Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[barely_legal]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I said this: I am not anti-gun, but I am anti-"own a whole bunch of guns".

Fair enough, then it sounds like the only thing we really disagree about (besides the stuff that both of us are too lazy to look up) is what constitutes "a whole bunch of guns."

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by evenodds
I have to agree with Barely about the judgmental nonsense. I don't like most of the music you like, but I don't look down on any of you because you like the alt-flavor of the month.

I agree on the judgmental issue, with the caveat that anyone who doesn't like the Jackson Five is a joyless, miserable tool.

PJ

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by leagleaze
Either way, having guns around children, without supervision, is to me a recipe for disaster.

I didn't know you needed a recipe for disaster. I thought they usually occured spontaneously and were easier to create than, say, a key lime pie.

Still, what are the chances someone will actually break into your home and you will need the gun to defend yourself, really?

Probably a lot greater than the chances that you will ever need, say, a title-insurance policy, but you still have one of those. Besides, widespread ownership of guns deters breakins. So the odds are low that you will ever need that gun, but the reason that the odds are low is because you (and everyone else has one). It is all very paradoxical in an one-hand-clapping kind of way.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
The 10 million or so people who went to see that ($8/per person?) must really be the lowest common denominator in society.

Are you serious, or are just jumping on the bandwagon again?

Lowest common denominator? Does this apply to all slap stick humor? I suppose Daffy Duck and The Three Stooges appeal to only the lowest common denominator as well? Could be, but they're fun.

I like Jim Carrey. I think his movies have gone downhill from the days of Ace Ventura and Dumb and Dumber, but he still cracks me up. Stupid humor has its place too.

If you watched "In Living Color" way back, you would have seen that he is a gifted physical comedian. I'm sure you wouldn't have accused Chevy Chase or John Belushi of appealing only to the lowest common denominator, but their stuff on SNL was no more intellectual than Jim Carrey's.

Saying he annoys you because you don't like his style is one thing. Saying you don't like him because he relies on slap stick is ridiculous.

TM

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
Besides, widespread ownership of guns deters breakins.

So true. I lived in Canada for 30 odd years and my house was broken into literally every other night.

[purse junkie]

My perfect custom Tangerine Sparkle purse has arrived in all its nubby shimmering glory. Photos to come.

And I'd preemptively tell Thurgreed to shut the hell up to avoid the verbal abuse I might get for that, except that I agree with him on Jim Carrey on In Living Color. His Vanilla Ice parody,
"White White Baby," was priceless and will forever mitigate his most idiotic and annoying movies.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Didn't see the movie (and probably won't because I hate it when Jim Carrey takes himself seriously), but I laughed my ass off at Ace Ventura. and Dumb and Dumber. His stand up act is the best I've ever seen too. Asslicker should get down off his high horse.

I saw it. It wasn't Jim Carrey in serious mode (too much). But the end was so overly preachy and religious that it made me want to tuaom.

Thurgreed(should have waited for rental)Marshall

[Sparklehorse]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
Probably a lot greater than the chances that you will ever need, say, a title-insurance policy, but you still have one of those.

Yes, but when was the last time having needless title insurance resulted in another person's inadvertant (or intentional) injury or death?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Speaking of creepy German impressionistic silent flicks, hey BRC, do you still have my Cabinet of Dr. Caligari DVD?

Dude, didn't I return that to you? I'll check at home.

BRC

[Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago]

Originally posted by barely_legal
That's stupid. Someone who is an avid collector and owns multiple guns for hunting is far more likely to keep the guns unloaded and locked up than a person who owns only one gun for "personal protection". Hunters are far more likely to have taken a gun safety class than casual owners of guns. I think most states even require hunters to take gun safety classes before they can get a license.

There is nothing wrong with owning any amount of guns, as long as they are stored safely, especially in a house where kids are or may be.

edited to add that I'm talking about a reasonable amount of guns, not a freaking arsenal like at Waco, okay? And I didn't really mean to implicate the whole "right to bear arms" issue, I just meant that it's stupid to say that it's ok to own one gun but bad to own multiple guns.

You mean it is ignorant to say that it's ok to own one gun and bad to own multiple guns?

I suspect your conclusion is faulty. I would hazard a guess that a city slicker who buys a gun for protection is the one who takes the safety class (at the behest of the spouse who did not want the gun in the first place) than some country bumpkin who has a few guns to go hunting with. Statistics please?

[Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago]

[i]
I haven't seen any statistics either but I'd be willing to bet that most fatal shootings take place in single-gun homes. So, since neither of us has statistics to back us up, where does that leave us? I guess it leaves us thinking that the other is stupid.

Ooops. Never mind. I will go on record, however, as saying that those who call others stupid for jumping to conclusions while they themselves are jumping to conclusions are either stupid or judgmental. I am too ignorant and elitist to decide which one.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago
You mean it is ignorant to say that it's ok to own one gun and bad to own multiple guns?

Whoa. Full stop. Let's parse some words here - it's what we do isn't it? The conversation was about A LOT of guns. Not multiple guns. The hunter who has multiple guns probably hunts for different game. That's not the same as the guys in Idaho who are "protecting" their land from the government with 200-300 assorted guns and cases of ammunition. It's the same difference as washing your hands a lot and washing your hands every time you touch something - one's a compulsion/obsession.

Off the box and on to the story. My best friend in grade school had a father who was a hunter - every weekend during hunting season. He had multiple guns. He took us shooting one weekend (we were 14) with a pump action bb gun and a .22 rifle. I guess as girls, there wasn't the fascination to go looking for the guns after that. We knew they were there in the basement, but never went to go look for them or play with them. His beer stash however, that's a different story.

[Atticus Grinch]

When Jim Carrey has a decent writer behind him who writes a character who either does no mugging at all, or gives him funny reasons for mugging, he's actually quite good. He's over the top or he's not; there's no halfway for him.

Thus, he was pretty funny in "Ace Ventura I" and "Liar Liar" (plausible over-the-top mugging) and "The Truman Show" (no mugging) but not so good in "The Cable Guy" or "Me, Myself and Irene."

Similarly, he will be great as Darren Stevens in the rumored "Bewitched" project --- a role he was born to play. He will not be as good as Count Olaf in "A Series of Unfortunate Events." The Walter Mitty remake is a toss-up.

[barely_legal]

Originally posted by Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago
Ooops. Never mind. I will go on record, however, as saying that those who call others stupid for jumping to conclusions while they themselves are jumping to conclusions are either stupid or judgmental. I am too ignorant and elitist to decide which one.

I will go on record as saying that people that don't read ahead in threads and bash other people for things they have already acknowledged and "parsed through" are the "lowest common denominator of society".

And if you are too lazy to find statistics, then don't jump on my ass for the same attribute. Until someone proves either of us wrong, all we have are opinions. Yours just sucks.

[Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Whoa. Full stop. Let's parse some words here - it's what we do isn't it? The conversation was about A LOT of guns. Not multiple guns. The hunter who has multiple guns probably hunts for different game. That's not the same as the guys in Idaho who are "protecting" their land from the government with 200-300 assorted guns and cases of ammunition. It's the same difference as washing your hands a lot and washing your hands every time you touch something - one's a compulsion/obsession.

My point was that it was rude to call someone stupid when the caller really thought their intended was ignorant. Therefore, I thought it apropo to suggest that perhaps the caller really meant to call their intended "ignorant". Either way, it was a truly condescending way to counter a point the caller disagreed with. The condescension on this board really pisses me off. Does that put me in the lowest common denominator?