I have no friends and I despise my family. I would never waste my precious free time on them. My wife and my dog are all I need. My most meaningful relationships aside from that are on this forum.
1 Like
Aw that sounds awful 
3 Likes
Not really, itās quite liberating to keep your circle of trust very small and just dispense with the rest of the muck that is humanity.
The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.
I may be about to really kick a hornetsā nest on this one, butā¦
ā¦
I liked John Travolta in Battlefield: Earth. I donāt like Battlefield: Earth, but I like Travoltaās role. His over-the-top portrayal of an alien that wouldnāt be imposing even in season two of Star Trek: The Next Generation, was actually perfect for movie so ridiculous and terrible, and was the only enjoyable thing to find in that train wreck.
3 Likes
That isnāt controversial at all, Travolta is like the one thing everybody who has ever seen Battlefield Earth can agree on is the most entertaining thing about the movie.
Alongside the shitty Dutch angles and ties to the Church of Scientology he is the most talked about thing about the movie.
This is a huge step down from your Wham-based opinions last year.
1 Like
Because this one is actually opinion. I just donāt get why he gets so much shit talked about the downturn in his career due to this role. Heās had worse roles in better movies.
1 Like
They should adapt that book Scientology claims kills you if you arenāt Scientological(?) enough to comprehend it. Excalibur has to be absolute ass if being Tom Cruise rich and John Travolta stupid is the barrier to read it.
Dunno if unpopular per se but, I despise when stealth focused games have missions and/or sections that throw said stealth out of the window with forced fights and then expect for you to go all non-lethal in said armed confrontations if you want the S rank or whatever rank is the best possible in the game.
Thankfully Hitman and Splinter Cell (the old ones at least) tend to skip this and let you fight without judging you for going the lethal route in a mess where is the sensical option, encouraged and the game ultimately forced on you. The worst offender is Metal Gear, that if you went for those Big Boss and S ranks, they expect you to KO people who are very aware of your presence and actively doing their best to fill you with lead.
2 Likes
I hate it when anyone or anything in the entertainment sector uses the term āreturn to the roots,ā in all its various permutations. This, to me, is a coded phrase that essentially means this thing being discussed isnāt as popular anymore, so weāre gonna try to recapture the original magic by making a new thing thatās sort of like the old thing and hope that it works.
The latest example I saw being an article that says Steven Spielbergās next project will be āa return to the directorās roots.ā And I have to ask, what the fuck does that even mean? Heās gonna make another shark movie? Another story of friendly aliens interacting with curious humans? What precisely are the roots heās returning to that signify heās currently out of steam at this time in his career? At this point, this whole going back to the roots thing has become as much a clicheā as sequels and reboots.
2 Likes
Donāt know if itās unpopular, although it probably would be, as it would be yet another case of a white actor playing a Western Asia character, and Iām normally against that, but Iāve always believed that Robert OāReilly would have made a fantastic Raās al Ghul in a Batman live action film, based on his performance as Gowron on Star Treks The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Tell me you donāt see it.
Apparently, based on my incredibly brief internet research, the population at large doesnāt know what the term āplot holeā means. In order for something to be a plot hole, it must contradict the logic of the world established by a film, book, or other narrative. It doesnāt mean āthing I donāt understandā nor does it mean āthing the author simply didnāt explainā.
Notable examples of āplot holesā that are not actually plot holes:
The eagles not flying the ring to Mordorā¦ not a plot hole.
The kick to the face at the end of Karate Kidā¦ not a plot hole.
Doc not using the gas from the Delorean in the mineā¦ not a plot hole.
2 Likes
I have to question that one for Karate Kid, as it was explicitly stated that such a move was not allowed, and yet he won. I havenāt seen an argument explaining it.
Read the scripts for both The Karate Kid and The Karate Kid 3.
In the first movie (the one where Daniel actually kicks Johnny Lawrence in the face), the only rules that are explained are (by Ali):
āEverything above your waist is a point. You can hit the head, sternum, kidneys, ribs. Got it?ā
In the Karate Kid 3, before the final fight between Daniel and Mike Barnes, the referee states:
āYou both know the rules. Light contact is allowed to the body, and I do mean light, Mr. Barnes. No face contact is allowed. Any violation of the rules will result in a penalty point.ā
Ergo, the kick was completely legal in the Karate Kid but would have been illegal in the Karate Kid 3. Not a plot hole.
Iāll have to rewatch that scene. Iāve admittedly only watched it once.
Itās very commonly cited so youāre not unusual in that regard. Those movies came out a long time ago and people conflate 1 and 3 together, I think.
Iām pretty sure that because it worked well as a climatic point when people did a contrarian analysis to show Daniel as the bad guy. Those were pretty popular on YouTube for a while.
A lot of people donāt seem to understand the intricacies of lying and not lying.
You are not lying if you tell someone something that isnāt true, unless you are aware at the time you tell them that itās a lie.
I hear people say all the time, after telling someone else something incorrect, and then they say āno, wait, Iām lying, blah blah blah.ā And itās so annoying. Youāre not lying, youāre just wrong. Itās ok to say āIām wrong,ā itās better to be wrong than a liar.
If you tell someone something that someone else told you, and you believed what they told you and passed that information on in good faith, youāre not lying then either; you are spreading a lie, but you yourself are not a liar.
A lie of omission is usually not a lie. This one is trickier because it really depends on the situation. Iāll use the best analogy I can: imagine someone is about to go fight someone, and they ask you if that person is carrying a knife. You tell them āyes, he has a knife.ā Now, the person gets to the fight, and the other person pulls out two knives, and you knew in advance that they were going to have a second knife. You did not lie to the person by omitting the fact that they had another knife, because the person only asked if they had a knife, and you truthfully answered them. If they wanted to know if they had more than just a knife, it is on them to ask follow-up questions, or word their initial question more carefully; you are under no legal or social obligation to give them any more information than exactly what their initial question asked for.
Now, if you answered their question by saying āno, they donāt have a knife,ā because you know that they actually have two knives and the question only specifies the foreknowledge of one, then you are lying by omission, because you are misleading them to the wrong conclusion - that the other person has no knife at all - by giving the answer to the question under a greater technicality than the first example in order to deliberately mislead.
A situation like that is a lie by omission; not telling your parents the names of everyone expected to be at a party when they ask who else is going to be there and you only tell them the names of a few of your friends you know will be there is not a lie by omission. It is on the question asker to word their questions carefully and ask for clarification.
Thatās sarcasm.
The person passing the info should say; āWell, I heard from Bob/Sally that bla, bla, bla.ā
In this instance the person answering shouldāve put emphasis on the āaā. Also, say it in a way that feels like it has an open endā¦ As if there were more to add to the phrase/sentence. If the person that asked didnāt pick up on that - thatās on them. Although, in the case of a knife fight or some other potentially dangerous situation, the person not readily divulging critical info such as the example given, to me, seems like a malevolent a-hole. Or the person that will potentially be getting knifed deserves itā¦ I dunno.
1 Like
Irrelevant. Itās the wrong thing to say, and repeated use of terms leads to changes in the language, and we donāt need to be making lying and being wrong interchangeable.