Superbad (2 Viewers)

[Lili Marlene]

My tag seems oddly apt.

why is your tag/signature that anyway?

I mean, i'm just using wikipedia for a source, maybe you found it in an actual book but it's wrong, he didn't invent it or even propose it first

 

[Goodbye]

Hot

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Yes I'm the only person *ever* to use asterisks in on-line discourse to denote 'emphasis'.

Yes, yes *you* certainly 'are'.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

mitchum, what do you think of Porky's ?

 

[Jill Hives]

mitchum, what do you think of Porky's ?

Funny, I was thinking about that during this thread. Personally, I never cared for them. Same with Airplane or Naked Gun or even Blazing Saddles for that matter. I think the recent rash of movies since American Pie seem to be slap stick meets lowest common denominator humour. Maybe it makes me no fun but I just don't find it funny. It's the same with Metalica or Lilly Allen, lots of people love them, so there has to be something to it but it's just not my thing.

 

[RSJ]

What's not to like about blazing saddles? You people take shit too seriously.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

the difference between porky's and the current batch
is that porky's is way less moralistic than the shit
mitchum rags on. big emphasis on the fanny, and a
smidgen of racial shit and some good ol boys gettin
pranked

just curious what the Mitchmeister thinks of it!

probably never seen it - ponce!

edit: metallca up until the black album is solid gold
everyone with ears and a functioning brain knows that

 

[Lili Marlene]

It's the same with Metalica or Lilly Allen, lots of people love them, so there has to be something to it but it's just not my thing.

In my FACTUAL opinion Lily Allen is a deadly popstar with some pretty substandard reggae tunes and one or two alright ones.

Similar to how Daphne and Celeste were deadly popstars but musically a teeny bit lacking.


except that song 'I love your Sushi'

 

[Mitchum]

why is your tag/signature that anyway?

I mean, i'm just using wikipedia for a source, maybe you found it in an actual book but it's wrong, he didn't invent it or even propose it first

From Wiki:

[edit] Creation of and :-(

The creator of the original ASCII emoticons and :-(, with a specific suggestion that they be used to express emotion, was Scott Fahlman; the text of his original proposal, posted to the Carnegie Mellon University computer science general board on 19 September 1982 (11:44), was considered lost for a long time. It was however recovered twenty years later by Jeff Baird, from old backup tapes.[7]

19-Sep-82 11:44 Scott E Fahlman From: Scott E Fahlman <Fahlman at Cmu-20c>I propose that the following character sequence for joke markers: Read it sideways. Actually, it is probably more economical to markthings that are NOT jokes, given current trends. For this, use :-(

Never trust Wiki is the moral here.

 

[Lili Marlene]

what? read the damn thing

Emoticons had already come into use in sci-fi fandom in the 1940s,[4] although there seems to have been a lapse in cultural continuity between the communities.
An early instance of using text characters to represent a sideways smiling (and frowning) face occurred in an ad for the MGM movie Lili in the New York Herald Tribune, March 10, 1953, page 20, cols. 4-6.


not to mention the two paragraphs before that

 

[Mitchum]

what? read the damn thing

Emoticons had already come into use in sci-fi fandom in the 1940s,[4] although there seems to have been a lapse in cultural continuity between the communities.
An early instance of using text characters to represent a sideways smiling (and frowning) face occurred in an ad for the MGM movie Lili in the New York Herald Tribune, March 10, 1953, page 20, cols. 4-6.


not to mention the two paragraphs before that

Oops! No, I didn't read the whole article...just as far as the origin of

Still...a contradictory Wiki article? Who'd a thunk it. I'll have to change my sig/tag and alert the Nabokov Society to this grave error.

 

[Lili Marlene]

they're a serious bunch ('_')

 

[BC]

airplane is an absolutely superb comedy.

you'll have someones eye out with all these emoticons.

.(

see?

 

[Mitchum]

We definitely need an emoticoncentrationcamp.

 

[BC]

lolocaust?

 

[flashback]

Max. 10 years but he was found not guilty of assault & I think his barrister has done a decent job of elliciting sympathy from the jury. I'd say he'll get four years.

"Langham handed 10-month jail sentence"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2169606,00.html

Which means he will serve half that, 5 mnths, minus the 43 days he has been in custody.
Which makes it three and a bit months.

 

[RSJ]

That's pretty fucked. I know they said he's not a pedrafile and i know it'll most likely ruin his career, but three months is fuck all.

 

[Lili Marlene]

It's a tough one, unless he was paying someone to make these pictures or in somehow encouraging abuse then he really didn't do anything?

Locking up people for looking at a picture seems a bit much to me to be honest

 

[RSJ]

Not to sound like a pinko or anything, but by looking for and at the pics he's creating a demand. The more people look at pics, the more people create these pics as i suppose people get bored at looking at the same old stuff. It may have only been a few pictures but still, it's fucked.

Also: locking up someone for just looking at something is a bit much, but when "something" is an eight year old kid having sex, it's pretty justifiable.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Not to sound like a pinko or anything, but by looking for and at the pics he's creating a demand.

well yeah ok but only if it's possible to make money out of it will it be picked up on and that completely changes it, no?

The more people look at pics, the more people create these pics as i suppose people get bored at looking at the same old stuff. It may have only been a few pictures but still, it's fucked.

sure, so lock up the people who make them

Also: locking up someone for just looking at something is a bit much, but when "something" is an eight year old kid having sex, it's pretty justifiable.

I dunno about that. I totally see where you're coming from but he didn't actually cause harm to anyone and he's had the entire rest of his life ruined for that?

It screams 'thought-crime' to me