Brasil

To find comedic horror, I suggest MST3K. It's usually on Saturday mornings (9 am to 11 am) on the Sci-Fi channel. They're stuck on a spaceship and forced to watch absolutely horrid B-movies. The movies are hilarious enough (camp), but the characters' comments send it over the top. One movie had a scene in which a son is looking for his father, and asks a hick, "Have you seen my father?" Well, one of the robots in the audience replies, "Knew him?!? He was DELICIOUS!" The show is hilarious. MST3K...Mystery Science Theater 3000. That's comedic horror. Not Scary Movie.

Howdy, just seeing how many here know of Ocean Colour Scene. They're one of my favorite bands, they've been around for a few years now. I think their debut album was early 90s, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I highly recommend them if you like The Beatles--they're essentially a modern version of them. British, rock, excellent musicians, poignant songs. To start, I'd suggest getting Songs For The Front Row: The Best of Ocean Colour Scene. The selections are quite good, some songs are high energy, some mellow ballads. Each song complements the one before it. The first time I heard OCS was in the movie, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. OCS performed the theme (Hundred Mile City)...that got my brother and me interested. We sampled two or three of the band's songs, then I bought 2 of their CDs, their debut album for my bro (which is stunning), and the Best Of album I mentioned earlier. Ocean Colour Scene. You won't be disappointed.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i] [B]I'll make this short and sweet. Try this Absolute truth: Everyone will have a relative opinion. By arguing with this truth, you would only be supporting it. Every person has a relative opinion, whether it is right or wrong. Therefore, I consider relative truth to be derivative of absolute. I belive God gave us free will, therein giving the Absolute truth that everyone has Opinions. This doesn't mean that God's opinion is WRONG, I belive in it, after all. I think that it's not the truth that makes an opinion valid as the opinions are valid within their own right. As almost hypocritical to the idea of Absolute Truth as that sounds, the fact is.. it's all Absolute. I love this ride. [/B][/QUOTE] Good show ole chap. I think we've nipped this one in the butt. Also, it seems that since there are derivatives of Absolute Truth, Absolute Truth has different levels and variations, turning an Absolute into Relative...making for...a quandary within an enigma within a question within a quandary within an enigma within a question on into infinity. Ah...abstract thought...tis sweet to gorge upon the nutty notions of mind-bending logic. I think we should apologize to anyone whose heads are now hurting. lol.

Quick related point. Tolstoy?s White Rabbit Club. Tolstoy had this idea about a white rabbit. The premise was, all our lives we might think about a white rabbit and think nothing of it. But, as soon as we tell ourselves to NOT think of a white rabbit, we?re already contradicting ourselves, because in the action of telling ourselves to not think about a white rabbit, ?white rabbit? is already crossing our minds, hence we?re thinking about it. Vicious cycle. Now, Drix, we musn?t forget what ?relative truth? becomes. As our conflicting viewpoints differ and our discussion becomes definitive of ?relative truth,? we could say that it has become unified, and I trust we are both in agreement that a unified truth is an ?absolute truth.? So, we have: Step 1: ?Absolute Truth A? x ?Relative Truth A? = ?Relative Truth B? Step 2: ?Relative Truth B? = ?Absolute Truth B? Now, therein lies the fault. Surely you agree that it is impossible to have two ?Absolute Truth.? In essence, we have (?Absolute Truth A? vs ?Absolute Truth B?), which is inherently faulty, as there cannot be two absolutes (paradox). Realizing the conflict between ?Absolute Truth A? and ?Absolute Truth B,? we see they are different in nature, contradicting each other (as two ?Absolute Truth? are impossible), providing a variation on fractured perspective, thus becoming ?Relative Truth.? This abstract mathematical equation and solution that arrives at ?Relative Truth? then brings us right back to ?what is truth.? The answer? Good question. It seems, there is no set truth; only what we, the individual, believe in. Translation: Life?s a complicated *****, just enjoy the ride. :D

Hell, Jenn, just sleep over here. Even though you fall asleep mainly due to exhaustion, I'm willing to bet you could fall asleep normally on my bed.

Marching band football game. High school field, meaning lots of ankle twist holes. I catch the ball. Al Jordan, meaning 270 pounds standing at 6 foot 6. Tackles me, my ankle gets shoved and stuck in a hole. I spin on it, fracture it. Swells immediately. I go to the doctor's the next day. "It's just a bad sprain" he says. Yeah, that's a great diagnosis, you quack. He's the same doc who didn't think I was having an allergic reaction to a medication for pneumonia...stupid quack. I stopped going to him after the ankle incident. So, he gives me an Ace bandage and I proceed to talk on a fractured ankle for an entire week, going up and down stairs, carrying 25 pounds of books, unable to use crutches because it's not feasible in the school, and considering none of the people in my classes went the same way I did. My ankle is getting worse throughout the week. We go to a different doc. FRACTURE. So, yeah, lol. I've dealt with some broken bones in my time. Word of wisdom: NEVER NEVER NEVER play football with a giant on your high school's crap practice field. Makes for a great story, though. The irony is delicious. :)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i] [B]I did not mean to say that you, poisontongue, mentioned religion in anyway. You merely brought up the topic/debate of absolute truth vs. relative truth. If I know Drix, (and I do know him) then he will reply to you and explain another perspective, which has alot to do with religion. If he doesn't reply, then it will be because of a great effort of will on his part. I truly am sorry if you thought I meant you were going to bring it up, I just wanted to warn you that it is very likely this will go off-topic if Drix replies the way I believe he will. However, if he doesn't, I will try to explain myself as best as I can, even though what I can say will pale in comparison to what Drix would say. Essentially, the idea of relative truth, that everyone's perspective can be different, and therefore there is no right and wrong, can be debated by the idea of a Supreme Being. I think from what I know of you, you are not a believer in God, and I hope you understand I am not trying to force my perspective on you. If there is a God, then whatever He thinks is right or wrong is an absolute right or wrong for anyone in all of Creation, whether the perspectives of mortals differ or not. It's a rather simple concept to grasp, and because of it, your "relative truth" will never be accepted by anyone who believes in a Supreme Being, whether you explain it with the most convincing logic or not. Again, I apologize. I respect your intelligence very much, and I feel the need to clear my name in respect to your opinion of me. [/B][/QUOTE] Good show. Nice clarification. But, remember, as soon as different viewpoints are established (Drix, mine, yours), that is "relative truth." I go as far as to say, in expressing your "absolute truth," and in my expressing my "relative truth," the situation becomes fractured perspective, and because there are two conflicting viewpoints, there cannot be a unified idea of the two viewpoints, hence Post-Modernism, hence fractured perspective, hence "relative truth." See what I mean? Even by expressing views related to God and "Absolute truth," you're not setting anything in stone (pardon the pun...heh...Moses type reference). You're showing a different viewpoint, as I am doing now, and we both are turning the discussion into "relative truth."

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i] [B]You just had to say there's no right and wrong, didn't you? *sigh* You do know that this is going to turn into another religion thread, don't you? Go ahead Drix, you know you want to... [/B][/QUOTE] Excuse me, but where did I mention anything pertaining to religion? Nowhere. I mentioned the end of the world, but it was a list of terms. And, if you are indeed applying to college at 16 or 17 years old, then you SHOULD KNOW about post-modernism. That's what I was talking about, not religion. Post-modernism deals with the fact that there is no true reality, fractured perspective and the like. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then don't reply and accuse me of leading into religion. Because I wasn't. And frankly, if Drix does reply and debate the points I made, he's just proving my point. There is no set truth or reality, only what the individual thinks, leading back to my original points saying there is no true reality, meaning I cannot say what is right in this world, nor can Drix. You can't, none of us can. EDIT: Shin, precisely the idea. That is precisely the idea. Fractured perspective. Nice point. There can never be a "true" view, only what a person sees.

Replying to every point is nigh impossible, so I?m just going to post my thoughts. Those who want to respond to me, can. No guarantees my post here will sound coherent, because the subject matter is not coherent in the least. That is what I will try to prove: fractured perspective. Also keep in mind, I am ?Xtreme Neutrality.? I am not on either side. I?m an observer. It seems to me, the entire debate here is about a modality of right. Who is right, who is wrong. Those that argue that, in my opinion, are missing the entire point of this conflict. The superficial ideal surrounding the ?war on terror? IS ?They?re trying to destroy us. We must get them first.? I do not disagree with that. But, we must more closely examine the situations and conditions BENEATH this war. Upon examining the context and motivations, we see that this isn?t a war against anything. It?s simply a social revelation. This entire war?If it can even be considered a war. After all, ?war? is a term devised by humans, based on our definitions and views of life, so what?s to say it really is ?war,? and not just ?one big huge prick-waving dickfight??isn?t useful for anything more than waking us up to societal dangers at hand. What are the societal dangers, you might ask? They include terrorism (home and abroad), yes. But they also include societal conflict. The debaters in this thread have proven there is a societal conflict. It can essentially be broken down to ?conservatives vs liberals.? But even this simplified diagram isn?t wholly accurate. There are some conservatives who are against this war, who do not agree with the motives and inclinations of our leaders, but acknowledge the necessity of war, and realize war is inevitable. I belong to that category. As many of you have already guessed by my posts, I lean more conservative. However, I am not ?conservative? for the same reasons as Drix. While Drix fully believes in our (note the word ?our.? Will mention more later in post) cause, I see fault within. However, I do lean towards liberal, as well. I do not agree with the war. I don?t agree with motives and such that I listed previously. But yet I differ from liberal just as I differ from mainstream conservative. The argument that ?war is horrible and should never be an option? is a valid one, as war IS a deadly and destructive force. However, if we look at historicity, as some have mentioned the Crusades (Maybe it wasn?t on this thread, maybe it was. I?m not entirely sure. I haven?t really been coherent at all lately.). OK, looking at historicity, what do we see? Violence. War. Suffering. No time period comes to mind that didn?t have any conflict. I?m not attacking anyone in particular, but most liberals fall into ?head in the sand.? It?s one thing to have an opinion, but don?t just spew propaganda. Yes, war is wrong. Yes, war is bad. But war is necessary. I?ve come to a realization over the past 2 years. I?ve accepted the necessity of war. I?ve accepted the fact that the world will never live in total peace and harmony, and people will always fight with other people. It?s simply human nature. Those that yearn for a peaceful world, I say this: ?Damn it, I agree with you. We?ve had violence for too damn long and the madness has to cease. But please, consider what the world is. Consider what the reality of today is. Striving for a utopian society, or at least one free from death, is a very noble cause, and I commend you on thinking that way. In fact, I share your views. But those that yearn for peace must also see the reality of the situation and the futility of fighting against violence. There cannot be peace. It is not possible with what the human race is.? (That?s not spewing propaganda, either. If a totally peaceful world were possible, would there have been 4,000 years of violence?) Some have accused me of living in a fantasy land. Actually those who have said that are blind liberals?hmmm?who live in their own fantasy land of everything is fine and dandy, cotton candy and rainbows. While I do not agree with conservatives (I abhor aligning myself with either side), I must say, they are looking at this much more logically. The question is NOT whether we are right. The root question and root issue here are why is there war. The answer? I can only speculate, but I believe it has a strong relationship with worldly ideologies. The way I see it, there are ONLY two ways to achieve a war-less world. 1) One mindset takes over. A total, enveloping consciousness, controlling every mind on the planet. No independent thought is seen, heard, or known. The entire global populace becomes what some would call, ?vegetables.? 2) The end of the world, whatever you want to call it. Revelation, Judgment Day, Apocalypse, Thermonuclear Warfare (?The Apple Core? Look for it in my post history. It?s a poem I wrote. It explains my views pretty much exactly.) To put it simply, or as best as I can right now (I?m totally mind nuked. School is taking a lot out of me, lol. Long days, long classes. Welcome to college. Heh.), there is no reality. There is no truth. There is no right or wrong. There is only what we see here now, and what WE see is totally different from what THEY see. Thus, there is no right or wrong; there is no black and white. Hell, I don?t even think there are shades of gray. It?s nothing but us. And the ?us? is so non-unified and full of fractured perspective, that there will never be any way to fully achieve unity until we reach one of the two end results I mentioned above. Yeah, I think I?m done for now. EDIT: And to answer Charlie's last post. Simple. No one can.

Definitely, SadClown. Event Horizon is a prime example. It was absolutely horrid and utterly failed even with two very strong players: Sam Neill and Laurence Fishburne. That's exactly the point. Singer honestly believed that having headliners like Halle Berry, Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, and Alan Cumming would carry his movie. This is a golden rule of cinema. No matter how great an actor may be, they absolutely cannot carry a character that is nothing more than crap on a page. Stepmom...Gigli (although the acting skills of Affleck and Lopez are questionable)...Planet Of The Apes (remake)...had big name stars and/or big talent, but ultimately fell flat. This is one reason I regard Spiderman so highly. It features AWESOME actors (Maguire, Defoe, Franco) and the script is top-notch. It is an excellent movie and shows what X2 should have been. There is none of the wishy-washy bleh that X2 had. Spiderman had heart, while X2 just had...an empty chest cavity...Yeah...X2 is basically a cadaver...dead of emotion...dead of feeling...dead of action.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i] [B] But I'll see the movie anyway, Beckinsdale is very very attractive.[/B][/QUOTE] Yeah, dude, good looking women always help to pass the time. :D There are so many nice college women on campus, and my hands are totally tied. It sucks. On Topic now, When I saw the previews for Underworld, I didn't think movie. I thought Sci Fi channel TV series. You can kind of just see a preview of something and know exactly where it should be shown. Underworld is a prime example. It IS a TV series type material. I'm guessing Execs feel it'd do better or it belongs in theatres. I say TV series, but what do I know? I'm only part of the moviegoing public. The similarities to The Matrix...The Matrix was the worst thing to happen to technology in cinema. Just so much stylistic and vapid situational infringement going on now. It's sad to see. What happened to the realistic shooters of yesteryear? Reservoir Dogs? Pulp Fiction? Usual Suspects? What happened to "substance over style"? Why since The Matrix is it only "style over substance"? The Matrix was so empty. It was "Philosophy-Lite." Philosophy for the 15 year old computer geek. The names were thrown in there just to sound cool. That's my little Matrix blurb for the day, I think.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i] [B]As for Drix and PoisonTongue, keep it up! I LOVE reading your posts, and I know both of you feel the same way as PoisonTongue described. It's kind of like a pillow-fight. You might get in some good hits, but in the end, nobody gets hurt and everyone feels better. [/B][/QUOTE] Hehe. That pillowfight line has extra significance, as I watched Animal House last night. Never never never leave curtains open in your sorority houses, girls. Someone like John Belushi WILL grab a ladder. Just a word of wisdom. lol.

The main problem I had with X2 (and X-Men for that matter), was that it was an ensemble piece, but really not done well for an ensemble cast. I'm comparing X2 to The Usual Suspects (both Bryan Singer directed). Singer came out of the gate with a STELLAR ensemble movie. The Usual Suspects. It is amazing every time I see it. I'm still blown away by every performance. This is due to 2 reasons: 1) The writing. The script, writing, characterizations are spectacular. Each character is fully developed and has loads of depth. There is no extraneous motion. The dialogue is tight, succinct, sharp. There is no wishy-washy emotion. 2) The performances. Kevin Spacey. Benicio Del Toro. Gabriel Byrne. Kevin Pollak. Stephen Baldwin. Those are just the PRINCIPAL players. Their performances are excellent. Passionate, subtle, humorous. Every emotion is conveyed damn near perfectly. Now, compare The Usual Suspects to X2. X2...is horribly paled in comparison. I really don't think Singer has what it takes to make a comic book movie. That's evidenced by X2 vs Usual Suspects. They're both ensemble pieces, but Suspects is handled much much better. Regarding Spiderman vs X2. Look at the directors. Bryan Singer. Sam Raimi. Raimi is considered a filmmaker god by many. He knows how to make a film that connects with the audience. EVIL DEAD!! When you look at Evil Dead, you see comic book aspects in it. The method of presentation matches a comic book flair. He has entertainment down pat. In Evil Dead, he balances drama with comedy, which he did in Spiderman. There are some very dramatic scenes [spoiler]Uncle Ben dying.[/spoiler] and there are some hilarious moments [spoiler]the entire high school scene is side-splittingly funny, as are the moments when Peter is trying to use his new powers.[/spoiler] Singer, on the other hand, tries to re-create The Usual Suspects using X-Men. It just doesn't work. It doesn't light my fire. The actors were not used appropriately in any of the X movies. Hugh Jackman was the strongest character of the two movies, but even then he nears campy. Alan Cumming, who is one of my favorite actors ever (his performance in GoldenEye was great), really was not utilized well. X2 tried to do too much, tried to cover too much ground, and thus spread itself too thin, leading to a half-assed, blase, lukewarm movie. I didn't feel for ANY of the characters, except maybe Pyro, cause his performance was very strong. Simply, Singer does not know the craft as well as Raimi. Spiderman is inherently a better film, because those involved knew exactly what they were doing. Singer is still dancing around the X concept, and I venture to say, he's still unsure of what he wants to do with the series. In my opinion, Singer peaked with his debut. The Usual Suspects.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1]Pff. Most teachers are very bearable. And I guess I'll probably end up being one. What else can you get from an english major, other than a writer or such?[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] LOL! Good call! I believe it's general understanding: An english degree is basically worth nothing if you don't decide to teach, and really it only gives you leeway to bull**** about literature. :D Fun stuff. I like bull****ting about literature, though I'm usually not "bull****ting" and actually providing sensible insight and interpetation and such. Come to think of it, an English degree is one of the most challenging ones to achieve, because the jobs associated with an English degree are SO hard to find, that you really have to be dedicated to your English craft. I'd say an English degree ranks up there with Philosophy and History (though History is a bit easier to find a job in, I think). Those three professions really get the short end of the stick when it comes to salary, too, but I couldn't care less about salary. It's in the back of my mind, sure, but I really just want to teach...unleash Beowulf or Heart Of Darkness on some college frosh. heh. I actually haven't had too many horrible teachers in my academic career. My 2nd grade teacher was bad, as was my Freshman Seminar Political Issues professor at Rutgers (he put everyone to sleep.). But other than that, my instructors have been rock and roll.

[quote][i]Originally posted by KnightOfTheRose[/i] [B] You have proof of this, I hope?[/b] [b] I have an answer. If we are the only beings in this vast universe, wether we arrived through evolution or being placed here by some god, that can comprehend emotion or the such, then it is one hell of a waste of space. And if so, the god is a moron and evolution is nothing more than randomness.[/b][/quote] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Circuit/J [/i] [B] [1] Don't take everything so literally. You can naturally suppose that when he says "some god" he is using that to state that he has no belief in a god, and is therefore using the term nonchalantly. The same goes for why he didn't capitalize it. [2] Calling ANY god a moron is discriminating against all religions that worship a god. For everything else in that quote, see above.[/quote] Sure, we can ?naturally suppose? your interpretation, but looking at this logically, his choice of phrasing simply avoids putting his foot in his mouth. Would you rather he use ?God?? ?Allah?? ?Yahweh?? (

I wasn't all that impressed with X2, so I shant be purchasing it. X2 felt like a typical movie sequel...just lacked the edge of some other sequels. I suppose considering that the original X-Men didn't impress me, I wasn't going into X2 with any enthusiasm. Spiderman, though, that was an instant DVD purchase and I'm really looking forward to Amazing Spiderman.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Shy I've always wanted to go on a big road trip with some friends; I think that would be a lot of fun to do. I would pick up some random people from across the country (probably OB-ers) and we would just travel some tourist destinations randomly. I've always wanted to visit Metropolis, Illinois, a Titan II missile silo, and Area 51. Also, we would get to see some of the larger cities, and perhaps learn something about the rest of America. Yeah, it's corny, but I love it. Anyone want to come along? Jenna seats five... -Shy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm in! Drix and I can argue a whole lot on the trip! muahhaa! :) My ideal vacation...either going down the shore (Jersey shore or North Carolina Nags Head), Poconos, or just lounging around the house is peachy. I love the Shore atmosphere, especially Ocean City. It's SO relaxed. Get a nice cottage or something right near the ocean--make sure it has a deck or porch--and just sit out on the deck or whatever during the night...it's so perfect. Seagulls flying overhead, their sounds mixing with the sounds of waves crashing lightly on the beach, the sun starting to set, light breeze but warm enough to wear shorts. Perfect. I recommend it to anyone needing a vacation.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by maladjusted [/i] [B][size=1] Ferrets are also able to circulate blood 24/7, you big jerk. :P Sorry. It was very tempting. I'm more amazed at how absolutely everything created on earth [in my belief] has been created from science. It's hard to believe that human beings developed from one-celled bacteria, but when you have several billion years on your hand, what do you expect? lol. I also think that earth is [i]not[/i] the only one harboring life. I think it's very possible for some random planet trillions of lightyears away from us to have just begun the evolution of life. [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Hehe. Ferrets! If any of you watch Dilbert, check out the opening sequence. It shows rapid evolution, leading up to a de-evolution into cubicles. It's great. Mal, I totally agree with you. The universe is SO expansive that to believe we're the ONLY (intelligent) life here is ridiculous. Actually, "intelligent" is a relative term anyway.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KnightOfTheRose [/i] [B]I have [i]an[/i] answer. If we are the only beings in this vast universe, wether we arrived through evolution or being placed here by some god, that can comprehend emotion or the such, then it is one hell of a waste of space. And if so, the god is a moron and evolution is nothing more than randomness. [/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix[/i] [b]Because you called God a moron, thanks for insulting my religion becuase you assume your justifications factual.[/b][/quote] Drix, you really should read with more attention to wording. Note he said "some god" (and also did NOT capitalize the word "god"), which does not necessarily mean he means "your god." Later, Knight says, "And if so, *the god* is a moron." He is not talking about any god in particular, if my interpretation serves me correctly. By using "the god," Knight is again not referring to any god in particular, simply referring to "the god" that created existence, provided there is one and provided that humans are the only specie in existence capable of comprehending emotion. Frankly, Drix, he did not assume his justifications to be factual. Read what he posted. Read it again. He said, [quote][b]If[/b] we are the only beings in this vast universe, wether we arrived through evolution or being placed here by some god, that can comprehend emotion or the such, then it is one hell of a waste of space. And [b]if[/b] so, the god is a moron and evolution is nothing more than randomness.[/quote] Do you see what word I've bolded? Yeah, that's the word "if." Very important here. You've based your entire rebuttal on the notion that Knight here assumes his view to be the true one. When in fact, as he used "if," he is not implying nor assuming his justifications are factual. "If," as you SHOULD be aware of, being that uber-genius you are (sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell :D ), connotates a questioning mode, not definitive mode. Sorry to break it to you, dude. Your reply...was totally useless and has no leg to stand on, because you didn't pay attention to use of language and syntax. I've read Knight's post for a few times now, and there is NOTHING in there to insult your religion. He does not finger your god, he does not call your god stupid. You're bringing petty childish crap into this. Grow up and read for once, before attempting to teach someone a lesson or rip them apart. [quote]Heh, the fact that you even ask this question is proof enough. Listen, by asking him for proof, I'm assuming that you have the answer?[/quote] Are you proposing YOU have the answer? "Surely you couldn't be claiming some sort of rebuttle [sic] agaisnt [sic] his point when you yourself cannot claim any point of veiw [sic] with some sort of fundamental evidence?" [quote]Also, I particularily enjoy it when people try to concieve the mind of God. Don't even bother trying to comprehend something you cannot vouchsafe faith towards. The God that I belive in, his wisdom is unimagionable and his methods unexplainable. I don't try to second guess god, because that is inherently wrong. I may ask him if he created other life, but I don't belive he did.[/quote] Gee, correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't you attempting to display an understanding of God? You tell Knight to..."[not] even bother trying to comprehend something you cannot vouchsafe faith towards." So, by this logic, someone who can vouchsafe faith ([url]http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/vouchsafe[/url] I don't even think you're using the word correctly. Vouchsafe means to accept or yield in a CONDESCENDING manner. Condescending means looking down upon or talking down to.)?hell, I?ll just start the sentence over. So, by this logic, someone who can provide faith to your god then can begin trying to comprehend Him. Well, gee golly. A bit elitist are we there? I know pompous *** when I see it (hell, I was one for the longest time), but you aren?t even a pompous ***. You?re just somebody who [b]thinks[/b] they know something. But in all reality, you spew rhetoric and definitions, but I?ve never seen you use applied logic. Meaning, in case you refuse to understand what I?m saying, you ?can spew definition, but lack the deep thought to back it up appropriately.? Surely you know the phrase, ?knowing the path and walking the path.? Well, you really don?t know or walk. You just spew, which isn?t noble at all, by the way. ?unbeliver? what is that? Is it an organ of the body? Maybe an alternate liver? Or is it a nonliver? I believe the correct term you were looking for is ?nonbeliever.? Doesn?t that fit a whole lot better? ;) [quote] Stop looking at the issue from a single dimension.[/quote] Practice what you PREACH, dude. Just thought I?d throw that in there, Drix. ;) As for the topic, I was recently pleasantly amazed at what I?m going to be doing. Teaching. To me, teaching seems like a perfect profession for me. I love being up in front of a crowd, I love human interaction, I love enlightening minds. The look on someone?s face when they finally understand the lesson or ideas you?re presenting?damn, it?s AWESOME. Considering now, too, that I can talk about literature and cinema for a good 45 minutes?creating lectures off the top of my head?I?m SO looking forward to teaching. It really dawned on me today on campus. In one of my teacher prep classes, my instructor said that I think like a Grad student. She suggested that I go to Grad school now, even though I?m only a junior. That just made my day. I?m amazed, but amazed isn?t the right word. Because I?m not amazed in the sense of surprise. I?m amazed in the sense that, I?m going to be a teacher. It?s awesome. It?s an awesome feeling?the realization that you?re impressing every English professor you?re taking classes with?the realization that even though your father excelled in the English Department at the same college 25 years ago, you?re still making a distinguished name for yourself. It?s one of the greatest feelings I?ve ever felt because I?m doing this. I?m making it happen. I?m not relying on outside forces for help. I?m writing the papers, I?m generating ideas, I?m developing these terrific interpretations of literature, I?m writing these stories that professors love and read to their kids (who also love them). I?m going to teach English, and I?m going to write novels and short stories. I will be Donald Sutherland from Animal House. Damn right.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i] [B]Hmm. I suppose I could post my thesbian resume: -I got the male lead my Sophmore year in "Guys and Dolls" -I got the male lead my Junior year in "The Music Man" -I got the male lead my Senior year in "Once upon a Matress" My school had a fall play, and spring musicals. Those are the musicals. As for fall plays: -Lead in hamlet and -Freshman year: baliff in "the night of january 16th). It was my first role ^_^ I'm not tooting my horn or anything, i guess i just like acting. I get a rush from standing up there and making the crowd laugh or cheer. I owe my voice to my mom, and singing all the time as I grew up. I guess it was my little niche. Well, that's all I've done. I've yet to take advantage of any theatre events at my college. [/B][/QUOTE] Once Upon A Mattress? Oh dear God. The show is so horrible...I suffered through it in high school. My least favorite show I've ever done. Absolutely dreadful musical. Fiddler, on the other hand, rocks. My first performance musical and still my favorite one. Now, it's really late, so I'm not really thinking clearly enough to reply completely, but here goes. Soph year H.S. - Fiddler Junior year H.S. - Mattress. Senior year H.S. - CanCan (

I would change 12:00 am, April 1st, 2002. I did something very foolish that night, something that has affected my life in a negative fashion. I still think about it and feel kind of uneasy. Not many of my friends know what happened (Jenn and Charles do), and that's really the way it should stay. My family and I joke about it sometimes. I remember last night we were going out to dinner with some friends and my dad commented on how safe a Ford Taurus was. I replied, "They're VERY safe." So, yeah. I would change 12:00 am, April 1st, 2002.

My All-Time favorite horror movie is Night Of The Living Dead, simply because of the atmosphere it gives when you watch it in the dead of night...it's really quite remarkable. It's so harsh in technique and jarring--and very disturbing at the end-- that you can't help but feel like "Oh, ****" after the credits start to roll. The mood feels even creepier when you have to walk by a sliding glass door on your way to bed :nervous: Recently, I had a little sci-fi movie day with my friend, Jenn. We started with The Thing (the original), then moved on to John Carpenter's remake. After Carpenter's I had planned on Planet Of The Apes and the Star Wars Trilogy, but found myself cutting them without a second thought upon realising the mood of Carpenter's The Thing. It really got me ready for Alien. POTA and SWT just didn't fit after it. This is an interesting dynamic, I suppose. I wasn't scared of The Thing in the sense of jump out of my seat...it scares me more because it's unsettling and somewhat of a mindgame. The character degradation is quite disturbing, because they're slipping into savagery. [spoiler]When Nauls (sp?) cuts McReady loose and the door handle begins turning, Windows asks "What if we wrong about him?" (referring to McReady). Childs replies in a very animalistic tone and growl, "THEN WE'RE WRONG..."[/spoiler] That's fantastic characterization and progression. These guys are going mad to the point of willing to kill [spoiler] an innocent man in an attempt to save themselves. However, it's arguable if McReady isn't as...Thing-Free as we're led to believe. Hell, the shredded clothing could very well have been the real McReady's...something to think about it. Of course, McReady?s blood doesn?t have a reaction during the hot wire test?but?The Thing is an intelligent creature?hmmm?I?ll have to look into that.[/spoiler] Anyway, The Thing is what I call ?intelligent horror.? It doesn?t use some cheesy guy in a mask, it doesn?t feature loads of voluptuous women getting stabbed. Carpenter?s The Thing is really a character study of the human condition under stress and paranoia. I?d say it is closer to the Cold War and Cloak and Dagger edge than Howard Hawks?s 50s original. In the 50s version, the enemy was visible. The objective was clear and there were no questions about who was on which side. It was ?good vs evil,? keeping in with the general theme of that era. Carpenter?s remake, however, there is no set ?good? and really, come to think of it, ?evil? becomes a blurred motivation. Granted, the monster is evil, no doubt about it, but the humans fighting against this [spoiler]shape-shifter[/spoiler] are not the clear-cut ?good? of the original. They all exhibit primal urges and dark savage desires. They do not seem much better than the dogs of the movie?come to think of it, the dogs are the only truly good and innocent features of the film. [spoiler]The American dogs only wished to survive and more attempted to escape rather than fight. One dog bites away at the fencing when The Thing reveals itself. And even acknowledging the dogs as innocent brings up an aspect of the film that few would enjoy. Even the innocent animals are ingested and assimilated by The Thing.[/spoiler] In essence, corrupted?one might even say?transformed into evil. I think that interpretation of The Thing is pretty damn accurate. Carpenter?s The Thing is a sci-fi, yes, but its roots of story are far deeper than just a marauding monster killing people. Its story is a tale of character degradation under stress and transformation into evil and savagery. Quite notable when you examine it. At first I wrote off Carpenter?s remake as ?eh, another sci-fi. Pretty cool but not mind-blowing.? But after a few repeated viewings, oh yeah?it?s ridiculously good.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i] [B]No. If you want real supernatural horror that will make you crap your pants, watch aliens. If you want supernatural horror that will make you ball your eyes out and/or crap your pants watch Interview with a vampire (made me want to BE a vampire). If you want real supernatural horror that will send you into epileptic shock I reccomend watching The Ring. If you want a horror/comedy that you can laugh then scream at watch almost anything out there including, but not limited to , Friday 13th, Nightmare on Elm street, Psycho, any hitchcock flick, the shining , etc. Tremors is a boorish waste of a good movie. Sorry :(. [/B][/QUOTE] My god, Drix...you are such a fool. When did you think that Aliens is "real supernatural horror?" It's sci-fi/horror/action/adventure. Don't try to tell me that your definition of "supernatural" deals with anything that isn't...natural in terms of film. Your other two suggestions (Interview and The Ring) totally contradict your interpretation of Aliens. By including Interview and The Ring in your "supernatural" selection, you're effectively giving Aliens that similar vibe, which means you're giving Aliens a ghostly and generally romanticized view of horror, and since you portray yourself to be a man of the world (even though you're only 22), you should realise that Aliens is by no means connected to Interview and The Ring by your definition. Aliens is sci-fi/horror/action/adventure, with less emphasis on horror and more the other 3. Oh, and don't continue to accuse others of not living in reality or not accepting reality when you try to disvalue Tremors by proclaiming it as trying to be a serious (or "real supernatural horror") movie. It isn't. Any moviegoer with half a brain should realise that Tremors was never meant to be a serious horror film. It's tongue-in-cheek humor, much like the Evil Dead series. It's camp. I think before you interject moronic advice, do re-evaluate your cinematic interpretations and values, as they're totally unbecoming of one with your pompous attitude who really doesn't know what they're talking about concerning film. Leave the discussions to the big boys. Start practicing what you preach. Accept reality. If you believe Tremors to portray itself as a serious horror movie, then you are NOT in touch with reality. Sorry to break it to you, bud, but your interpretation is totally erroneous. Also, before you criticise others for poor grammar and spelling, take a look at your posts. You're 22. You should know how to spell "sentence" correctly. And might I add, not "reccomend." It's "recommend." Now, Tremors. Totally fun flick. Good Saturday afternoon movie. If you need a quick laugh, Tremors is definitely the way to go--that is, if you can't get your hands on Monty Python. Tremors is really a parody of the "horror" genre, in that it skews the very notions of what horror is. Firstly, it takes place primarily in the day (usually unheard of in the genre), it features abundant amounts of one-liners and funny one-liners to boot. The performances are exactly what they needed to be: camp. Fred Ward, Kevin Bacon...cheesy roles played beautifully. There's a great dynamic between their characters. The movie is very well done...pity the sequels took it downhill (which is to be expected with most sequels) and the TV series was...how should I put this...unwatchable lol.

Nightfire:GoldenEye::King Kong remake(1977):King Kong original(1933) Simply, Nightfire is utter gaming trash in the light of one of the greatest FPS ever, GoldenEye, much how the King Kong remake is horrid when viewed next to the original King Kong. Those who know me would agree, I'm a hardcore, old-school GoldenEye veteran. I have never played any FPS that matches the gaming brilliance and perfection that GE is. Free Radical's Timesplitters 2 is the FPS that comes closest to recreating the GE excitement that I love. Considering, also, that Nightfire was horribly inferior to Agent Under Fire, both in terms of gameplay and excitement--and taking into account that AUF was far inferior to GoldenEye--Nightfire is quite possibly the worst FPS I have ever played. And I've played some real crap...Return To Castle Wolfenstein, the levels are so utterly boring and action drab...Turok Evolution was flawed and nearly unplayable due to a single, uncustomizeable control scheme. It would take the most horrid and totally uncreative FPS endeavor to unseat Return To Wolfenstein and Turok Evolution as my least favorite FPS, and Nightfire did that with flying colors. Nightfire was so boring, that I had to cheat to complete levels. Otherwise, I would just pause the game and turn off my TV, then go hook up my N64 for some old-school Bondian goodness. The game mechanics and environments were so...dull. What happened to the exciting use of the Q-Claw from AUF? In AUF, you could connect the claw to anywhere. I was able to Spiderman up to the very top of the arenas and rain death down upon my opponents. In Nightfire, we had what, 4 grapple points in the 12 arenas? Wtf! And the grappling wasn't even fun. Just aim at the hook and fire. It took forever for the grappling hook to connect, and even longer to zip along, then even longer to halt the grapple in mid-air. There was no Spiderman-ing in Nightfire. There was a total lack of 3rd dimensional gameplay because of that. I was never impressed with any of the Bond gaming crap that EA churned out, and Nightfire did nothing but re-inforce that opinion. GoldenEye forever, and Free Radical forever (a company comprised of a few ex-Rare developers--Rare knows FPS, and thus Free Radical does).

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i] [B]Here's why Animals will never have the same rights as humans. 1) Animals are stupid, compared to humans, it takes extreme training to get them to sit on command, they live by instinct most of the time. 2) Animals cannot voice opinion. They cannot speak, they cannot write, they cannot express proper body language to give reasonable argument to anything, such as my argument for example. 3)Animals are not self sufficient. 4)People should NEVER die for animals. I don't care if it's the best damn collie in the United States, NO person should die as a result of killing/injuring that dog. It's an ethically nightmarish problem. 5)Animal's don't care much about eachother, they can't create a society. 6)Most of any animal's "emotions" are based on self preservation, any animal will override emotion for instinct.[/B][/QUOTE] Dude, um... 1) Ever had a baby? By your point, babies shouldn't be considered human or even equal to humans, just because they're helpless and they take extreme amounts of training to become pottytrained and so forth. 2) What do you think barking is? An involuntary spasm? Animals can voice their opinion. You're just too ignorant to realise that. What about when your pet puts their head on your lap or sits there staring at you? Don't you figure they want something? The moment you realize they want something, THEY HAVE COMMUNICATED. The ability to speak does not make one important and/or intelligent. Just look at George W. Bush. He's an idiot--the village idiot no less. He communicates worse than my dog, Sam. 3) So, how do you regard packs of wolves and lions and such? They are self-sufficient. Hell, they have no human influence and/or help whatsoever. They survive on their own, thus making them very much "self-sufficient." 4) If you're so against ppl dying for an inferior being, how do you feel about Henry V? He was most certainly not a wholesome being and ppl died for him. We mustn't forget Hitler; most of his army died for him. So, you have a problem with ppl dying for an innocent and/or helpless (sometimes helpless) dog, but are totally OK with soldiers dying for a dictator's deathly militarial campaign? 5&6) How are humans different from that? Are you really that naive that we humans care about each other? Do you really believe that we humans have actually created a utopian society where we all get along? The "emotion" comment is contradicting. Self-preservation is the PRIMARY instinct of any animal. Why do you think wild animals gorge on a kill? Cause they don't know when their next meal will be. That's instinct. That's self-preservation. We aren't different from animals concerning self-preservation. What was the entire point of every war? Survival. To suppress the other side. Self-preservation. Again, self-preservation is the primary instinct. Your reasons for calling animals inferior are invalid. Your comments can be applied to both humans and animals. Anyway, as Raiha...or somebody said...stuff dies. **** happens. My dog died when I was in 6th grade. It was really hard to see her start coughing up blood in the living room. She died on the way to the vet. We grew up together. There's this one photo of us playing in the grass. I must've been 1 or 2. I'm crawling, she's walking next to me. We were the same size, too, so there was a really cool symmetry in the photo. In this case, while I feel the vet could have done much more and been more forthcoming in his method of informing the family of the dog's status, and while I do totally empathize with their loss (as I've suffered the loss of a dear pet), people need to lose the lawsuit happy attitude. I don't believe that changing legislature will change the public's opinions. This world is full of ppl who don't agree with the current laws and regulations we have; what makes us think that we can draft another law/regulation and change their opinions or actions?