Fashion Board 3-5-04 to 4-6-04

[Not Flaming]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
Is there an extra "l" in that sentence?

Yes, and two extra "once"s.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Kentucky stomped Florida yesterday in Lexington, and UK alumna Ashley (mmmmmmm) Judd was at the game. The SportsCenter anchor built his bit on the game around her, and when the camera showed a shot of her kissing a student shouting at the camera, said something like "Dude, ASHLEY JUDD is kissing you, and you're mugging for the camera?".

And they followed it up with a shot of Ashley riding on some joker's shoulders.

The only problem with which was that the shot was from an unflattering angle, making her look like she had an Anna Nicole Smith-sized backyard.

Not good times.

[Atticus Grinch]

The monumental success of this Jesus fellow's movie is somewhat called into doubt when you adjust the gross figures for inflation in order to compare them with historical gross revenues of prior blockbusters.

This has bugged me for a while. You grossed $200 million at $8.50 to $12 a pop? Big fucking deal. Talk to me when you do roughly the same numbers at 25 cents a pop, like Gone With the Wind did.

I wonder if anyone will be watching this flick in 2069. Of course, by then it will probably be condemned by the Space Pope.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The monumental success of this Jesus fellow's movie is somewhat called into doubt when you adjust the gross figures for inflation in order to compare them with historical gross revenues of prior blockbusters.

This has bugged me for a while. You grossed $200 million at $8.50 to $12 a pop? Big fucking deal. Talk to me when you do roughly the same numbers at 25 cents a pop, like Gone With the Wind did.

I wonder if anyone will be watching this flick in 2069. Of course, by then it will probably be condemned by the Space Pope.

Dear god, you've been taken over by ShapeShifter's kind.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The monumental success of this Jesus fellow's movie is somewhat called into doubt when you adjust the gross figures for inflation in order to compare them with historical gross revenues of prior blockbusters.

This has bugged me for a while. You grossed $200 million at $8.50 to $12 a pop? Big fucking deal. Talk to me when you do roughly the same numbers at 25 cents a pop, like Gone With the Wind did.

Frankly, Atticus, I don't give a damn ....... for this analysis. It too simple. When GWTW came out EVERYONE went to movies a few times a week. There was a built in audience base that saw even the crappy movies. There was no TV drawing people away, and you couldn't wait for the movie to cmoe out on DVD.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Frankly, Atticus, I don't give a damn ....... for this analysis. It too simple. When GWTW came out EVERYONE went to movies a few times a week. There was a built in audience base that saw even the crappy movies. There was no TV drawing people away, and you couldn't wait for the movie to cmoe out on DVD.

So you propose that the current system, in which the studio PR flaks dutifully report gross revenues based on $12 ticket sales, and everyone ooh and ahhs about how this year's blockbuster is the "biggest grossing film of all time," again, is superior?

You, sir, are an asshat, defending an asshat status quo with your asshat arguments.

[leagleaze]

I was reading an article on Gail Devers and it said her brother is named Parenthesis, and goes by PD.

Who the hell names a child such a thing?

Proof, since you probably won't believe me. http://www.gaildevers.com/biography.htm


The thing that had me reading the article in the first place was that MSNBC finished its weekly sports pictorial with a picture of her hands. Hands that seem to have fake nails on them so long, they look like claws, in this case, bright blue claws.

I was wondering also, what's up with that. How can you do anything with those things on your hands?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So you propose that the current system, in which the studio PR flaks dutifully report gross revenues based on $12 ticket sales, and everyone ooh and ahhs about how this year's blockbuster is the "biggest grossing film of all time," again, is superior?

You, sir, are an asshat, defending an asshat status quo with your asshat arguments.

Atticus, I fear that you care about this just a wee bit too much.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You, sir, are an asshat, defending an asshat status quo with your asshat arguments.

Hold on one second. I have seen petty, bitter, personal attacks on this board that have literally caused me to recoil in horror from my computer screen. I have seen comments so far beyond the bounds of good taste that I could scarcely believe that people would dare post them, even when cloaked in the often-illusory protection of anonymity. But this type of ad hominem attack threatens to tear at the very fabric of this board's existence. Atticus, I urge you to reconsider your words, which I can only assume were written in anger and in haste. For, as surely as the sun burns in the heavens, this board cannot survive the type of venomous discourse that I expect to follow.

[evenodds]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Hold on one second. I have seen petty, bitter, personal attacks on this board that have literally caused me to recoil in horror from my computer screen. I have seen comments so far beyond the bounds of good taste that I could scarcely believe that people would dare post them, even when cloaked in the often-illusory protection of anonymity. But this type of ad hominem attack threatens to tear at the very fabric of this board's existence. Atticus, I urge you to reconsider your words, which I can only assume were written in anger and in haste. For, as surely as the sun burns in the heavens, this board cannot survive the type of venomous discourse that I expect to follow.

Like, shut the fuck up, Flower?

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

1. I found out that the Libertarians are officially opposed to any governmental limitations on the right of gays to marry (or limiting the definition of marriage generally), so I'll be voting Libertarian this year. Though my letter to the Dem party/candidate may say I'm voting for Nader just to scare them more.

I'm surprised the libertarians aren't for the repeal of marriage. Marriage isn't required to protect property rights. And marriage is a way for the demo's to expand entitlements, like a widow's right to her dead husband's social security benefits &c. Canada ran the numbers on survivorship benefits for gays; they ran in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Marriage also helps people immigrate to the US and sap tax dollars out of the system.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
I'm surprised the libertarians aren't for the repeal of marriage. Marriage isn't required to protect property rights. And marriage is a way for the demo's to expand entitlements, like a widow's right to her dead husband's social security benefits &c.

I don't get it. If libertarians must favor the repeal of marriage as a matter of principle for the above reason, it stands to reason they should also favor the elimination of other forms of joint or collective property ownership like joint tenancy. The survivorship right to entitlements merely allows one member of an economic partnership to reap the vested rewards of the other's labor, with the other's consent, regardless of the continued respiration of the other. Maybe I missed the memo, but that's not an anti-libertarian value --- or if it is, I guess they should do some thinking about the effect of this newly discovered principle on their policies vis-a-vis capital markets.

I think the principles you're seeing as the basis for libertarian thinking don't apply in the realm of personal economic relationships, including marriage.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by evenodds
Like, shut the fuck up, Flower?

This post offended me as a lawyer.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by leagleaze
I was reading an article on Gail Devers and it said her brother is named Parenthesis, and goes by PD.

Who the hell names a child such a thing?

Reminds me of the old SNL skit with Nicholas Cage as Mr. Asswipe (pronounced "ash-wee-peh"). Good stuff.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't get it. If libertarians must favor the repeal of marriage as a matter of principle for the above reason, it stands to reason they should also favor the elimination of other forms of joint or collective property ownership like joint tenancy.

Marriage is a subsidy for a particular lifestyle choice. I don't see why libertarians would support a monogamous lifestyle choice over a single, polygamous or polyandrous lifestyle. Why subsidize single income couples by providing them a tax break in the form of joint returns? Or any other number of benefits provided to married people?