Mrebo

That's some great news.

Could be amazing.

The Jerk (1979)

Strengthens my perception that the 70's had lots of weird movies. I'm not totally sure what to think about it, was fairly amusing.

One observation: tie-pilot who appears twice seems to be female. Lupita or Gwendoline?

One nitpick: Chewie's voice didn't match his mouth movement well.

I consider myself high on the purist/curmudgeon scale. I also resist getting my hopes up about anything. But this trailer makes me very hopeful. I'm not letting go of my skepticism, not after what happened in '99, but I'm not going to read anything and everything into a teaser trailer.I'd implore others to resist that urge also, for their own potential enjoyment.

As for 3D...I don't get the hype. I've seen a couple of movies in 3D some number of years ago. I don't feel as if it works well for me. Maybe I'll give Guardians of the Galaxy a shot in 3D this weekend to get another feel for it.

Trailer was beautiful. I'm nervously hopeful that they are hitting the sweet spot of an authentic yet modern Star Wars.

TV's Frink said:

Neglify said:

This thread was intended to mock all the threads.

 Including this one?

A single post will be left standing, a spire rising through clouds, a great bunny looking down at humanity.

bkev said:

That's why I have little sympathy for you.  I don't dislike you, but your actions confuse me.  You should just let some things go.  You'd be happier and not fretting over one small, niche Moronathon of a forum on the internet.

To be fair to Warbler, he does not get jokes. He will tell you. I don't think the thread is meant to be mocking of Warbler; it's playing off of statements made in his thread, specifically made by Frink. It may also be teasing ender's thread.

I vote to create a new section where we confine all the trolls and periodically purge them.

I remember the announcement of SilverWook's appointment like it was yesterday. Definitely appreciate your commitment!

Neglify said:

Mrebo said:

In theory, I like such limited moderation as banning big ugly obvious trolls.

Can the short beautiful stealthy trolls stay? 

 God yes.

In theory, I like such limited moderation as banning big ugly obvious trolls. I know how there gets a point where they are just making everyone miserable. The trouble is perhaps the mods having enough information to decide that enough has been enough?

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Perhaps warnings when someone is deliberately not respecting the rules of a thread and so do so very repeatedly, they should be warned multiple times and get a temp and if they still won't listen: perm ban.

That is the kind of issue that makes me oppose moderation of OT.

what do you mean? 

and remember I said I was open to changing my definition of light moderation.

I think one thing we can agree on:  light moderation would less moderation than is done in the rest of the forum.

I don't think there should be such thing as rules of a thread that the mods should be made to enforce.

Example new thread text: "1.) evryone reading this thread mustt send alot of money to my paypal send to the email below and Bobs your uncle 2.) profit"

(I'm already in violation of enough of Frink's Bannable Offenses...do hypothetical violations count?)

I did once support the idea of getting rid of someone who is a bother to most of us; but we've worked pretty well - being able to ignore and shun such a person.

we have.   We have had multiple trolls and other offenders.    There is only one time in my memory when we united together and all ignored the guy until he left and it took a long while.   It doesn't usually work because we are unable to get the united front.  Meanwhile banning them would do the job much quicker.

It was the success of that campaign that made me change my mind. There is a certain point where even the biggest troll just isn't having fun anymore, even if the methods are not as quick easy, or seductive. And don't forget, the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. (I know that doesn't make any sense in this context.)

I'm sorry, but it only worked once.  I don't know why when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that someone  is troll, we can't just get rid of him.

and yes, your quote from Star Wars makes no sense here.

That quote is from Star Wars?!*

I see too many downsides - let alone how annoying it would be, for Wook, to make the kind of subjective calls each person has in mind.

 I guess you missed the part where I suggested appointing someone specifically to moderate the off topic section and then I nominated Frink.

Frink did have some good ideas for moderation. I'd nominate myself, nobody would see a ban coming.

light moderation XD (sorry to Warbler, if he still cannot watch youtube :/)

 forcing Bingo to post? uniting all threads into this thread?   no ignoring allowed?  You consider these good ideas?

I will watch your vid when I get to a computer that can play vids.

I think collapsing all threads into one is an idea with real gravity.*

I love the video because it's true. I had two long-term substitute teachers in high school that played out like that.

;)*

Warbler said:

Perhaps warnings when someone is deliberately not respecting the rules of a thread and so do so very repeatedly, they should be warned multiple times and get a temp and if they still won't listen: perm ban.

That is the kind of issue that makes me oppose moderation of OT.

I did once support the idea of getting rid of someone who is a bother to most of us; but we've worked pretty well - being able to ignore and shun such a person.

we have.   We have had multiple trolls and other offenders.    There is only one time in my memory when we united together and all ignored the guy until he left and it took a long while.   It doesn't usually work because we are unable to get the united front.  Meanwhile banning them would do the job much quicker.

It was the success of that campaign that made me change my mind. There is a certain point where even the biggest troll just isn't having fun anymore, even if the methods are not as quick easy, or seductive. And don't forget, the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. (I know that doesn't make any sense in this context.)

I see too many downsides - let alone how annoying it would be, for Wook, to make the kind of subjective calls each person has in mind.

 I guess you missed the part where I suggested appointing someone specifically to moderate the off topic section and then I nominated Frink.

Frink did have some good ideas for moderation. I'd nominate myself, nobody would see a ban coming.

light moderation XD (sorry to Warbler, if he still cannot watch youtube :/)

The problem is how to define "light moderation." I'm sure your idea of light moderation is not the same as everyone else's. Is it giving warnings/banning someone who is consistently unpleasant? Is it giving warnings/banning someone not respecting the rules of a thread?

I did once support the idea of getting rid of someone who is a bother to most of us; but we've worked pretty well - being able to ignore and shun such a person. I see too many downsides - let alone how annoying it would be, for Wook, to make the kind of subjective calls each person has in mind.

I don't know who Id is, but if ever I start regarding him or noticing his posts, I'll decide.

When the [Iceland] was first settled, it was extensively forested. In the late 12th-century, Ari the Wise, described it in Íslendingabók as "forested from mountain to sea shore". Permanent human settlement greatly disturbed the isolated ecosystem of thin, volcanic soils and limited species diversity. The forests were heavily exploited over the centuries for firewood and timber. Deforestation, climatic deterioration during the Little Ice Age and overgrazing by sheep imported by settlers caused a loss of critical topsoil due to erosion. Today, many farms have been abandoned. Three-quarters of Iceland's hundred thousand square kilometres are affected by soil erosion, eighteen thousand square kilometres so seriously as to be useless. Only a few small birch stands now exist in isolated reserves. The planting of new forests has increased the number of trees, but does not compare to the original forests. Some of the planted forests include introduced species.The tallest tree in Iceland is a sitka spruce planted in 1949 in Kirkjubæjarklaustur; it was measured at 25.2 metres (83 ft) in 2013.

Global Warming.

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

I thinking you are confusing remaining sinless with remaining ignorant.

I believe it was called "The Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil", not "The Tree of Good and Evil".  He wanted us to not even know the difference between what is right and wrong.  So we would only be considered sinless because we didn't know any better=ignorant.

I'm no theologian, but I think not wanting us to not know evil is not the kind of ignorance we find a problem with in our now sin-filled world. Per the Bible, we were sinless beings in the beginning. To the extent that something was a sin, God was there to tell people (eg don't eat from that tree). Without the capacity to know sin, the thinking was that we wouldn't commit sin. The fault is in thinking God should not have created such limited beings as us, but rather we should all have been created as angels, aware of Good and Evil from the start. Maybe God wanted to try something different (perhaps seeing how angels could be problematic).

Also, some would say the Garden of Eden can be allegorical. That we were fully capable of knowing evil, but in so knowing, it only leads to more sin.

I've wondered whether someone who has known little sin, having a good stable family, no psychological issues can compare to someone predisposed to alcoholism, with abusive parents, poverty, etc. Is the man exposed to, or more tempted by, sin better or worse for a lack of knowledge concerning sin? Is the man living a charmed life less worthy of saving simply because he hasn't been challenged? After contemplation, I think this is just the wrong way of looking at it. It has been said that all sins are equal. Thus the man who lives a charmed life will sin in at least small ways and must atone no less than the man who commits robbery to fuel an addiction. I don't think ignorance of sin is a problem...else we should all seek out sin in order to fight its temptation. And at times, that is awfully tempting.

Very well said, Tim.

generalfrevious said:

Possessed said:

What the fuck is going on with this forum.

 I'm just telling people we are the end of humanity thanks to man-made GLOBAL WARMING (don't listen to the oil companies, they are fueling the denial).

Hahaha, great pun!

Warbler has the right idea, ender. There are rude people, but they can be ignored. I don't endow anyone I don't personally know and trust with such importance that they can "let me down" so I don't understand that sentiment. I don't know what's been going on, but I hope you stick around.

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I put everyone on ignore for awhile. This site was not much fun that way, I'll tell ya that.

Happy April Fool's Day.

 Welcome back!  If it's any consolation, the forum put all of us on ignore for the past several days, to the point where we couldn't access it at all.

Thank you! Seems I've missed some excitement.

So...Bingo left?

Link?

I put everyone on ignore for awhile. This site was not much fun that way, I'll tell ya that.

Happy April Fool's Day.

nic777 said:

Putting Obi-Wan as the focus of the PT means an abrupt shift by ep4. Because ANH is Luke's journey and when we find out about the connection to Vader it kinda makes me wonder why we would be looking at Obi-Wan so much in the PT since the real story is turning out to be the destiny of the Skywalker family.

The OT was a story about a set of heroes and Luke played the central role. Vader only mattered as a Skywalker because of his late-revealed connection to Luke. Lucas retconned the series as the story of Anakin and by extension Luke. It doesn't need to be seen this way...

No doubt Anakin is an important character (because of his relation to Luke) but that doesn't mean he needs to be the hero of the PT. As BlueCardinal says, up until at least the end of ESB, we don't view it as a Skywalker story. With Obi Wan as hero, we see him early in ANH, he passes the torch, and it works really well as a story-telling device.

Nothing wrong with wanting to tell it as a Skywalker story, but it doesn't need to be done that way. There is just nothing abrupt in moving from an Obi Wan centered-tale in the PT, to him meeting the son of his old friend/student in the OT.

were cowed, crying or crowing