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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
If you watched "In Living Color" way back, you would have seen that he is a gifted physical comedian.

After starting the rant about him Friday, I happened to see an old SNL hosted by Carrey this weekend. He's very good at what he does, and was obviously much more talented than everyone else around him on that show. He did a nice bit imitating Jimmy Stewart imitating himself. (I had to stop watching, but that was the fault of the SNL writers, another story altogether.)

But it seems like he's too pleased with himself, and that he does the same dreck over and over again. He kinda reminds me of a federal judge, in that he makes so much money that it seems like his personality has been spoiled by it.

[Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago]

Originally posted by barely_legal
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.

Are you being ironic in an attempt to deflect your own ignorance? That is the cheapest form of condescension and places you fairly in the lowest common denominator.

[barely_legal]

Originally posted by Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago
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?

Oh for gods sake, we've done this. I acknowledged that my difference of opinion with Soup came from the fact that it seemed we had different assumptions about what "a whole lotta guns" or whatever he said was. I said his opinion was stupid, not him. And if he actually meant that it's okay in his opinion to own one gun, but not to own more than one gun, then I stand by that accusation. But he clearly didn't mean that, so we were talking past each other. And now I have to talk past you too. Jesus wept, let Soup fight his own e-mail battles, he's well equipped to do it, which is more than I can say about you.

[dtb]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
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.

I am not a big fan of Jim Carrey, but I crack up at Dumb and Dumber no matter how many times I see it. Does anyone know whether the sequel (I think it's called "Dumb and Dumberer") stars Jim Carrey? I couldn't tell from the brief look I had at the commercial. That other guy (Jeff Daniels?) is definitely NOT in it -- but I couldn't tell if the other one was JC or not.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by dtb
Does anyone know whether the sequel (I think it's called "Dumb and Dumberer") stars Jim Carrey?

No, it's a prequel --- Harry and Lloyd when they met in high school. It has neither Carrey nor (thank God) Daniels. Here's the IMDB entry.

[Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago]

[i]let Soup fight his own e-mail battles, he's well equipped to do it, which is more than I can say about you.

I am certain that Soup feels relieved to once again have your valued praise instead of your inflammoratory, yet childish, insults. Your insipid name calling along with your brand of I-am-right-even-when-I-am-wrong-because-I-am-always-right banter surely must have been the inspiration for your moniker. Barely_legal, indeed.

My hands are beginning to feel unclean as I begin my journey down the slippery slope along that one way road to Lowest Common Denominatorville. I only meant to point out the hypocrisy of calling someone "stupid" for being "ignorant' while crying that the community had become too judgmental.

Lastly, Jesus has not "wept" "for god's sakes".

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by dtb
I am not a big fan of Jim Carrey, but I crack up at Dumb and Dumber no matter how many times I see it. Does anyone know whether the sequel (I think it's called "Dumb and Dumberer") stars Jim Carrey? I couldn't tell from the brief look I had at the commercial. That other guy (Jeff Daniels?) is definitely NOT in it -- but I couldn't tell if the other one was JC or not.

No, he's not. The movie is expected to suck.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
I went to a University of California school for college. While most classmates were either from the Bay Area or the LA/OC area, there were a substantial minority from the Central Valley and parts north of Sacramento. It was strange to meet people who collected guns as a hobby. I remember in Torts class our professor took a poll to note the differences between SF/LA/OC/SD people (most of whom had never seen/held a gun) and people from the rest of the US (most of whom had family who hunted/thought that guns were normal).

I went to LS in a coastal city, having come from the patch, and found the same thing. And I, too, came from heavily suburban patch, not the back woods. This could be outable, but I remember having to explain to my torts class once how bird hunting differed from deer hunting in terms of weaponry and technique. I've never been hunting in my life but ... damn. (I had another patchy friend who had to explain deer platforms and why they are often illegal.) City people can be pretty dumb.

I don't think I'd ever purchase a gun or allow one in my home. They're far more likely to be used against someone in the family than against an intruder.

Originally posted by barely_legal
I haven't seen any statistics either but I'd be willing to bet that most fatal shootings take place in single-gun homes.

I can't cite it or link to it, either, but I recall that these are both correct - a gun in the home is much, much more likely to be used by a member of the household against another member of the household, either intentionally or accidentally, than against an intruder, and the rate of "friendly fire" is much, much higher for handguns owned by people who only own a handgun than for households that own rifles or actually collect guns (part of the reason being that sole handgun owners tend to be suburban know-nothings who get them for "personal defense," whereas rifles tend to be owned by hunters who have much greater respect for and education about gun safety and use, as do most collectors - the "wacko" factor doesn't seem to come close to the "idiot" factor).

However, the same (that you are more likely to be hurt yourself or your loved ones) doesn't appear to be true of carrying a concealed handgun, per the federal violent crime stats.

Anyhow, it's hard to argue that gun safety classes, or at least a safety exam, shouldn't be mandatory for getting a gun license.

jack
Obviously, many in America don't share my beliefs. I do think there's a difference between having a handgun, rifle, or shotgun and having many, many guns.

My FiL collects, both antiques and modern guns, both rifles and handguns. I wouldn't let my kids in his house, frankly, because he classes the WWII vintage handguns as "antiques" and keeps them in display cases rather than locked up with the "real" guns he uses for hunting, pest control and general fucking around. He doesn't keep them loaded, at least, but so long as he insists the Queen Anne dueling pistols will still fire I'm not happy that they are in a mickey-mouse glass case. But with enough followers to hold them, he has enough guns to defend his property from poachers, the local police and probably a small national guard unit just about forever.

The leases I've signed have all banned guns from the apartment.

I've never heard of that, either. My current NYC lease has no such provision.

[barely_legal]

Originally posted by Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago
I am certain that Soup feels relieved to once again have your valued praise instead of your inflammoratory, yet childish, insults. Your insipid name calling along with your brand of I-am-right-even-when-I-am-wrong-because-I-am-always-right banter surely must have been the inspiration for your moniker. Barely_legal, indeed.

My hands are beginning to feel unclean as I begin my journey down the slippery slope along that one way road to Lowest Common Denominatorville. I only meant to point out the hypocrisy of calling someone "stupid" for being "ignorant' while crying that the community had become too judgmental.

Lastly, Jesus has not "wept" "for god's sakes".

If you want to continue to just hurl barbs instead of actually arguing a point, you can toss some insulting pms my way. I'm not going to waste the board's time trading insults with either a new poster who is trying to make a name for emself, or with a sock who has a grudge against me but is too cowardly to post under em's own moniker..

[Anne Elk]

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) -- NBC-owned Bravo will court viewers this summer with American television's first primetime gay-themed reality dating series.

Similar in format to ABC's "The Bachelor," "Boy Meets Boy" features an eligible man looking for love in a pool of 15 potential mates. But in a twist worthy of the bogus baron on Fox's "Joe Millionaire," some of the suitors are actually heterosexual men who were paid by the program to pretend to be gay -- unbeknownst to the eligible bachelor.



Full article here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
[A] gun in the home is much, much more likely to be used by a member of the household against another member of the household, either intentionally or accidentally, than against an intruder . . . .

This is definitely true. The gun supporters will argue that this does not take account of the times that a gun is "used" to scare people off without being fired, or (I suppose) the peace of mind that comes from having a gun in the house (although said peace of mind is illusory given what BRC points out, unless you are more scared of a stranger than having a family member shot, which many people are, irrational though that may seem to be).

Not wanting to start an argument re this. There are two sides to the argument, but BRC has the facts right.

T. (like to shoot guns, and have had jobs where I used them) S.

[Atticus Grinch]

I thought the standard NRA response to the stat about household guns being used against household occupants was that a surprising number of those incidents are documented self-defense cases involving domestic violence.

In other words, you're shooting at a member of your household, but it ain't exactly accidental.

I've never seen anything to back it up, but it's a pretty good sur-rebuttal, if true, to gun control arguments.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by barely_legal
... you can toss some insulting pms my way. I'm not going to waste the board's time trading insults . . .

Actually, b-l, I am entertained by this back and forth. I can't speak for the board, but I would like to see the two of you carry on a bit longer. We are here to waste time, after all, and if the board can survive the golf debate, it can certainly survive this.

Further, since I believe JJLC is a sock, the more she or he posts, the more likely somebody else (not I, because I am no sock buster) is to figure out who she or he really is.

[Shape Shifter]

"I can't cite it or link to it, either, but I recall that these are both correct - a gun in the home is much, much more likely to be used by a member of the household against another member of the household, either intentionally or accidentally, than against an intruder, and the rate of "friendly fire" is much, much higher for handguns owned by people who only own a handgun than for households that own rifles or actually collect guns (part of the reason being that sole handgun owners tend to be suburban know-nothings who get them for "personal defense," whereas rifles tend to be owned by hunters who have much greater respect for and education about gun safety and use, as do most collectors - the "wacko" factor doesn't seem to come close to the "idiot" factor). "

Perhaps those in multiple gun households are in a better position to return fire, leading to a MAD type of family bliss.

[Jesus_Just_Left_Chicago]

Originally posted by barely_legal
If you want to continue to just hurl barbs instead of actually arguing a point, you can toss some insulting pms my way. I'm not going to waste the board's time trading insults with either a new poster who is trying to make a name for emself, or with a sock who has a grudge against me but is too cowardly to post under em's own moniker..

Did I not make a point? That business about your hypocrisy? Did that go over your righteous tiara? I will state for the record, for not the first time, but the last time, that I simply posted to point out that it was rude to call Soup stupid. Especially whence you were carping about the general judgmental atmosphere about the board.

Now, for your contention that I am either a or b, I query why there cannot be a c, d, e and f. I am not for you or against you. I don't know you beyond your love of reality television and have no ill will or malice towards you. I have no love for you either. I am merely unimpressed. Now let me be. My point is salient, and has been elucidated and repeated succinctly enough to have gotten across at least twice.