todd

I think the quality of movies has gone down. The quality of actors has sunk to new depths. Casting is crap. The movies that they decide to put out are also horrible. I'm sure there are plenty of good scripts out there. For example, it was hard for Peter Jackson to get someone to do the LOTR Trilogy. The idiot producers just couldn't see it doing well. Think they were wrong? If something doesn't fit their formula, they just can't see it doing well. I say screw their formula. Screw their methods. The worst genere these days is the romantic comedy. It's horrible. If you see Hugh Grant or Julia Roberts, you know exactly what their character will be. Hugh will be the bumbling but loveable male lead. Julia will be the beautiful but unlucky in love girl. Both are typecast. As is Richard Gere, who is a horrible actor. The two main formulas for romantic comedies: 1. The unlikely couple finds love, although it almost looks like they wont. Just alter why they are an unlikely couple and rehash the same script and there you go. For example, in Pretty Woman (a HORRIBLE movie), they were unlikely because she was a whore and he was rich. It goes on and on. 2. The Cinderella syndrome. A girl who is poor, ugly, stupid, a social outcast or uneducated falls in love with and marries a rich guy. This one is the worst. Pretty Woman is another good example of this. Maid in Manhattan with JLo and her talentless fat ass is another perfect example. Horrible, horrible movies for stupid people. Whatever happened to the great movies? Movies don't have to be intellectually stimulating to be great. Movies don't have to be dramas to be great. Ferris Bueller's Day Off was great because it was great on many levels. The Graduate was great because it helped put onto film what a generation was feeling. Office Space was great because people could identify with it - and it was funny. Animal House was great because the characters were classic and the casting was brilliant. What's Eating Gilbert Grape was great because the sory, characters and casting were compelling. Princess Bride was great because the story is fantastic. Then there are the movies that everyone thinks is great but suck. Titanic is a perfect example. Horrible, horrible film. There are also adaptations of books that end up being horrible because Hollywood sucks. The Scarlet Letter is a good example. They changed the damn ending of the friggin Scarlet Letter? Ugh. A movie for the mentally inept. Don't get me started.

Story on schiavo In short, her husband was right. The parents, as most rational folks suspected, are truly out of their gourds. The woman had no chance for survival, she was blind, could not be rehabilitated, and had the mental capability of a earthworm. Her brain was 1/2 the size of a normal brain, and could not be repaired or rehabilitated due to the severe lack of neurons. This settles it. She was dead even before she was officially dead. Let's move on.

I bought a Sears craftsman 18" saw for under $200. Works great. It paid for itself when I wanted to remove a few trees and didn't have to hire someone to do it.

They have changed their policy. They will now attempt to repair it, which means you will be without your tool for a month. I had a cordless drill which I bought at CP, and ran into that little problem. I'm not happy with CP right now - seemed like a bait and switch deal to me.

Bastard. She's so damn hot. That picture is awesome.

You? A conservative? No way. I don't think so. Anyway, logical and scientific thought is something I've always considered to be a conservative trait, so the relationship to Darwin/Evolution seems to me to be more conservative than liberal. The liberal ideal of tolerance, and accepting all peoples regardless of race, creed, or religious belief seems to align more with creationism. Oh, the hypocrisy in both schools of thought.

I'm in Rochester. You will need to replace your furnace. A 25 YO furnace is not efficient, and you'll save money by replacing it. We replaced our 20 year old furnace 3 years ago, and we saved $$ on heating. We did get a very good furnace, though. At the same time we installed central air. We used crossfield here in Rochester, and got Trane equipment. We paid almost $6K for very good equipment.

I was gonna say patchouli, but that works.

Actually I thought it was more of a comical observation, but whatever. Apparently YOU cared enough to read AND reply.

Usually on a rusty Volvo.

I've noticed that if you see a car that has more than two or three bumper stickers on it, they are usually liberal-themed. Do this the next time you are driving around: Spot a car with lots of bumper stickers, get a little closer and see if they are lefty bumper stickers. My research over that past weeks tells me that 75% of the time they are lefty liberal things.. What is it about liberals and their damn bumper stickers? Is it because their philosophy can be containted in short phrases? And why is it that lefties feel they need to advertise their anti-(insert right wing policy here) stance on the back of their car? Could it be that the righties aren't creative enough to come up with catchy phrases that can sum up their political beliefs so succinctly? I know you all know what I mean. There's the "bake sale for a battleship" one, the various greenpeace ones, the myriad of anti-Bush ones, etc. Often times you'll see Phish window art to complement the liberal bumper stickers. What's the deal with that? Are all Phish fans liberal? There's also the "Support our Troops" ribbon things, which are really magnets. The magnets, IMHO, signify a much weaker dedication to supporting our troops than a stick-on product. The stickers are much more permanent, and show a REAL dedication to whatever cause you choose to display on the back of your car. Anyone else notice this? Damn liberals and their bumper stickers! Friggin ruining america and polluting the thoughts of anyone who is close enough to read them.

Hard for me to say if I hate my job. I guess I don't hate it, but I don't love it. There are parts I like, but parts I don't like. I like it much more than being unemployed, though. I didn't like that. Kodak eliminated my department in fall of 2003 and I didn't work for 6 months. That sucked.

Do you do porn or something?

Holy crap. I go away for a few days and look what happens. All I'm saying is that quite a few people are dying at the hands of terrorists. I'm not saying that Iraq is worse off. I'm speaking about the war on terror, not the added benefit of Saddam being overthrown. Saddam being overthrown is a good thing. 12K people dying at the hands of idiots is not. Situations can have both good and bad. All I'm saying is that we are not winning the war on terror. Do people understand that it's OK to think that Iraq is better off than before, yet we are still losing the war on terror? One of the very frustrating things about this board and all of America is the inability to take a view of something that isn't black or white. Example: Liberals think GWB can do nothing right. Republicans think he can do no wrong. Screwball. Yes, I shouldn't have called someone a mongoloid for making an idiotic post. I should just state that the post and point of view was stupid. My bad.

Let's be civil here. The situation in Iraq, despite the freedom we are bringing the citizens, is not one that indicates that we are "winning the war on terror." The number of innocent deaths at the hands of these sickos is rising, and it isn't getting better. That's all I'm saying.

Unicef wouldn't "estimate" anything incorrectly, either. Take ALL stats with a bucket of salt. Disclaimer: Saddam was a bad man. He deserves to die. He should have died in 1992 at the hands of our soldiers. He exploited oil-for-food with the help of our "allies". I'm disputing none of this. My only point is that we are not winning the war on terror.

Good Lord. Please don't be a mongoloid.

Get real. There are plenty terrorists from ouside the country, but many are Iraqis. State your sources regarding your "fact". I'll wait patiently.

Amazing how many people divert attention from the topic of my post. The "Yes, but ..." answers are amazing. Never did I say that saddam wasn't worthy of his fate, and that he wasn't a bad man. All I said was that the situation is a major cluster!@#$ of which our brilliant minds in washington hardly expected. I'm sure many Iraqis will eventually be better off. But remember, this is not only an attempt at bringing freedom to Iraqi people, but also an attempt to get rid of Saddam's WMDs, and end the threat of terror in the world. To me, 12K people dying (and the numbers are increasing in frequency) is not a sign of success. The point is civilians are being killed. Still. The point of a war on terror is to reduce that number. It's not happening. A shame, in my mind. I said nothing about our troops, the dumbass and oft-repeated mantra that "Freedom isn't free." Think for yourselves folks. Rid your minds of "Four legs good, two legs bad." Everything isn't coming up roses. This isn't some dumbass liberal anti-war post. It's an attempt to bring to light a few facts, and if you folks don't want to look at some actual numbers, you are doing yourselves a disservice.

According to story (below) 12,000 citizens killed in past 18 months. Fox News Story I don't know how you can call this winning the war on terror. It's not stopping. It's getting worse. How does the Bush administration say that we are winning the war on terror when so many innocent lives are now being extinguished? That said, these pigs who kill their own people are sickening. How can you kill innocent civilians like that? Disgusting immoral pigs.

I play World of Warcraft way too much, too.

Was it over when the germans bombed Pearl Harbor? But seriously, you are right. It's time for a little positive thought around here. One gets sick of all the negative stuff that certain folks are so fond of.

I'll listen if I can figure out a way to only listen to Jimbo and ignore Rome the tool. Rome is a dork, and all the wannabe morons who call in just to sound like him are tools as well.

I didn't want to say anything, but ....

Agree 95%. That's nuts for his age, but he's gotta learn that it's not HOW MANY notes you play, it's WHAT notes you play. All that kid really did is switch between modes/scales and went up and down, then down then up, added a few taps, did some sweeps and that's it. Impressive for his age, but that's about it. I think Eddie's stuff has stood the test of time, it's just that it was brought down a level by the dumbass crap that Roth & Hagar did over his brilliant guitar stuff. That's the 5% I disagree with.