The Refuge of the Toads

#43261

MarcusAu wrote:Oh well...

I did enjoy one recent movie

[youtube]eLEhGWIdWag[/youtube]

This is near the top of my to-buy list.

I was a fan of the original and the cast in this seem bang on.

#43262

Shatterface wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:Oh well...

I did enjoy one recent movie

[youtube]eLEhGWIdWag[/youtube]
This is near the top of my to-buy list.

I was a fan of the original and the cast in this seem bang on.

Stupid boy.

#43263

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Give 'em enough rope -- the immensely narcissistic, histrionic, and science-illiterate Lady_Black, after throughly bolloxing biology, ends up nullifying her own basic argument for unfettered abortion rights:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thed ... 2817376620

Okay, I'm going to do some chores now, I swear.

Lady_Black
No. Abortion is NOT possible during much of the third trimester. ALL third trimester terminations are deliveries. And viability assumes "with medical intervention" whatever that happens to be. Let's not get sloppy with medical terms the way self-described "pro-lifers" do.
Spontaneous abortion as I learned it was the pre-viable, spontaneous loss of pregnancy. Since then, they have complicated it to refer to "up to the 20th week" and added a few sort of nonsensical in-between categories that are called deliveries, albeit non-viable deliveries.
Thus, NO, abortion isn't possible in the third trimester, unless you're using a dishonest definition of abortion that basically means "intra-uterine killing."
A dead third trimester fetus must STILL be delivered. That doesn't constitute abortion.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... e-in-both/

#43264

Jan Steen wrote:
Tigzy wrote:It really does take a god as unknowable and unfathomable as allah to choose someone who couldn't write as the seal of his prophets.
And then dictate such mind-boggling nonsense as this:

"Those who put away their wives (by saying they are as their mothers) and afterward would go back on that which they have said, (the penalty) in that case (is) the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. Unto this ye are exhorted; and Allah is Informed of what ye do."

This is an actual semi-random quotation. There is a lot more where this came from. I'm sure jimhabegger thinks it's all wonderful. :lol:

Well, yes of course it sounds off in English. In Arabic it's perfect though :roll:

#43265

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Give 'em enough rope -- the immensely narcissistic, histrionic, and science-illiterate Lady_Black, after throughly bolloxing biology, ends up nullifying her own basic argument for unfettered abortion rights:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thed ... 2817376620

Okay, I'm going to do some chores now, I swear.

Goddamn. Reading the comments there reminds me a lot of the old FtBs, before the banhammer was swung with such ideological vigor. Most of the commenters seem like a bucha loons who learned biology from Tumblr.

#43266

MarcusAu wrote:Oh well...

I did enjoy one recent movie

[youtube]eLEhGWIdWag[/youtube]

I rather enjoyed that one as well.

#43267

I'm not sure it met the racial diversity quota though.

#43268

Dana Hunter reviews the Ghostbuster movie. The best thing about it is there is nothing in it for men to enjoy and lots of great stuff for man haters.

So, my dear friend and fellow Orbit blogger Aoife has already told you what’s best about Holtzmann. She absolutely steals the show. She is 100% not there for the straight male gaze. I love that. I love that the only somewhat sexualized woman was for women. And I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight, because being Holtzmann is now my new life goal, and I just don’t think almost completely straight people can even come close to managing that.

Oh that and whiny man babies are assholes for not liking the movie.

#43269

MarcusAu wrote:I'm not sure it met the racial diversity quota though.

If the Home Guard don't have at least one token Japanese I'm not watching.

#43270

Jerry Coyne on where ISIS show that their motivation is Islam and not what apologists claim. Also a link to the ISIS magazine in English which states their motivation. (P30 why we hate you).

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... on-stupid/
https://www.4shared.com/web/preview/pdf/aDgNqZJkce

#43271

Shatterface wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:Oh well...

I did enjoy one recent movie

[youtube]eLEhGWIdWag[/youtube]
This is near the top of my to-buy list.

I was a fan of the original and the cast in this seem bang on.

But there's only one woman -- who's she supposed to have a conversation not about men with?

#43272

sp0tlight wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Well, if early reviews are anything to go by, looks like Suicide Squad hasn't broken the trend of shitty DC adaptations (Nolan's Bats excepted). Bah!
Fuck, what a shitty summer for movies.

There is still hope.

[youtube]9VoNgLnjzVg[/youtube]

#43273

Suet Cardigan wrote:ISIS Magazine LAUGHS at the West's "Islam is a Religion of Peace" Narrative:

[youtube]-HYLiMaj9Ak[/youtube]

The video's creator has just posted this comment:

The video got DEMONETISED right after uploading it. I swear the God this happens to EVERY video I do on Islam. I could literally dedicate a 50 minute long video to counter-extremism and they would take of the adds because they're cowards. Fuck YouTube.

Vee Monro also has his videos demonetised if they are about Islam (skip to the 19 minute mark):

[youtube]jx-UZHRiIL4[/youtube]

#43274

Speaking of trans women in Moscato mode, Shiv recently posted an approving link to the following on Medium. It's quite thoughtful and It has an unusual take on the "not all men" trope. It's all very anguished and I'd be more sympathetic if it didn't feel so much like someone complaining about being caught in a trap of their own making. Its tone is that of someone who won't do anything to change the circumstances in which they're caught, and instead wishes that the world would pivot around them because (they say) it would make them feel better about themselves.

I find it harder to be sympathetic when the excuses outnumber the complaints, particularly if there's no evidence that the person in question is instead trying to practice acceptance of their situation. For some, paralyzed inertia provides all the suffering they want out of life, and that's as sad as it is fucked up.

Because I have been reduced to my appearance — to the way I present for my own well-being — by cisfeminists so often that I feel a fucked up Stockholm syndrome attachment to being misgendered. My dysmorphia is as entwined in my identity as anything else. I have lived with it for decades as a girl pretending to be a boy. And the nearer I get to something I’ve wanted my whole life, the more it feels like playing into the aesthetic politics of a group of people who reject me because of the associations they have with my body—a body which I cannot, ultimately, change very much. These people who will only be comfortable when I dilute those associations with femme signifiers.

#43275

What year does DAD'S ARMY take place? Cuz 4-prop Spits didn't appear until '44.

(okay my Spectrum score just went up a couple of points.)

#43276

Tigzy wrote:Well, if early reviews are anything to go by, looks like Suicide Squad hasn't broken the trend of shitty DC adaptations (Nolan's Bats excepted). Bah!

Given how much I enjoyed Bm vs Sm these reviews auger well.

If they want Disney colour they have Marvel.

#43277

blade prop

#43278

InfraRedBucket wrote:Latest gender swapping remake in the pipeline:

Channing Tatum is set to star in Disney’s remake of the 1984 romantic comedy Splash that boasts one very enticing catch: this new version will reverse the sexes of the two leads, with the Magic Mike actor embodying the mermaid, played by Daryl Hannah in the original.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/a ... ash-remake

https://media.giphy.com/media/6h4z4b3v6XWxO/giphy.gif

#43279

Also, nutty Melissa at Shakesville chides her readers for saying that Trump is crzy, because:

Donald Trump is not (that he has disclosed, anyway) "crazy." He is not insane, nuts, batshit, wacko, delusional, cuckoo, or any other euphemism for mentally ill.

He is a vile bigot.

The two are not, of course, mutually exclusive—but it is not axiomatic that anyone who holds the extremist views that Trump holds is mentally ill, and it is certainly not accurate that mental illness inexorably or exclusively causes a belief in extremist views.

You probably already know that, though, don't you? It's just something easy you say to demean him and marginalize him! What could be the harm in that, right? Or maybe it's something you say because you genuinely believe he's mentally ill, and, even though, yeah, sure, you totally get why even if he is, it isn't mental illness that's making him a nightmare monster, but what difference does it make to say he's "insane" instead of saying he's a bigot?

Well, funny you should ask.

Because demeaning and marginalizing people by implying they are mentally ill has the effect of demonizing people with mental illness, many of whom, myself included, do not share in common any political views with the likes of Donald Trump. The suggestion that mentally ill people are dangerous and unstable makes an already vulnerable population even more so, and creates a toxic environment in which people deemed "crazy" aren't considered reputable advocates for themselves and their needs, and wouldn't need to be listened to even if they were, because crazy don't get a place at the table.

Hey, here's a fun fact! Do you know one groups which has historically been marginalized with accusations of craziness? Women! And the fact that we have been dismissed as hysterics and lunatics for, literally, centuries is what makes it so easy for Trump and people just like him to still say we have no right to basic equality with a straight face in the public sphere and yet be considered viable candidates for the highest office in the most prominent democracy in the world!

I doubt many people would view someone with a depressive disorder as being on the same track as Donald Trump's obvious NPD. Is she suggesting that pointing out Trump's balls-to-the-wall narcissism should be off the table, even though it's obviously the lens through which he sees the world?

I'm comfortable saying that people with full blown personality disorders shouldn't be president. Why should that be controversial?

#43280

MarcusAu wrote:Oh well...

I did enjoy one recent movie

[youtube]eLEhGWIdWag[/youtube]

I think I spotted the spy.

#43281

Cnutella wrote:Also, nutty Melissa at Shakesville chides her readers for saying that Trump is crzy, because:

Donald Trump is not (that he has disclosed, anyway) "crazy." He is not insane, nuts, batshit, wacko, delusional, cuckoo, or any other euphemism for mentally ill.

He is a vile bigot.

The two are not, of course, mutually exclusive—but it is not axiomatic that anyone who holds the extremist views that Trump holds is mentally ill, and it is certainly not accurate that mental illness inexorably or exclusively causes a belief in extremist views.

You probably already know that, though, don't you? It's just something easy you say to demean him and marginalize him! What could be the harm in that, right? Or maybe it's something you say because you genuinely believe he's mentally ill, and, even though, yeah, sure, you totally get why even if he is, it isn't mental illness that's making him a nightmare monster, but what difference does it make to say he's "insane" instead of saying he's a bigot?

Well, funny you should ask.

Because demeaning and marginalizing people by implying they are mentally ill has the effect of demonizing people with mental illness, many of whom, myself included, do not share in common any political views with the likes of Donald Trump. The suggestion that mentally ill people are dangerous and unstable makes an already vulnerable population even more so, and creates a toxic environment in which people deemed "crazy" aren't considered reputable advocates for themselves and their needs, and wouldn't need to be listened to even if they were, because crazy don't get a place at the table.

Hey, here's a fun fact! Do you know one groups which has historically been marginalized with accusations of craziness? Women! And the fact that we have been dismissed as hysterics and lunatics for, literally, centuries is what makes it so easy for Trump and people just like him to still say we have no right to basic equality with a straight face in the public sphere and yet be considered viable candidates for the highest office in the most prominent democracy in the world!
I doubt many people would view someone with a depressive disorder as being on the same track as Donald Trump's obvious NPD. Is she suggesting that pointing out Trump's balls-to-the-wall narcissism should be off the table, even though it's obviously the lens through which he sees the world?

I'm comfortable saying that people with full blown personality disorders shouldn't be president. Why should that be controversial?

Dont be Ableist! You Shitlord!

#43282

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:What year does DAD'S ARMY take place? Cuz 4-prop Spits didn't appear until '44.

(okay my Spectrum score just went up a couple of points.)

There is a line in the movie or the trailer, (I forget which) confirming that it does in fact take place in 1944. And wikipedia also gives this as the date.

I think if you look hard enough you may still be able to find other inaccuracies though.

#43283

free thoughtpolice wrote:Dana Hunter reviews the Ghostbuster movie. The best thing about it is there is nothing in it for men to enjoy and lots of great stuff for man haters.
So, my dear friend and fellow Orbit blogger Aoife has already told you what’s best about Holtzmann. She absolutely steals the show. She is 100% not there for the straight male gaze. I love that. I love that the only somewhat sexualized woman was for women. And I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight, because being Holtzmann is now my new life goal, and I just don’t think almost completely straight people can even come close to managing that.
Oh that and whiny man babies are assholes for not liking the movie.

The movie couldn't beat the second week run of an animated movie about pets. 'Nuff said.

#43284

comslave wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Dana Hunter reviews the Ghostbuster movie. The best thing about it is there is nothing in it for men to enjoy and lots of great stuff for man haters.
So, my dear friend and fellow Orbit blogger Aoife has already told you what’s best about Holtzmann. She absolutely steals the show. She is 100% not there for the straight male gaze. I love that. I love that the only somewhat sexualized woman was for women. And I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight, because being Holtzmann is now my new life goal, and I just don’t think almost completely straight people can even come close to managing that.
Oh that and whiny man babies are assholes for not liking the movie.

The movie couldn't beat the second week run of an animated movie about pets. 'Nuff said.

The Ghostbusters film couldn't beat the first week run of most other films that came out during that same time period, and The Killing Joke that had been panned by feminists even before release has already recouped its budget and then some. The Ghostbusters film also JUST made its production budget back, but would have to make at least another $100M to make a profit because of marketing. It's flopped harder than PZ Myers at an all you can eat buffet.

#43285

Tribble wrote:
InfraRedBucket wrote:Latest gender swapping remake in the pipeline:

Channing Tatum is set to star in Disney’s remake of the 1984 romantic comedy Splash that boasts one very enticing catch: this new version will reverse the sexes of the two leads, with the Magic Mike actor embodying the mermaid, played by Daryl Hannah in the original.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/a ... ash-remake

I want them to make it just for the utter fail that will happen. More executives getting fired.

#43286

Pitchguest wrote: The Ghostbusters film couldn't beat the first week run of most other films that came out during that same time period, and The Killing Joke that had been panned by feminists even before release has already recouped its budget and then some. The Ghostbusters film also JUST made its production budget back, but would have to make at least another $100M to make a profit because of marketing. It's flopped harder than PZ Myers at an all you can eat buffet.

Don't forget that the theaters get a cut of the gross. A film that brought in $140 million at the box office only means $70 million for the studio, give or take.

#43287

I do not condone this.

But it does amuse me.

#43288

We've just watched Baron Cohen's last movie Grimsby, and didn't dislike it. Good, light-hearted action-comedy. Not on the level of Borat, Bruno or The Dictator, a few "too much" moments, but I'm amazed Mark Strong took the part. Ballsy.

#43289

CommanderTuvok wrote:Taslima seems to be doing the sex shaming thing...

Quite a few on the left have suddenly developed a right wing conservative stance on a woman taking her clothes off.

A vote for Trump is a vote for hotness.

#43290

"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.

#43291

As of now the box office for GB (both domestic and foreign) is $159,587,152 after 20 full days of release. The budget was $144 million, not counting the $100 million or so spent on marketing.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pa ... rs2016.htm

They better sell a fuckton of lunchboxes and action figures.

#43292

Brive1987 wrote:"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.

Probably means the sadder you are, the straighter you get.

#43293

Brive1987 wrote:"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.

I noticed that as well. I took it to mean Dana was engaged in a feeble attempt to establish a bit of lesbo cred, because full-on straights just aren't cool in the circles she hangs in.

#43294

Gumby wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.

I noticed that as well. I took it to mean Dana was engaged in a feeble attempt to establish a bit of lesbo cred, because full-on straights just aren't cool in the circles she hangs in.

Well as a straight woman she couldn't have Aoife or Greta squeeing about her awesomely queer awesomeness.
So there's that. :bjarte:

#43295

I have to say that I heartily disapprove of pitters donating either to Amy's or to Dicky's as yet hypothetical fund. As SJWologists we should be mere observers as the subjects battle it out in the wild, however bloody the fight becomes and however heart-rending the plaintive and piteous cries of the loser are as he or she (and let's face it it's bound to be he) are as he is torn to pieces.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#43296

Really? wrote:I do not condone this.

But it does amuse me.

Neither do I.

:)

#43297

Carrier is not a pedophile by any standards. That shit should stop.

Legal age, remember?

#43298

Gumby wrote:As of now the box office for GB (both domestic and foreign) is $159,587,152 after 20 full days of release. The budget was $144 million, not counting the $100 million or so spent on marketing.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pa ... rs2016.htm

They better sell a fuckton of lunchboxes and action figures.

Here they reckon Batman/Superman needed 900m on 300m production to see black ink.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/batman- ... ffice-flop

Does that mean GB needs say 400m on 144m production?

#43299

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.
Probably means the sadder you are, the straighter you get.

:rimshot:

#43300

piginthecity wrote:I have to say that I heartily disapprove of pitters donating either to Amy's or to Dicky's as yet hypothetical fund. As SJWologists we should be mere observers as the subjects battle it out in the wild, however bloody the fight becomes and however heart-rending the plaintive and piteous cries of the loser are as he or she (and let's face it it's bound to be he) are as he is torn to pieces.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think you have much to worry about. Amy is only up to $765 and that includes Beckybooze's whole double sawbuck. It's been amazing to watch the different reaction to this case in contrast with those of Stollznow and the one against Shermer. They're not spreading the news around as much, either.

I feel like the faction that dominated the community with a paranoid witch hunt is now over the whole thing and wants to move on.

#43301

Gumby wrote:As of now the box office for GB (both domestic and foreign) is $159,587,152 after 20 full days of release. The budget was $144 million, not counting the $100 million or so spent on marketing.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pa ... rs2016.htm

They better sell a fuckton of lunchboxes and action figures.

Given the amount of buzz (and by "buzz" I mean the level of noise, not positivity) Ghostbusters had before its release, there is no doubt it is struggling. It is (supposedly) a Hollywood blockbuster, and it should be expected to make at least $400m, at least. It has had a release in virtually all the big markets.

#43302

Shel Silverstein weighed in on mermaid variations ending his Mermaid song:

For her upper part was an ugly old fish, but the bottom half was GIRL!
Her toes are round and rosey!
Her legs are slim and pale!
Her face might not be a work of art,
But I love that girl with all my heart.
And I don't give a damn about the upper part --
That's how I end my tale! ('Cause now I'm getting tail!)

ehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lz37e_R3OxU

#43303

Brive1987 wrote:"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.

She's saying her sexuality, if it were portrayed as a line, would be only slightly bent.

Either she has a kink, or she's being obtuse.

#43304

Brive1987 wrote:
Gumby wrote:As of now the box office for GB (both domestic and foreign) is $159,587,152 after 20 full days of release. The budget was $144 million, not counting the $100 million or so spent on marketing.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pa ... rs2016.htm

They better sell a fuckton of lunchboxes and action figures.
Here they reckon Batman/Superman needed 900m on 300m production to see black ink.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/batman- ... ffice-flop

Does that mean GB needs say 400m on 144m production?

Who knows what values are attached to variables such as marketing, theater cut, etc. But it would seem reasonable to assume GB needs to make at least 300 million just to break even. I bet 400 million is a closer figure.

From Variety:

The film carries a massive $144 million price tag, plus at least $100 million more in marketing costs. Insiders estimate that it will have to do at least $300 million globally to break even and substantially more than that to justify a sequel. To get there, the film will have to show some impressive endurance while fending off a crowded field of summer blockbuster hopefuls. It will also need to resonate with foreign crowds unfamiliar with the original 1984 comedy or its 1989 sequel.

http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office ... 201816038/

So yeah, I think you're close.

#43305

Brive1987 wrote:
Gumby wrote:As of now the box office for GB (both domestic and foreign) is $159,587,152 after 20 full days of release. The budget was $144 million, not counting the $100 million or so spent on marketing.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pa ... rs2016.htm

They better sell a fuckton of lunchboxes and action figures.
Here they reckon Batman/Superman needed 900m on 300m production to see black ink.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/batman- ... ffice-flop

Does that mean GB needs say 400m on 144m production?

I saw Feig say somewhere that they need at least 400-500 million to break even, but I think that was months ago and expectations have been lowered. Here's what the Guardian says, anyway.

The comedy horror, starring Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, will need to impress international audiences to warrant its $144m budget. Analysts suggest that it will need to make around $300m globally to break even. After almost two years of online anger from fans over the choice to cast four women in the lead roles, the audience was 57% female – a high number for a blockbuster.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/j ... ng-weekend

So just be conservative and say that the movie was 140 million. Another 80 million in marketing. At least. They went hardcore on it. So Sony is in at least 220 million.

If the movie brings in $300 million at the box office, they get at least $150 million of that and can do some creative Hollywood bookkeeping to save face. They're at $160 million worldwide right now. It's gonna be an uphill battle to get to that very lowball number.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... rs2016.htm

#43306

Really? wrote:
piginthecity wrote:I have to say that I heartily disapprove of pitters donating either to Amy's or to Dicky's as yet hypothetical fund. As SJWologists we should be mere observers as the subjects battle it out in the wild, however bloody the fight becomes and however heart-rending the plaintive and piteous cries of the loser are as he or she (and let's face it it's bound to be he) are as he is torn to pieces.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don't think you have much to worry about. Amy is only up to $765 and that includes Beckybooze's whole double sawbuck. It's been amazing to watch the different reaction to this case in contrast with those of Stollznow and the one against Shermer. They're not spreading the news around as much, either.

I feel like the faction that dominated the community with a paranoid witch hunt is now over the whole thing and wants to move on.

In that case I've changed my mind. Let's all dig deep for Dicky and get him to sue, sue, sue. If the baboon-brains are not going to keep this going then we've got to. I demand lulz!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#43307

MarcusAu wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:What year does DAD'S ARMY take place? Cuz 4-prop Spits didn't appear until '44.

(okay my Spectrum score just went up a couple of points.)
There is a line in the movie or the trailer, (I forget which) confirming that it does in fact take place in 1944. And wikipedia also gives this as the date.

I think if you look hard enough you may still be able to find other inaccuracies though.

It's probably worth going to, just to see Bill Nighy sigh, "But we're suhh-POSED to be fighting the Naahhh-zzies" without moving his lips.

#43308

Brive1987 wrote:"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.

I read it as, "I’m so sad [COMMA] I’m almost completely straight", with 'sad' being an antonym of 'gay'.

#43309

[quote="piginthecity"

In that case I've changed my mind. Let's all dig deep for Dicky and get him to sue, sue, sue. If the baboon-brains are not going to keep this going then we've got to. I demand lulz!
[/quote]

But ... But if the girl's warchest remains subcaliber and she issues no retraction, is not the pressure for Doc to pull the 'sue' trigger even greater than if it were full?

#43310

Really wrote:

I don't think you have much to worry about. Amy is only up to $765 and that includes Beckybooze's whole double sawbuck. It's been amazing to watch the different reaction to this case in contrast with those of Stollznow and the one against Shermer. They're not spreading the news around as much, either.

I feel like the faction that dominated the community with a paranoid witch hunt is now over the whole thing and wants to move on.

How much of it has to do with the latest drama having to do with allies or how much it is hatelust burnout it certainly is a fact that not only have the bloggers generally avoided it but the commenters don't bring it up on their pillowfort/neverendingthread or somewhat related posts.

#43311

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Carrier is not a pedophile by any standards. That shit should stop.

Legal age, remember?

Carrier isn't so bad I'd spread the rumor he's a pedophile, but he is bad enough I'm not going to lift a finger to help him if someone else takes up that tactic. The world would be a better place if he had to withdraw completely from the public sphere. He could get a job making deliveries for UPS. I hear they have decent benefits.

#43312

[youtube]GH21QovdhZs[/youtube]

#43313

A law suit I might support would be Reginald X vs Rebecca Watson! :burn:

#43314

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.
I read it as, "I’m so sad [COMMA] I’m almost completely straight", with 'sad' being an antonym of 'gay'.

I'm so sad I'm male

I'm so sad I'm white

I'm so sad English is my first language

I'm so sad I'm straight

I'm so sad

#43315

fuzzy wrote:[youtube]GH21QovdhZs[/youtube]

Awesome album.

#43316

http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/ ... mation.gif

#43317

CommanderTuvok wrote:
Gumby wrote:As of now the box office for GB (both domestic and foreign) is $159,587,152 after 20 full days of release. The budget was $144 million, not counting the $100 million or so spent on marketing.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pa ... rs2016.htm

They better sell a fuckton of lunchboxes and action figures.
Given the amount of buzz (and by "buzz" I mean the level of noise, not positivity) Ghostbusters had before its release, there is no doubt it is struggling. It is (supposedly) a Hollywood blockbuster, and it should be expected to make at least $400m, at least. It has had a release in virtually all the big markets.

Target had remaindered some of the action figures (or at least the blacktion figure) even before the release, IIRC.

#43318

If we're talking about this shit again...

[youtube]UWROBiX1eSc[/youtube]

#43319

Brive1987 wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:"I’m so sad I’m almost completely straight"

What the hell does that peice of meaningless self loathing actually mean? Victim points gone mad.
I read it as, "I’m so sad [COMMA] I’m almost completely straight", with 'sad' being an antonym of 'gay'.
I'm so sad I'm male

I'm so sad I'm white

I'm so sad English is my first language

I'm so sad I'm straight

I'm so sad

[youtube]_tEiguYmgxA[/youtube]

#43320

MacGruberKnows wrote:http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/ ... mation.gif

[youtube]eeZQ5VROfBE[/youtube]

[youtube]dLLssbFwVjk[/youtube]