Messages

[Grim Fandango]

If you liked Grim Fandango
you might enjoy Pan's Labyrinth.

I'm pretty psyched to see Pan's Labyrinth, but now you've made me pee me pants in anticipation.

It was okay. Well-made and a good reversal of the original (instead of war, they make love).

My big gripe, though not so much directed at this, is that most parodies I've seen in the last year are usually "get two characters from such-and-such movie, make them gay for each other and play the Brokeback Mountain theme". And after watching so many of those parodies, the whole DID YOU REALISE JOKES ABOUT BUTTSECKS thing becomes tired and worn-out.

Like Batman's penis.

[Pointy haired guy:]

Funny, there was a Dilbert comic about that.
Pointy haired guy: We're going to release Anti-Virus software. What do you think?
Sadistic personal chief: Hm... we're going to release viruses which only our software can spot?
Pointy haired guy: Funny. Exactly what I thought.

Dilbert sucks.

Your main point (whatever the hell that was, I had trouble reading it through all the crazy) is based on a lot of speculation and a couple of Dan Brown novels. And they're the same old points that every conspiracy nut is talking about, how George W Hitler is trying to take over the world and how Dick Cheney personally flew both planes on 9/11 and Donald Rumsfeld wants all your base to belong to him.

But why not actually provide something with a bit of substance?

What I object to are governments reading mail. Confidential mail. Reading e-mail and opening postal mail without a warrant (just a few days after the clocks ticked over to 2007, Bush claimed new powers to open mail without a judge's warrant under a new postal reform bill). Likewise for phone calls.

Not only that, I don't like the US president willy-nilly deciding who's an enemy combatant because, under current laws, anyone can be an enemy according to him. Even if you don't violate an actual law!

I also don't like that the US government killed off habeas corpus, so you have no recourse if you're been unlawfully imprisoned by the US.

All of which are issues that have been discussed at length by professionals and industry specialists over the last year. They are things that are actually happening and are fact.

Try focusing on the awful things the government is actually doing to limit your freedom and privacy, and not the things that might/might not be happening.


Hey I made it through a whole post without swearing! Where's my parade?!

iPhone looks good, but I recently heard that Apple got sued by Sisco (I think that's how it's spelt) Systems for using Sisco's iPhone trademark. Not sure if it's true or not. Did any of you guys know that?

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=29730.msg379564#msg379564

Reading threads before replying is a good rule of thumb

Everyone ignores me. I'm AGS's version of Grandpa Simpson.

I've thought about this a little and realised this: my phone already has an option to play MP3s (via SD card) and pretty much does most of the stuff iPods do. And one thing I don't like about iPods is you can't use them as external HD (from my understanding) -- I don't know if this is the same with iPhone, probably not since it has net surfing options so I['m guessing you can download stuff. But I still don't see what all the hubbub is about.

Sure, it has a lot of space. But I don't see the point if my current phone does all that iPhone offers. It seems more like they're playing catchup and hey here's a bigger HD!

Hold the phone, people. Apple is being sued by Cisco:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=211

I knew they were in negotiations prior to the unveiling, but it looks like the negotiations fell through. 

The technology seems somewhat decent. Only thing to be wary of is Apple's sole partner will be Cingular (a unit of AT&T) in a multi-year agreement. No other company will be able to sell plans with the iPhone until 2009-2010. And, from what I've heard from others, Cingular is crap.

It's how you speak Pig Latin.

Yep, right after he plants the "evidence".

All seriousness, I'll watch the cuss words.

And it would have been nice if you could PM me about it first.

I don't deny that our government had imperialist intentions for going into Iraq. But I think (I hope!) you're finally seeing the American people rejecting it as the truth has become more and more clear.

Agreed.

See, love does exist in the AGS forums!

Double agreed.

I find DG very literate and informed - for a kangaroo fucking Aussie.

watch who ya calling kangaroo fucking ya damn yankee or ill get kyle farnsworth to ram you to the ground

DGMacphee, to be honest I'm not quite sure what I've done that warrants insults and being told to fuck off. If I came across as hypocritical, condescending, and sounding like my ass is higher off the ground than everyone else, that was definitely not my intention. I have no desire to start a flame war with you or anyone else in these forums.

Okay, I'll explain: I don't like being told I'm naive about such things especially since I've been carefully watching the whole situation for the last five years. And I especially did like been told I was the one being naive about the whole situation especially when I'm being told "there's no spreading democracy or imperialism here no siree" when your own government has a fact sheet about spreading democracy in Iraq.

The point I was trying to make and my feelings on this issue are pretty much the same as Darth expressed in his last post, but in words much better than mine (and probably with a cooler head). It's hard being an American and watching the path our country has gone down these past few years while world opinion turns against us. If I had it my way, Bush wouldn't be our president right now. But as you said, as our elected leader he is the voice of our nation - and the fact that he speaks for "us" is yet another reason why many of us are so angry at him. There's really nothing for it other than to accept our mistakes, push for change, and try to make amends. That a terrible tragedy like 9/11 has been twisted into a means to further his own agenda and divide our country makes it all the more difficult. Americans are proud, and it's a hard reality to accept, but hopefully as a nation we'll rise to the task.

Good.

I really don't feel like getting into anymore of a fight about this than we already have, especially since I suspect we're basically in agreement here. What's say we let this go and move onto more "interesting" things?  * extends handshake

Okay.

/shakes hands

I'll leave you all with this, a commentary that was broadcast on the eve of our mid-term elections (if you don't feel like reading, click "Launch" on the right side of the page to start the broadcast version). You may or may not find it interesting, but I see it as hope that all is not lost.

Yep, Olbermann is great. I think he's the best news commentator alive today. And the way he shitcans Bill O'Reilly is just magical, it's gotten to the point where Bill is too scared to even say Olbermann's name on TV or radio.

So don't treat me like I'm a three year old, pal.

I wasn't actually. But that thoughtful and measured response was certainly something I might expect from one. Appreciate you just proving my point even further. Thanks!

hey how about you use sarcasm to substitute for a post with substance

oh wait you just did!

If you can't at least match up what I've said, especially the part where I showed how full of shit you are about the "spreading democracy" part, then fuck off!

I would say the only point I'm trying to get across is that we're not all blindly following the man.

Yep, I can totally concede to that. And I'm glad to hear it.

[but don't extrapolate this one case to all of American history or to all its people.]

Unfortunately we're just as capable of choosing bad leadership as any other country, so I don't see how this makes us any worse when compared to the rest of the world.

There are reasons why Bush was elected to power, but those are quite aside from the fact that he's subsequently abused that power to further his own agenda. Darth already explained why people ended up supporting the invasion of Iraq, and if you're going to conclude from that that we're war-mongering imperialists, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.

I'm not saying that most Americans are war-mongering imperialists. But I am saying that most of the officials you elected into office over the last six years are. Therefore, why should you be absolved when such elected officials are supposed to represent your interests? Isn't that the fundamental theory underpinning democracy?

And I'm not just talking Bush, I'm including both Congress and the Senate. Luckily, I feel a glimmer of hope over the next year with the new Congress and Senate, plus a United States that wants a new direction in Iraq.

I wouldn't begrudge any country a moment of national solidarity after an incident of unfathomable tragedy.

I'm all for national solidarity if it make you happy. What I disagree with is the US bullying other nations into fighting as cause that has nothing to do with them. Like Bush said, you're either for the US or against the US. What a shit decision!

I'm not trying to validate anything here. Where have I said that the things we've done are OK? Where have I shirked responsibility for what our country has done?

For example, the part where you said "Bush may be a terrible president who has abused his powers in office, but don't extrapolate this one case to all of American history or to all its people."

It's been a major part of American history and it was a decision approved and allowed by the majority of Americans. So, I think it's fair to extrapolate that to the extents you deny.

I'm trying to point out that there are real reasons underlying the things that have happened, reasons which won't be found by blindly buying into all the spin.

BWAHAHAH! I'm so surprised you say this now, especially when the real reasons underlying things happening were explained back in 2001 and 2002. But the majority of Americans supported Bush's spin (according to polls, over 90% post 9/11) such as "The terrorists hate our freedom" and "Iraq has WMDs".

Don't tell me I'm naive. I've been probably the most vocal opponent of the War in Iraq on this forum. Plus, you want to talk facts? I'm probably the one you links more references than anyone else. I study up on what's happening in American politics more so than most Americans do. And from a range of right and left wing sources.

So don't treat me like I'm a three year old, pal.

Okay consider the fact that Bush has done all these things: big tax cuts, low unemployment rate (4.4 per cent), high security, and a poverty rate that although has increased during his term is still lower than times when Bush Snr and Reagan were in power. How do you explain the majority of people against Bush's policies?

Big tax cuts: Yes, but when you start considering the national debt and burgeoning expenses from social security and Medicare, none of which he has fixed, then we're looking at a much higher tax burden in the near future.

Low unemployment rate: True, although many perceive that jobs are being lost to outsourcing. It's also true that while corporations are raking in record profits and the richest 1% or so of the nation are getting richer from said outsourcing, middle-class wages have remained stagnant. People may be working, but they're not happy.

High security: Possibly, although it appears that our personal liberties are being jeopardized in the process. And a study showing that the Iraq war has actually made us less safe suggests that Bush's "war on terror" isn't working after all. (If that link doesn't work, try this one.)

Poverty rate: As you mentioned, going up. Nobody cares what it was 5, 10, or 100 years ago. During Bush's term it's gone up.

I mean, c'mon, people care about those things and they're all related to Iraq/War on Terror.

Yes, people care about the war because it impacts their life. They care because of the reasons I've mentioned and also because people they know are dying or coming home maimed. Not for some vague notion of empire or "spreading democracy" to foreign lands.

You know, it's funny that you say America isn't trying to "spread democracy" to foreign lands because I looked up the White House website and low and behold there's a fact sheet from December 2005 all about bringing democracy to Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-1.html

Just in case you missed that link...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-1.html

My favourite part is this:

"The United States Is Helping Iraqis Build Inclusive Democratic Institutions That Will Protect The Interests Of All The Iraqi People. By helping Iraqis build a democracy, America will win over those who doubted they had a place in the new Iraq, and we will undermine the terrorists and Saddamists, gain an ally in the War on Terror, inspire reformers across the Middle East, and make the American people more secure. Democracy takes different forms in different cultures, but successful free societies are built on common foundations of rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, a free economy, and freedom of worship."

Oh yeah, and this part:

Democracy In Iraq Will Inspire A Region And Help Defeat An Enemy. When the new government takes office next year, Iraqis will have the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world, and Americans will have a partner for peace and moderation in the Middle East. People across the broader Middle East are drawing inspiration from Iraq's progress, and the terrorists' most powerful myth is being destroyed.

Hahahaha, isn't that funny? Because that was over A YEAR AGO in Dec 05.
And America still hasn't made a partner for peace in Iraq. Instead, they've plunged the country in a civil war! Like, their interest in going to war in Iraq was self-serving but now it's bit them on the arse? Isn't that freaking hilarious? And it's pretty much what I predicted would happen back in 2003.

oh I love being right all the time, time to do my victory dance UNNHHG PELVIC THRUST UNNHHG UNNHGG

I guess what I'm saying is if you seriously think the US wasn't been attempting imperialism in the Middle East or "spreading democracy" over the last few years, you might want to check your government's website first.

See, I remember this stuff because I saw with my own two fucking eyes Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld talking about spreading democracy back when the Iraq War was popular.

And you call me naive?? HAHAHAHAHAH!

Bush may be a terrible president who has abused his powers in office, but don't extrapolate this one case throughout all of American history or to all its people.

Yeah, just extrapolate that to the 22 per cent of the total population who voted for him and the 58 per cent of the total population who sat around apathetically not voting. Altogether that's 80 per cent. It's a good thing we still have that other 20 per cent who didn't vote for him. Yeah, they can deny responsibility over this.

I guess you can criticize us (or at least those that voted for him) for electing him as the president, but the last time I checked, sovereign nations don't require the approval of the rest of world about which leader they choose. We're certainly not the first country to have brought an unpopular leader to power, and I doubt we'll be the last, so I'm not sure how that makes us worse than anyone else.

How hypocritical! You say no other country should judge you for electing an unpopular leader when your country's government goes ahead and removes an unpopular leader (Saddam) from a country you have no sovereignty over. (Until you invaded it of course) And the majority of US citizens approved of the war at the time!

I mean, Christ, let's not white wash the hypocrisy here. It's imperialism any way you look at it.

Likewise, you say other countries shouldn't chest-thump when that's exactly what most Americans did in the lead-up and during the Iraq War. All that flag waving and "NEVA 4GET" and blah blah blah in the name of not letting the terrorists win?

Quite frankly, there's so much hypocrisy in what you say that it disappoints me you're trying to validate everything that has happened over the last few years.

Frankly, most Americans could care less what goes on outside our borders, and with the exception of our soldiers that are dying there, this even goes for Iraq. Most people just care about making a decent living, paying less taxes, and doing so in relative safety.

Okay consider the fact that Bush has done all these things: big tax cuts, low unemployment rate (4.4 per cent), high security, and a poverty rate that although has increased during his term is still lower than times when Bush Snr and Reagan were in power.

How do you explain the majority of people against Bush's policies? That's 50-60 per cent of people during the last month!

Not to mention the domestic issues like the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretap program, the Valerie Plame affair, the death of habeas corpus, the blacklisting of people like Cindy Sheehan and Jeremy Glick, the deficit, dependence of foreign oil... I mean, c'mon, people care about those things and they're all related to Iraq/War on Terror.

I think you're mistaken.  That's Steve Carel with a beard!!  Seriously ... use your thumb and cover up from the nose down.  That looks just like him!!  I wonder if he's a virgin?

Yeah, now you mention it I look at the doll and see Carrell from Little Miss Sunshine where he had the beard. Very uncanny!

Wow, I can Nacho is pissed off, his english took a sharp decline!

Whoa, Saddam action figure is pretty buff! You sure someone didn't just get a Six Million Dollar Man action figure and draw a beard on him?

I think it's also a bit of a falacy to say American is controlled by "extremly right redneck racists". I think it's more accurate to say America is (or at least was until last year) controlled by neoconservatives.

Now you have the Democrats controlling both Houses of government, and most of the neocons who were authors of the War on Terror doctrine are now not in charge of US foreign policy or are trying to distance themselves from it. Rumsfeld resigned (AHHHH), Wolfowitz isn't involved in US Defense anymore (though he is in charge of the World bank), Richard Perle has criticised Bush in Vanity Fair... And consider the "The Project for the New American Century" is now dead.

All that has to happen now is Cheney gets involved in a self-inflicted hunting accident and I can rest easy in 2007!