Amentep

I voted #2, but truth is I don't really care. Either solution I'm cool with.

So...its not lying when you don't tell the facts about what happened in the factual way they happened? I'm not saying he isn't necessarily incorrect about confusing the events - you tell a story enough times and/or with enough detail most people can insert themselves into it whether it happened to them or not. The fact that he was doing this as early as 4 years after the fact makes me think this isn't a case of confused memory, but still I'll accept that it could have happened. But exagerration ("The fish I caught was THIIIIIIIIIIS big!") is a form of lying in the context of telling a supposedly factual story. It may be excusable, but it's still lying.

To be fair, Richard "****" Wolf is the guy who created Law and Order: SVU. Wolf wrote films (like 1988's MASQUERADE), was a staff writer on HILL STREET BLUES and was a supervising producer on MIAMI VICE before he created the original LAW AND ORDER. He's went on to create shows like MANN AND MACHINE, COLD JUSTICE, DEADLINE, CHICAGO FIRE, THE HUMAN FACTOR and PLAYERS.

Well I'll watch for reviews and comments to see if I can gage whether the single player campaign is worth it or not.

Well...I didn't hate it. Which is encouraging, the original word (before Guy Ritchie became involved) was that it was going to be a serious spy movie which seemed wrong for an UNCLE film. This seems more like it (although I guess its an UNCLE origin film since Solo is CIA and Kuryakin is KGB).

You could say the same thing about people who say they earned a purple heart but didn't. Or people who claim on their resumes to have worked for IBM, but didn't.

http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/benign-eye-floaters

I hate the "what's trending" "news" articles on what is supposed to be non-entertainment news.

Reminds me of something. Local news channel broke into program touting they were "First on the scene" where a teen boy had been shot to death by his younger brother playing with a gun. And would break in with more details. Next update, the teen was playing with the gun and had accidently shot and killed himself. No brother, and no clue if the gun was his parents or not or where the parents were. Last update, a man in his mid-twenties committed suicide at his own home.

I can still remember the accident I was in 25 years ago. So much so that I can still remember the expressions on the faces of the family in the other car. I'd suspect that I would remember being in a helocopter hit by a missle vs being on the ground and seeing a helocopter that had been hit before us. There's a huge, huge difference in experiences there. And as gfted1 says, he's been telling the story for a decade at least.

Shhh, not so loud. Officially it was Tobe Hooper. Spielberg's contract wouldn't let him direct anything but ET: THE EXTRATERRESTIAL during the time Poltergeist was filming I kid - althought that's the conspiracy theory, I've never seen anything legitimate that suggested that Tobe Hooper wasn't the director and Speilberg an involved and creative collaborative producer for Tobe. Which is funny (to me at least) considering that Raggedy Ann was the real Annabelle doll from the Warren's stories that made The Conjuring & Annabelle films but obviously for trademark reasons they couldn't use Raggedy Ann...

I didn't have a problem with Garfield or Maguire. The character Maguire played was the nerdy character I expected Peter to be; Garfields version was the cool outsider/rebel and I didn't think that was an easy fit for the character. Liked he was able to quip and fight though - something missing from the Rami films. Most of my problems with ASM2 were with the script - because just like Spider-Man 3 they tried to cram too many concepts into one film. Actually my problems with ASM1 were with the script as well, but I'd hoped 2 would fix those problems rather than make it worse (although I also didn't like either the visualization or characterization of The Lizard in 1. The ASM2 villains faired slightly better except Rhino).

Sinister Six is delayed, no word on the other movie plans (which may need to change given this news). Garfield is 31, he only wanted to continue (IIRC) if Webb was directing and even if he was willing to come back, I'm not sure Marvel would want to pin a multifilm (and thus multiyear) deal on him to play a teen/early 20s character. It should also be pointed out that this is only conjecture that he's out, but seems solid conjecture.

I'm not sure how they can top the creepy preacher in part 2. Julian Beck was perfectly cast in terms of bringing out the creepyness of that character.

Its a good bet he'll be in the 3rd Captain America (if there's time to fit him in). Spider-Man was important to the comic Civil War storyline, and it was one of the reasons Marvel was pushing for the deal from what I hear. I think they are representative, in their way. That's why I don't sweat the trailers too much if there's something of interest. I do see a lot of derivative ideas in the Poltergeist trailer (particularly from THE CONJURING and INSIDIOUS and possibly other James Wan films moreso than the original film) but there's enough there to make me want to see what the film is like.

Hmm, that criteria's pretty broad, IMO. If running around and people being dragged or jumped on in a trailer made films an action film then it'd class the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre as an action film Or Phantasm... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmcR8_2RinY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCmAaNk_iIQ I don't really get an action movie vibe off of it.

Why does this become a value judgement? Do you criticize people if they don't cry enough at funerals? Wow, talk about a strawman. I am not talking about how people should behave or show emotion at funerals. No, you aren't. But you are telling people how they should behavie and show emotion (because you complained they didn't show enough emotion to a story you felt they should be emotional about. I'd argue you can't expect people to show empathy the same way you (or I) do. I'll take a quote from the Doctor Who, "The Tenth Planet" here: Polly: But don't you care? Krail: Care? No, why should I care? Polly: Because they're people and they're going to die! Krail: I do not understand you, there are people dying all over your world, yet you do not care about them. This dialogue is actually acutely aware of human nature, and that is that we can't really undersand the scope of very large numbers. Polly represents human compassion - the desire to help the hurt that you know of while the Cyberman correctly points out that as you help that one person there are dozens more in the same situation. The truth of this ladies situation is that it isn't unique but while I read that article there were other people being bullied. And not by just by random people, but by peers, by collegues, by parents or children. I empathise, but there's only so many fights one person can fight at a time. (a) because it is always selective (b) because this thread is about Gamergate and anti-Gamergate and not the larger problem of non-Gamergate related bullying. Which is enormous, particularly with anonymous, disposable identities on the internet. © because the anti-Gamergate group seems to condemn harrasment by Gamergaters but support harrasment of Gamergaters It may be to the larger issue of cyberbullying. It seems relatively unrelated to Gamergate, however, and you made no effort to make a connection. Are you saying the #NotYourShield guy who lost his job because people harrassed his work after he was doxxed and an organized harrassment campaign was created should forgive those who got him fired? Are you saying that, say, Anita Sarkeesian and Briana Wu should forgive the people who harrassed them rather than continuing to use this harrassment as a way to tar anyone who disagrees with them by lumping them into the same group? Are you saying that anti-Gamergaters and Gamergaters should forgive each other for the harrassment that people who may not even be affiliated with their movements have done? Should Gamers everywhere forgive those who lept to say they were worse than ISIS and needed to all die (or worse be killed actively)? I tried to add some details about a place I went to school (particularly, some of the famous people who went there before, during and after I was there) but because I don't have a way to refrence it, its not credible. But if I did an internet article "The Famous People Who Went to [school]" then I could quote that as a source in the wikipedia article. 'Tis silly.

Questioning authority is fine; its reasonable to use critical thinking skills to try to understand what is legitimate and illegitimate authority (or uses thereof). But again, my experience has been (not talking about Val here, but with people outside the internet) if they bring up "Question Authority" repeatedly in discussions about the government, the military, police, large corporations, education or several other institutions they're not talking about critical analysis but about conspiracy theories about institutions controlling the individual and stealing their rights/guns/precious fluids.* *Which maybe they are and I'm too brainwashed to see - never side with certainty 100%.

Yeah I'll third that. Interest was high until they actually announced the type of game it was and then my interest plummeted.

And we're back to sticking it to the man. No or not necessarily in regards to anything you're saying above. As I've said a few times now, what to do, why to do it, and any given scenario is entirely situational. Sometimes they're simple scenarios, but often they are not. I'm not taking this conversation further with you as you keep imagining things that were never stated and are not true, such as equating questioning authority to 'sticking it to the man'. They are certainly not one and the same, and this has now been repeatedly mentioned. If you truly think that, then my sentiments toward you are as they are towards anyone who thinks 2+2=5. That's fine, as I mentioned before I didn't think that there was to be a productive dialgue, but I do appreciate your attempts to explain your position even if, ultimately, I cannot fathom it. However, regarding "Question Authority", I will admit that the phrase sticks in my craw; perhaps I'm projecting an incorrect analysis on your words, but my experience with people who use that phrase is that they are the kind of people who are anti-government conspiracy theorists, the kind who believe that the police are an fascist army ready to take their personal liberties away who must be defied at all turns lest any freedom (real or perceived) be lost. EDIT: This perhaps makes it hard for me to be neutral and understanding in the discussion.

Then you're pretty much screwed whatever you do, yes? But living is better than dying? So you see no difference between a police officer and a random person on the street? I specifically excluded those because if you're in that situation you're effectively screwed (see above). And why would there be a great cost (excluding, again, unlawful and immoral)? Are you or the person you're shielding breaking the law? Wouldn't this come under the heading of consequences of breaking the law? This seems highly unlikely unless you're not paying attention, but assuming this is the situation, its a far different scenario to misunderstand an officer than to willfully defy one. And we're back to sticking it to the man.

Because she sees them as vermin, I'd guess. I didn't notice it but then I disliked Vivienne so didn't use her much. But it makes sense that a pseudo-aristocrat would approve the elimination of dirty vermin.

In theory, yes I'll agree with that. I think there are other, more likely weights to their word (tickets, jail time) but ultimately force/death is there at the back of the whole thing. This is the part that I'm getting lost on. Why do you fail to comply or "defend" yourself? Is the cop asking you to do something illegal or immoral? Because if not, I tend to agree with Gromnir here, the better course of action is to let the cop arrest you, cite you, ticket you or whatever and then fight it in court if the officer is wrong.

Anyone heard from Sargy lately? He seemed to dissapear last year.