I wish I could unsee that flaming turd. The only time I've felt that I had made more of a waste of 2 hours was watching Batman & Robin.

Sickness wrote:I wish I could unsee that flaming turd. The only time I've felt that I had made more of a waste of 2 hours was watching Batman & Robin.

Again, for the third time now, at least you've seen it!

You're going to have to explain that to our dear young Ipsy.

Corporal Hicks wrote:

Sickness wrote:I wish I could unsee that flaming turd. The only time I've felt that I had made more of a waste of 2 hours was watching Batman & Robin.

Again, for the third time now, at least you've seen it!

You're going to have to explain that to our dear young Ipsy.

Why does it matter if I've seen that movie? It's a worthless piece of shit and anyone who thinks it's good, should be required viewing and should be used as a standard by which to judge other movies is quite possibly the stupidest person on Earth.

Sickness wrote:Why does it matter if I've seen that movie? It's a worthless piece of shit and anyone who thinks it's good, should be required viewing and should be used as a standard by which to judge other movies is quite possibly the stupidest person on Earth.

Because in order for you to have that opinion, you have to have seen it.

This isn't hard to figure out, my dear Sickness.





(How much is Ipsy paying you?)...Damn! I broke my own rule. To the Zombie Gandhi thread we go!

Why does an opinion matter when the movie has had minimal social impact and is only held up by movie snobs as "must see"?

Sickness wrote:Why does an opinion matter when the movie has had minimal social impact and is only held up by movie snobs as "must see"?

Because Ipsy said (paraphrase) that he doesn't see why someone would dislike Indy 4 so much, he thought we were being too critical and that Indy 4 was just about as good as all other Indy movies. However, he then admits to never seeing Raiders.

What Hicks is saying (and has said over and over and over again) is that it's not right to attack somone's opinions about a movie you have not seen.

So Hicks was really upset when Ipsy flamed him a bit over his Stan Winston threads, because Hicks LOVES Stan's work, and what it meant to movies and his own movie appreciation in life.

Ergo, since the minor flame against Hicks, Hicks now wants to confirm that Ipsy knows who Stan in and has seen at least a good chucnk of his movies.

Hicks also likes beating dead horses. Remember Romy?

Sickness wrote:Why does an opinion matter when the movie has had minimal social impact and is only held up by movie snobs as "must see"?

PS - as an aside from the arching agurement, I think you must be absolutly insane to write that sentance, respectfully.

I could argue against that forever if this was a Fight Club thread.

Darth Snoopy wrote:Because Ipsy said (paraphrase) that he doesn't see why someone would dislike Indy 4 so much, he thought we were being too critical

This is the only true part of that sentence. The rest is false.

Snoop wrote:So Hicks was really upset when Ipsy flamed him a bit over his Stan Winston threads...

This never happened. Go back and look.

Ipsilon wrote:

Darth Snoopy wrote:Because Ipsy said (paraphrase) that he doesn't see why someone would dislike Indy 4 so much, he thought we were being too critical

This is the only true part of that sentence. The rest is false.

Snoop wrote:So Hicks was really upset when Ipsy flamed him a bit over his Stan Winston threads...

This never happened. Go back and look.

I said a "bit", and "paraphrase", so I am ammune and excused from any liability. I watch politics! Either that or I'm too lazy to go get the actual quotes.

Darth Snoopy wrote:

Sickness wrote:Why does an opinion matter when the movie has had minimal social impact and is only held up by movie snobs as "must see"?

PS - as an aside from the arching agurement, I think you must be absolutly insane to write that sentance, respectfully.

I could argue against that forever if this was a Fight Club thread.

As for all the Hicks stuff, I know why it started, I just don't know why he's being so retarded and trollish about the whole thing.

As for Fight Club, I'll admit I was intrigued by the concept of the fight club and even the dual personalities that Norton's character doesn't realize are both his own until late in the movie but the whole subplot with blowing up buildings to improve their credit scores and MPD being cured by a bullet to the head as the resolution to the main conflict were FUCKING RETARDED! (I'm not yelling at you, Snoop, just stressing how lame those points were.)

Darth Snoopy wrote:

Ipsilon wrote:

Darth Snoopy wrote:Because Ipsy said (paraphrase) that he doesn't see why someone would dislike Indy 4 so much, he thought we were being too critical

This is the only true part of that sentence. The rest is false.

Snoop wrote:So Hicks was really upset when Ipsy flamed him a bit over his Stan Winston threads...

This never happened. Go back and look.

I said a "bit", and "paraphrase", so I am ammune and excused from any liability. I watch politics! Either that or I'm too lazy to go get the actual quotes.

You can put all the qualifiers you want on it, but those qualifiers don't create reality. The things you're talking about never happened. It's not that they happened a little, or whatever.

IT.

NEVER.

HAPPENED.

LOL, I wish I knew how to do the font size thingy. I'm not smart enough to figure it out.

And Sickness, I agree with the bullet issue, it just didn't bug me as much. However, one could certainly argue that it was a physical manifistation of releasing Tyler, but it's hard to argue that you'ld live through it like that.

Hicks: DROP THE DIGS AT IPSY.

Everyone: ANYONE ELSE NAME-CALLS NOT IN JEST IS BANNED.

Magnum wrote:Hicks: DROP THE DIGS AT IPSY.

Everyone: ANYONE ELSE NAME-CALLS NOT IN JEST IS BANNED.

Fatty.

Ipsy has seen most of Raiders at one time or another. He just hasn't sat down to watch it from start to finish.

But he's going to.

Because he really wants to.

Michael Turner died.

Bone cancer is awful.

Maybe this should be in The Printed Word.

We can have a thread in there entitled R.I.P. Authors.

I saw this posted on another board, and my first thought was:"Wow, now who will run the ball for the Falcons?"

Ha! I didn't think of that one, though the Falcons aren't really a team that inspires a lot of thought. Still, I am curious to see what Turner can do as the feature back.

frankly, probably not that much. Not too many career backups do well after being thrust into the starting role.


hehe I said thrust.

Estelle Getty, 84.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/2 ... index.html

Ipsilon wrote:Estelle Getty, 84.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/2 ... index.html

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Ulic was just about to put up a high res shot of her in the Temple too!

Quasar wrote:Ulic was just about to put up a high res shot of her in the Temple too!

Thursty's been requesting her for ages! He'll be crushed!

Oh and, what, now we don't get 20,000 x 20,000-pixel pics of Estelle Getty just because she's dead?! What's the deal, U.? You think you are "honoring" her memory by choosing not to objectify her?

What kind of man *are* you, anyway, being all "respectful" of the dead?

The male chauvinists on this site used to believe in things. Dishonor. Disrespect. Look at U.! What does U. believe in? What does U. believe in?!

I demand to see those pictures!

NOW!