopper is Laurel and Hardy; they get a great routine with Tom Kennedy as the doorman who tries to keep the pair out. But the almost wordless fight between them and Valez is great and displays both of their skills to great aplomb. THE END...OR IS IT? Turns out that the film was originally longer (at least 75 minutes) but after being made was cut down to try and make better sense of it all. I'd say it didn't work - ultimately it doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's part of the fun and/or charm of the film. All we get is a 68 minute film. But even the 75 minute version may have not included everything; the last bit filmed (by the 8th director) tried to make sense of the existing footage and its clear that there are things missing (in particular look at Kennedy's black eye in his last appearance - never explained by the film - or the drop Lionardo from the plot at the 9/10ths point). This is a peculiar and particular film, certain one that is very much of its time. I enjoyed it for what it is and for the general encapsulation of pre-code MGM that it serves as. I'm not sure the film is for everyone (many will find it dull or antiquated), and yet I think for the right kind of film buff its something worth seeing once just to see an odd bit of Hollywood history if nothing else.

They did to some degree. There were less people with anonymous nicknames (but they did exist, like the guy I mentioned up-thread). I think that people were less inclined to be asshats in public with a real name associated with it but even that wasn't a guarantee. But as time went on more people created anonymous IDs or alt IDs and some of the alt. newsgroups (alt. hierarchies had a lower threshold to create and would often be abandoned and then repopulated by squatters) became the home of people who'd assail those who stumbled across their private clubhouse. And towards the end of the time I was there, the Discordians loved trying to wreck the hierarchy in general by randomly cross-posting across hierarchies and staging "invasions" and such. And there were console wars in the games newsgroup like clockwork every couple of months.

Depends on where you were at, of course. There were a lot of civil discussion, but it had its dark side too. One of the News Groups I followed, for example, had a guy who if you disagreed with his position in an argument would start a thread with the title being something like "is a child molester". And most people had their real names on their IDs (weirdly, this was one of the reasons that message boards were seen as great - the ease of being anonymous). A female writer had a falling out with a female fan who became an eStalker. There was an upper-line of admins for USENET (the USENET "gods") but for the most part they didn't intervene in the affairs of the board from a content perspective, but mostly was involved in propagating news groups, making sure votes for new groups was legit and the like. But it had its positive side as well, I interacted with writers, artists and game makers. And there were the great eccentric posters to read and good friends to talk with.

Reminds me a lot of USENET. Which was one of the problems (and features) of USENET1 and why many people went to message boards. 1I'm aware that USENET had moderated groups; they were not the norm though in my experience. You aren't misunderstanding. Gawker attacks women, such as posting Olivia Munn's texts and pictures, while related blogs in the Gawker family complain about various things. Won't even get into stuff like the Hogan sex tape, but it seems Gawker is fine with attacking people if they're the right target. Seems weird; so why are so many people who are pro-SJ's siding with Kotaku if Gawker is problematic on a whole?

RIP.

Wait, Ms. Lacy claims when talking about the negative side of the internet (right before the cesspool comment) that Gawker media attacks women, but isn't Gawker media behind Kotaku who are one of the "Social Justice" websites that think the presentation of women in games is bad? Is this weird to anyone else, or am I misunderstanding?

When you start looking at mob mentality, the idea of whether or not an individual in the mob has an ability to be self-reflective is kind of moot; the self isn't the priority with persons in a mob while the mob is active.

Probably should just shake my head and move on, but... Actually you kinda do Tale of Tales, because correlation doesn't speak to causation. There's a correlation between shark attacks on humans and swimming in the ocean, but that doesn't mean swimming in the ocean is the cause of shark attacks on humans.

Man, both Aragorn and Han Solo are going to be really disappointed to hear that romance had no place in their story... (I'd still like the space ships.) First thought was "someone has probably written some slash fiction on that".

Or elected to public office as a Democrat.

Don't have a dog in this horse race, as I do think in general at some point a Stronghold should become self-sufficient after a certain tipping point, but... The meaning Gromnir appears to be using is referenced in this link: Logic. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional. In this case the syllogism is IF you have hired hirelings AND IF you rest an infinite number of times THEN you will expend all of your money on hirelings. "Not Hypothetical" in this context would be "I rested 9,5028 times and having hired hirelings, I ran out of money" Note that based on the programing, this hypothetical situation is true (both in given propositions and in conclusion). The real question is whether the probability of the true, hypothetical situation is such that it creates a real problem, or is the probability on the level of being struck by lightning and therefore for 99% of the players the effect of infinite resting while having hirelings will never be apparent.

There was an RPG (that shall remain nameless) in the early 1990s that had a vague description of where to go next. So vague that I logged a couple of hours in the game doing nothing but trying to find the quest before giving up By 1993, I was on USENET and remembered I'd never beat the game and found online where I was supposed to go. Turns out I was walking on the wrong side of a narrow track of land. I needed to walk up the OTHER side to trigger the next part of the quest.

I'm not talking about my personal feelings because I'm trying not to make this about personal feelings. Here is what I'm seeing: Woman accuses guy of rape More women accuse guy of rape People complain the public isn't believing the weight of the accusations against guy and point to this being a "Rape Culture" that denies rape and enable rapists So my questions stands, how should society treat a guy accused of rape so as to not be a part of "rape culture"? Should we fire him? Boycott his work? What if we don't employ him and never bought his work? How do we demonstrate that we don't support rape? What vigilante justice will make our society right in light of accusations - regardless of how many - that have never led to a court decision? So its okay to "make it real" without his day in court? What penalty should be lodged by society towards the accused to show it has been made real?

Haw haw, the fries and coke are "expansion packs". Expanding your girth, amirite? :biggrin:

I don't think anyone took the stories more seriously because some comedian said something. But my point is what defines taking the accusations seriously in the first place? Somebody is accused of rape by multiple people. What should our reaction be? make the accused the subject of gossip and rumor? assume the accused is guilty until proven innocent? publicly denounce the accused for their alleged actions? shun the accused? ensure the accused loses their job and livelyhood? ensure the accused loses custody of their children? ensure that the accused is cut off from all ties to the human race? In short, what precisely is the appropriate reaction when a person has been accused as opposed to found guilty (criminal) or liable (civil)? I'm not talking about whether a person thinks he's guilty or not. What I'm talking about is what is the desired reaction to an accusation of rape? Because what is apparent is that there are people who believe that we should treat an accusation of rape as proof of rape. That apparently giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt as opposed to storming their house and tarring and feathering them isn't the right reaction. So tell me, how should we react to demonstrate we are against rape? Not intentionally I'm not. Again as I said yesterday I've made no claims intentionally regarding people making up their own mind or forming their own opinions. But you - amid the news reporter-pundit types as well - keep talking about how "the general public has failed to take the stories seriously". So here's my question, how are we supposed to demonstrate that we take the stories seriously? What does that mean? What rights do we deprive the accused of to demonstrate that we're taking these accusations seriously? This is the point I'm getting at.

Why? I appreciate the fact you seem to want to have a real debate but you realize that the words " culture of rape " was used in the original article I posted See below, so it wasn't my words it was CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/20/opinion/hill-bill-cosby-case-rape-culture/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 From that article So I'm going to ask you, Bruce, since this is one of the main criticisms over the reaction to the allegations against Cosby, that people don't immediately start treating people like rapists when someone accuses them of doing such... ...is that what you really want to end "Rape Culture"? To not have people wait for an outcome of a civil or state trial but to accept any accusation so long as the source is "credible" or that there are many sources or that there are many incidents over a long period of time?

Yeah, I wouldn't say its an injustice to say that, and that wasn't what I was trying to imply. The testimony certainly puts additional details in the face of the public that wasn't there previously, so I imagine more people are thinking that without the legality of a trial.

Actually confession does not mean you are guilty, legally. You'd still have to be tried and your confession could be used as evidence against you (otherwise every person with some form of mental illness who confessed to a crime would be guilty of that crime). However, since Cosby's guilt or innocence wasn't really the point of my post, only to try to counter the incorrect statements that Cosby had confessed to being a "habitual rapist" and that "50 accusations = guilt", I must admit that I'm failing to see the point in splitting this semantic hair any further.

In US Legal system, a man is innocent until proven guilty. So far he has not been proven guilty (or even liable in a civil case - I believe he settled the only lawsuit against him). This has nothing to do with my personal opinion of the situation. All I offered was a counter to two things I found troubling - the sensationalistic claims that Cosby admitted to drugging multiple unwilling women (which doesn't appear to be true from his statements I've read, as they only discuss one woman and one incident) and the very concept that an accusation (or even multiple accusations) are proof of guilt without there being a legal trial to assign guilt/liability/culpability. If 50 people accused you of rape, do you want the legal system to assume you are guilty and throw you in jail? Or would you rather the legal system provide you and your accusers equal opportunity to prove with facts the claims or to counter with facts a defense against them? In Finland that would mean that he raped those women if he had sex with them after giving quaaludes, because they are in state where their control over their body and mind are severely impaired, meaning that they can't give their consent for any actions after the fact. So his confession means to me that it is OK call him rapist regardless what US law or courts says about it, because he confessed action that would be counted as rape in country where I live. Of course if he can prove that women consented to unconscious sex before they took the drug, then situation is of course different, but I have not seen any such proof from him. I never said you couldn't hold a personal opinion, did I? All I said is that there hasn't been a legal finding (even the case where he made his admission was settled out of court, so ultimately he still stands innocent legally, as I understand it) and that an accusation isn't proof that something happened.

Cosby hasn't been convicted of anything, only accused; if you read the information the AP got (rather than some of the sensationalistic news articles) as far as I can tell, Cosby admitted to giving quaaludes to a woman who willingly and knowingly took it. He has continued to deny alligations he gave the drug to unwilling women. From the linked article: So we should take an accusation of crime on face value? Note I didn't believe or disbelieve the victims; I do think that guilt and/or liability is decided in a court of law not by people making accusations, and accusations - in and of themselves - aren't grounds to assume that something is true. Can you imagine a world if a person was considered guilty anytime someone accused them of rape until they could prove they weren't?

Saw the new Terminator over the weekend. I thought it was fun, albeit it had some odd elements implying some editing to the movie.

Eh, we have the death penalty and personally I'd rather we didn't - if nothing else because the system can't guarantee a conviction actually means the person is guilty (as DNA re-reviews of convictions has shown us in several cases, but even before that things like Erle Stanley Gardner's "Court of Last Resort" showed the same.). At least if the person is alive you can release them. Can't rectify the situation if they're executed.

Eh, IMO, Malcador is right that the sun probably was a factor. That said, also IMO, Japan's goalkeeper was playing too far forward for her height & speed; a taller goalkeeper or a faster one could make up for playing that far forward. It was clear she wasn't able to make up the distance so probably shouldn't have been that far out.