I posted the sigh without context because your question mark and the post telling me that it was a question mark were as obnoxious and unhelpful as your contextless sighs.
You guys sure are giving hand man s*** for trying to improve his own outlook on things.
I applaud anyone taking concrete steps to solve their own problems.
I support his decision and recently did the same by ceasing my laptop use. Now I spend only about forty minutes on the internet at most each day and am trying to cut that down too. I think I’m doing better because of it.
If only it were possible for all teams to lose all of their games, then everyone would be disappointed. That’d sure make me happy.
?
What’s this mean?
It’s a question mark.
/sigh/
Who do Midwesterners support in the NFL?
EDIT: Nevermind, I bet it’s the Celtics.
I wasn’t being rude at all.
Yeah, I think I’m on your side on this one. To each his own but I think some people in this thread are being a bit radical.
Yeah, and disagreement aside I don’t think I was being rude at all.
I know, I know. You’re not wrong.
If only it were possible for all teams to lose all of their games, then everyone would be disappointed. That’d sure make me happy.
?
What’s this mean?
I wasn’t being rude at all.
I gave up after Rogue One, so that’s five for me. Keep in mind that the only reason I saw that and TFA was because of the ten-year gap between them and the prequels. If not for that I’d have been done after ROTS.
That said, a recompositing of the original film elements for an OUT wouldn’t offend me, but I also don’t tend to think it is necessary.
People on this site are the only ones I’ve ever seen that claim to be offended by recompositing the original effects. I don’t think they’re bothered by the TNG blurays though.
I am. I’m even offended that To Kill a Mockingbird removed optical grain during push-ins.
You are a user of this site.
EDIT: I may have misunderstood you, I think you’re saying that you’re offended by the TNG blurays and if that’s the case then you should be offended that they exist at all because the original broadcasts were not HD. They were mastered on tape, so doing a hi-def restoration is in itself revisionism (by that logic). If you’re only offended by the effects on the blurays, then your offense is inconsistent because you’re basically saying that it’s okay to restore live action footage to a quality beyond its original version, but not visual effects, even though 480i cassette tape effects would look like absolute garbage on an otherwise HD copy. So are you saying that all TV shows originally mastered on tape should not be released on bluray because it’s ‘cultural revisionism’ somehow?
That said, a recompositing of the original film elements for an OUT wouldn’t offend me, but I also don’t tend to think it is necessary.
People on this site are the only ones I’ve ever seen that claim to be offended by recompositing the original effects. I don’t think they’re bothered by the TNG blurays though.
Hey, you wanna buy some deathsticks?
Go home and rethink your life.
I’ve always wondered if you’d ever seen Star Wars because I’d never seen you talk about it or mention it until recently when you said you saw TLJ.
A Day in the Life was on Sgt. Pepper.
There’s a lot of tolerance and respect for the alt-right interestingly enough.
There is? I thought most people consider them the modern-day KKK or a subsect/rebranding of neo-nazism or something. That is, the alt-right loves Trump and most people think Trump supporters are dumber than a wet fart.
Most do now, but among Trump voters and rightwingers, criticism of the alt-right isn’t very harsh and is usually prefaced by “but the left is just as bad” or something along those lines.
You know, somehow I must have gotten cursed into to having bad experiences at the movies. I decided to to use the free ticket I got from tlj incident, and I saw “The Post”. I sat next to an asshole who didn’t think the directive to turn off your cell phone applied to him. The jerk didn’t even put it on vibrate. It rang, twice. He didn’t even turn it off or to vibrate after the first time it rang and it rang again later on in the movie. He had it in the space in the chair for drinks, where when it rang it shined it’s bright screen right in my face. I was very temped to grab the thing and break it in two. Fuck that guy.
Why didn’t you just take the phone and shove it up his ass? It would’ve been a somewhat extreme solution, but I guarantee it would have at least given him a worse experience at the movies than you. In all seriousness though you should take situations like these as lessons to never go to the movies again unless it’s a midnight showing on Wednesday of a movie that’s in the last week of it’s theatrical run.
Is it a requirement?
I was commenting on the recent conversation.
Your comments don’t describe me. I’m not bigoted and I never have claimed to carry a banner of tolerance. I don’t understand why you could possibly think of me as being proudly tolerant but there’s plenty of things I don’t understand.
While we’re at it, we could also look at the bolded sentence and research the term oxymoron.
you seem to be under the impression that beliefs themselves somehow have the right to be respected and appreciated. I don’t think that.
I’m tolerant in that I accept that people can do and believe what they want
You don’t find those statements in conflict?
It is my impression that the word “tolerance”, as defined by the left, means that people are not only allowed to do and believe what they want, but also are allotted some measure of respect regarding their opinions or beliefs despite disagreement. A valid issue I see the right having with the left wielding that banner is that the left seems to be selective of which beliefs or opinions need be tolerated or respected.
That isn’t to say I take any position defending alt-righters who think mutual respect for one’s fellow man is a laughable farce of political correctness. I don’t. My position is that the left, not you personally MFM, is hypocritical for carrying the banner of tolerance when they only do it when it suits them.
The left is hypocritical and they respect a lot of ideologies that are regressive and damaging. I can respect a person and still find no value in their ideas. You mentioned the alt-right. That’s an example of something that I hold no respect for. I “tolerate” them only in the sense that they get to believe what they want, but I don’t respect their beliefs at all. As for conservatives, there’s no respect for opposing views on the Republican side either. There’s a lot of tolerance and respect for the alt-right interestingly enough.
Is it a requirement?
I was commenting on the recent conversation.
Your comments don’t describe me. I’m not bigoted and I never have claimed to carry a banner of tolerance. I don’t understand why you could possibly think of me as being proudly tolerant but there’s plenty of things I don’t understand.
While we’re at it, we could also look at the bolded sentence and research the term oxymoron.
I am tolerant in the sense that I am well aware that people have every right to believe whatever they want regardless of how I feel about it. Where we obviously differ is that you seem to be under the impression that beliefs themselves somehow have the right to be respected and appreciated. I don’t think that. I am not bigoted towards any people, but if you must say that I’m “bigoted” toward a religious creed in the literal sense of the word then I supposed you’re technically right in some way, though I would argue that rejecting a philosophy based on its history and core ideologies that I find objectionable isn’t a fair example of “bigotry.” It’s just my feeble and intolerant, sociopathic mind coming to a conclusion based on what it has observed. (That last sentence was sarcasm by the way.)
EDIT: And I said that I don’t carry a banner of tolerance because most people confuse tolerance with amicable, cordial, and watered-down suggestions rather than criticism. I’m tolerant in that I accept that people can do and believe what they want, but I don’t have to like those beliefs or actions.
Side note: It made $1.3m. How is that even possible?
Because someone saw it 1.3 million times.
How about a “Ranking the 16 Candles DVD Bonus Features” thread?
Like almost all other successful franchises, Harry Potter has a much higher rate of good content than Star Wars.
I actually like the violence and intensity of most sports. I just don’t like the fandoms for the most part.
If only it were possible for all teams to lose all of their games, then everyone would be disappointed. That’d sure make me happy.
Hi again. I’d like to thank everyone for the well wishes, and return such wishes, especially to Bingo right now.
Some new developments have come up recently with Phil, which is not his name, but what I will call him for the remainder of this post. I came out to Phil a couple of days ago. Crush notwithstanding, we’ve been good friends for a while and I figured it was okay to tell him. He said he already suspected for a while, which struck me as odd, as all my other irl friends who are currently in-the-know seemed to be surprised by my coming-out. Phil went on to say that he had-and I promise, I’m not making this up-been analyzing my sense of humor for months and reached the conclusion that I wasn’t straight. The next day, I apologized for coming out (I apologize for everything regardless of whether I have any reason to, it’s a thing). He replied by saying, “no, no, this is good!” and gave me a surprisingly enthusiastic smile and thumbs up.
He never said anything about his own sexuality, though. Maybe I’m looking too hard into this out of desperation, but straight guys don’t tend to analyze their bros’ sexuality, right? That isn’t exactly a “no homo” thing to do. Also, a mutual friend told me Phil’s never seemed interested in girls, and they’ve known each other years longer than I have.
So now I just… ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯
You’re in a situation where you could easily ask him his orientation “just because you’re curious” and keep your feelings to yourself depending on how he answers. Based on the context now he may not suspect it as anything but a question.
Liberals and Democrats are not hostile to religion and Christianity in particular.
Not all, but many are.
Can you tell me why Hillary, being a Methodist herself, did not bolster her appearance as a person of the Christian faith? Can you tell me why Obama, being a member of United Church of Christ, did not openly refute accusations that he was Muslim rather than letting people carry on forever with it?
For my money, it’s because it doesn’t target their base.
It’s actually probably because they realized that it had no relevance to their candidacies and had no bearing on their abilities as potential presidents. As for the Muslim theory, I’m assuming he didn’t refute it because it was a psychotic conspiracy theory only believed by insane people or rightwing hacks.
…As opposed to Republicans, who (and this is an enormous pet peeve of mine) co-opt their so-called Christianity for political points.
Yes and this is worse than not pretending to be religious. The fact that liberals are accepting of candidates that leave God out of their rhetoric is more respectable than people that accept predatory and adulterous conmen like Donald Trump because he pretended to be a Christian.
Liberals and Democrats are not hostile to religion and Christianity in particular. Secularism is not hostile to people’s personal beliefs. Also, since so many Republicans were willing to vote for Trump, that shows that they’re pretty willing to throw their traditional Christian morals into the dumpster when their candidate is the complete antithesis of their supposed values. I’m not aware of anyone denying candidates their right to subscribe to whatever religion they want. People vote against candidates based on their religiosity, but that’s everyone’s right and is completely different. As for the environment, disagreeing that mankind is having an adverse effect on our planet that will irreversibly damage it and our own living conditions if we don’t address it immediately is improper because it’s the wrong position. Climate change denial is objectively untrue. It’s patently false. I see no reason to debate it. It’s like debating whether or not setting your own hair on fire would damage your scalp.