Papa Smurf

I've got two. Undergrads. It only lasted for one season before it was pulled, but it was absolutely brilliant. It followed four high school friends through their freshman year of college. You had the usual stereotypes in the four friends. One was a mindless jock (Rocko), another was a mindless pretty-boy (Cal), there was the normal one (Nits), and then my favorite character, the uber-geek (Gimpy). The cast of characters was insane...certifiably so. The show was filled with geek humor, there was an obsession with Star Wars and Quake--one episode actually featured a game of Quake with a Trekkies team versus Star Wars fans. Great show. Witty as hell. One season. The next one is Kid Notorious. It was a cartoon about Robert Evans, how he got into all sorts of international intrigue, how he got all the hottest women in Hollywood, how he tormented his bosses on the studio lot, etc. It was an absurd, egotistical, and downright "wtf" kind of show, and that's what made it great.

Hey Meg, good to see you again. I'm feeling very, very sinister right now, so I'm mildly worried my reply will be much meaner than you're accustomed to, but I'll resist the urge to use all manners of curses and volunteer to break a few kneecaps for you, and reply as best I can. While I think it's a...good idea...to try to make sure things go smoothly during the transition...I think mistakes are being made. I can't see how Lincoln or Connie honestly believe this is the best way to go about this transition. The email you quoted is downright asinine. I don't know if I can even offer a suggestion because the entire thing pisses me off to no end. The more I think about it, the more I am leaning in the direction of breaking kneecaps. I guess I can say this, though. While I think you can react a bit better to it...the kind of craptacular tone and approach they're pulling warrants such a reaction. Especially if Lincoln was involved with her before the divorce.

Scribes have said "And in the world of Tyria, there walked a familiar former Site Administrator-turned-Warrior..." [center][url="http://imageshack.us"][img]http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/9052/charles7cn.png[/img][/url] [/center] "After my OtakuBoards career, I moved through cyberspace into the world of Guild Wars" quod he.

[QUOTE=Hanabishi Recca]Excuse me? Maybe you should look up the word. Look [url="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=evil&gwp=13"]HERE[/url] Look at number 2... Now tell me that inflicting physical pain on someone isn't evil.[/QUOTE] It's not. You can point to any number of outside definitions that you want. It still won't change what I'm saying, and [i]why[/i] I'm saying it. "Evil" is a loaded word. Inflicting physical pain in others...isn't loaded enough. I'll pose a religious/philosophical question to illustrate: In the Old Testament, is Satan evil because he's violent? Or is he evil because he twists the truth and tricks Eve? And if you aren't adequately versed in the OT, how about the NT, then? Is the Devil evil because he tortures people, or is he evil because he twists the truth to tempt people...like when he tempts Christ? See what I mean here? Pointing to an online definition is going to get you nowhere if you really want to understand what evil really is. And I'm not implying that the Bible is the only place to gain understanding, either, because I believe that most religion is actually completely irrelevant, because a large portion of the understanding of what constitues evil is gleaned from cognitive psychology. You know how to kill a person, good for you. You're not evil. You're just physically abusive. You're a dweeb who can swing a bat really hard. You know how a person's mind works, however? You know how to manipulate them, how to pull their strings so that they respond exactly how you want them to? Or think exactly what you want them to think? Or say exactly what you want them to say? That's much more potent, much more effective, and evil in the only sense of the word. Being able to swing a baseball bat is child's play when you compare it to being able to control another's mind. EDIT: And Panda, I understand that. But my point is...is that what people are describing here isn't evil at all. Why not just change the thread title itself to "The [i]bad[/i] things you've done in your life"?

[quote name='Avenged666fold']So killing baby birds isn't bad? Ok what about stabbing random people in the grocery store?[/quote] No, it's not [i]evil[/i]. Pay attention to that distinction. Bad is not the same as evil. And either way, killing baby birds isn't even morally wrong for the context of this thread, because in addition to basically being irrelevant in a discussion about "evil" actions, stuff like killing baby birds (and what else has been said here) is just stupid. It's not disturbing. It's not creepy. It doesn't send shills up my spine. It doesn't make me cringe. And show me where someone stabbed a random person in the grocery store and I'll show you pictures of what evil really is, because I guarantee you 99% of the people in this thread have no idea what they're talking about. That much is clear by how they're trying to pass off knocking down a bird's nest or lunch line arrogance as evil. You want to talk about truly evil stuff? Nightmare VC's post is at least getting there, though I tend to associate "evil" with a more mature, responsible, methodical thought process, whereas Nightmare's stuff sounded more like just worse and more brutal versions of the lame anecdotes I'm seeing here. True evil is not beating a cat senseless. True evil is not wanting to beat the living daylights out of another human being. True evil is not letting a pitbull in a house to ravage an older dog. True evil...is similar to a perfected social manipulation. The greatest threat to society is never the physically violent individual; it's always the individual that can convince others of just about anything. That's why I don't think physical violence proves anything regarding who is evil or not. It's nothing more than genetics giving one a supposed superiority. Because consider it realistically: You can break the body, but it usually mends itself. You break the mind, however...it usually never mends itself.

I've got to tell ya, I thought American Haunting was awful. It easily ranks up there as one of the worst horror movies I've ever seen. Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek are tremendous actors, but they had absolutely nothing to work with in that schlock. The writing was dreadful, the pacing was completely random. The characters were poorly conceived, too. And the "twist ending" of the film was uninspired, trite, naive, and wholly annoying. You know it's really bad when I, one of the strongest opponents of cliches in writing, would have [i]preferred[/i] [spoiler]the witch actually having cursed the family[/spoiler], rather than what we were given as an explanation. The flash forwards--the present day scenes--did absolutely nothing for the movie. They were just boring--laughably so, in fact. And really, the entire movie was laughable. I was roaring during most of it, especially when [spoiler]the girl was getting slapped by the spirit[/spoiler]. That wasn't unsettling. That was hilarious. Same goes for anything where the wolf just pops out of nowhere. The characters are riding along, then suddenly, BAM! Wolf leaps out and gouges a throat! It was comedic gold, I swear. Usually that would be a good thing, too. But not when the purpose of the movie was to fashion a serious horror movie. I think the only truly good scares/unsettling things in the movie were [spoiler]when the spirit was attacking the girl[/spoiler], honestly. Even though they were just mildly compelling...even mildly compelling was a vast improvement over the rest of the movie. The writer/director did the Dungeons and Dragons movie a few years ago. No wonder American Haunting was so awful. Somehow, I think that if a different writer/director had done the movie, and we'd had an R rating, and we cut out all of the lame parts with the modern settings and stupid scares, and focused on the real meat of a haunting story for the entire movie...we might have had a good horror movie. American Haunting suffers from similar problems that I saw in Exorcism of Emily Rose: it's too schizophrenic for its own good. But at least Emily Rose had some great scares with great cinematography. American Haunting...didn't.

I'm reading stuff here that would never classify as evil. lol The worst any of you have ever done is push someone? Or punch someone? Lunch line antagonism? How about breaking someone's will completely? Shattering their very being? Work in their subconscious, planting ideas, and allowing their own fears and paranoia to help those seeds grow? Exploiting weakness is the name of the game, peoples. And there are plenty of weak people to manipulate. What's even better is being there when a person realizes that you know them better than they know themselves. The look on their face--the terror, dread, shock, and alarm--is absolutely delicious. I know. Because I've seen that look before. Playing tag isn't evil. Destroying someone's mind, however? Now that's completely evil.

[quote name='Shinmaru']I would never meet anyone from OB; you're all too strange for me.[/quote] This is coming from the man who offers his nads up to get booted. ~_^ There are only a few people I'd like to meet from OB. I've already met one of them. The remaining ones will be required for a Smash Bros Revolution fight. Online will be nice, but I'm looking at actually seeing the facial expressions.

[quote name='sesshisgrl01']how can you not like little cute furry animals getting mutalated(sp?) lol :D :laugh:[/quote] Because it's not funny? Or because the show sucks? Or maybe it's just a stupid, stupid idea? Honestly, it scares me how many people enjoy this show, because that means our standards have dropped so low that we consider Happy Tree Friends to be entertaining or worth watching... ...when it really isn't.

You know, that annoys me greatly. Lucas should have known to release the actual OT, remastered, on DVD [i]without[/i] pressure from the fans. What a complete douchebag, seriously. And yet, like the Star Wars nerd I am...I'll be buying the new-old-new-old-(and so on) DVDs when they come out later this year. Gavin, how sad is it that I'm buying them only to see Han shoot Greedo first (the way it should always be), to not have any lame Jabba insert in ANH, to see the original monkey-face Emperor in ESB, and to hear Nub-Jub in RotJ? I think the only thing I'm going to miss from the remastered Special Edition DVDs, apart from the video/sound quality, is the little bit on the Death Star in ANH, when Han runs from an entire hangar full of Stormtroopers. That was mad crazy awesome. =D

[quote name='The13thMan][font=Century Gothic][color=DarkOrange]Papasmurf....so let me ask you a question. On your list of things to do in your life is kill Ben Affleck on it? All you managed to do was denounce Affleck's acting talents, which weren't even being discussed to begin with. Just saying.[/color'][/font][/quote] People were saying that Pearl Harbor (the movie) actually meant something. It didn't mean anything. It was empty and overblown. Its lead was nothing more than a Hollywood pretty-boy who's managed to (barely) keep his head above water by starring in mindless action movies that have barely done anything at the box office for the most part. The point that I'm making is this: Ben Affleck does not star in meaningful movies. He's made a career of that. That's why I don't take people seriously when they actually believe Pearl Harbor is something of a "film for the ages." It's not a film for the ages. It's only "historically relevant" because it's set against the backdrop of Pearl Harbor. But the events of Pearl Harbor don't mean anything at all when your leads are Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler and the focus of the movie is their trite and insipid love story. See, the problem with Pearl Harbor (the movie) is that it was never about Pearl Harbor (the event), because you could very easily take the focus of the movie (the love story) and put it into a paintball arena, or football, or virtually anything, and the movie wouldn't change at all. The event of Pearl Harbor was completely unrelated to the lead characters. It wasn't organic to the movie itself, so why try to convince us otherwise? Why try to use a lame and bloated Ben Affleck Hollywood "cash cow" as anything relevant in a thread about politics and war? It's just like the Dixie Chicks offering their views on the political arena.

[quote name='KatanaViolet']Pearl Harbor[/quote] Talking about the event, not the movie. Or that's how it should be, at least.

[quote name='The13thMan][font=Century Gothic][color=DarkOrange]I don't think the movie was made for the purpose of promoting America at all. I think it was a work of fiction based on an actual event. Ultimately i believe what most people were worried about in the making of the movie was their salaries. They wanted to make something that people would want to see, hence the love story, and kinda wanted to make it in tribute to Pearl Harbor which will also attract customers, hence the battle scenes.[/color'][/font][/quote] The movie starred Ben Affleck. Ben Afflect doesn't star in tribute movies. The battle scenes were used for eye-candy in the same way Ben Affleck was. [quote][font=Century Gothic][color=DarkOrange]If they were truly promoting America then they wouldn't have portrayed the Japanese as the humble and respectful men they were. Instead they would have made it out that they were blood thirsty brutes. As i remember the movie made it out so that the japanese pretty much had to implicate a suprise attack on America to even stand a chance in the war. [/color][/font][/quote] You're saying that a Ben Affleck movie had meaningful and important character development. [quote][font=Century Gothic][color=DarkOrange]Movies are ultimately made to make money.[/color][/font][/quote] Hence why Pearl Harbor starred Ben Affleck. Let's use a proof for this: Statement: Any movie that Ben Affleck stars in is awful and bloated, big-budget Hollywood garbage, like Paycheck and Daredevil. Therefore, he does not star in meaningful and important movies, with the rare exception of Good Will Hunting and whenever Kevin Smith writes a role specifically for him that ultimately parodies Affleck's career. Statement: Ben Affleck starred in Pearl Harbor, opposite Liv Tyler, who is also fairly useless in front of the camera and who, like Affleck, possesses very little, if any, actual performance talent. Therefore, Pearl Harbor is just like Affleck's previous movies: bloated, big-budget Hollywood garbage with absolutely no redeeming thematic elements whatsoever. Game. Set. Smurf.

I can't find the article on the Gamespot website. Shinmaru, can you give us an actual link, please? What you quoted was funny. I laughed.

Happy Tree Friends is disgusting. It's a cartoon that shouldn't be on TV.

Forgive me, but how would this solve the problem or make things easier for people when they have to explain why they love someone? If they have to repeat a phrase from an anime messageboard...is it going to have any meaning at all? To me it would just sound like some pre-canned response or something, like someone reading off of cue cards. Can't that person just speak from the heart and not try to quote a few dozen wannabe poets or Shakespeares or whatever? Since when did "I love you" go so much out of style, anyway?

If love doesn't allow you to live forever, physically, and eventually, all traces and memories of you will fade away, so that means "immortality through posterity" isn't important, and there's no way to prove that transcendant love exists, that eternal bond that some people have mentioned here, how is love automatically some sort of level of control? Love is not mortality. I don't even know if you could say that procreation is caused by people's knowledge of their own mortality, and their desire to "live on." I don't even think mortality itself is a control, because is there ever a method to the madness? If mortality itself was some measure of control, wouldn't that mean there are never any senseless deaths, because it's all planned beforehand? Which would mean that some random accident wasn't random. It would have been pre-smurfed. ^_^ I agree with Sara I think. The options here don't make sense. The topic doesn't make much sense, either, and I don't think that's just because it's such an abstract idea, or a topic of discussion that's only for higher thinkers or anything. It just doesn't make sense.