The following post has been composed partly by mind altering substances on a bench in a park whiches name has been forgotten:
Imagine a nightmare world in which everyone you know, and you, has a strong opinion on the ending of 1993 anime Neon Genesis Evangeliom. Imagine living this horror, every day, for the rest of your life. Imagine... being Tzetze.
the bubbles are in exactly the wrong order. the bird/raven/thing should should say "I know" above "And for that I'm sincerely sorry" but does not. the words are in the wrong order. the "And for that" or rather the "I know" does not make sense except after the "And for that". I am so confused by this bubbling. It's seriously fucking me up. The comic is competent. It has lines which correspond to imaginary projections into two dimensions of imaginal three dimensional objects. The lines so correspond well. But the bubbles do not corresspond to the temporal order of speech. Aha hah ha h ha. The light and darkness above and I stare at the street light and see a halo although there is no nonlinear effect in this luminiferous decay. Source: Witch (checks) (Witchy Comic) (Witchy Comic Dot Com)
wait. no, if you replace "fam" by "y'all" in my use it works. holy shit. i can use words.
listen: here is my thought process: "If I use enough words, and backspace and replace errors when I misspell so that the words that appear on their screens aren't misspelled, they won't know I'm drunk enough to refer to myself masturbating to cameras recording in situ squid rape"
Because I was pretty drunk (I am now only "kinda drunk") and when somebody decides to write on me while I'm pretty drunk I pretty much just go with it. I think I suggested the exact text, though, since it's Fisher-Price.
The Scholastic Harry Potter covers are better than the Bloomsbury ones. They're more consistent, and I think the stylized look is more suited to the series than the semi-realistic style most of the English covers have.
That being said, the true title of the first book is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Don't let any silly American publisher tell you otherwise.
The Scholastic Harry Potter covers are better than the Bloomsbury ones. They're more consistent, and I think the stylized look is more suited to the series than the semi-realistic style most of the English covers have.
That being said, the true title of the first book is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Don't let any silly American publisher tell you otherwise.
CONTROVERSIAL OPINION ABOVE
do people seriously like those goofy original covers
This thread alone went on for about two pages about it, then tried to link him as a puppet of AlphaOmegaSin or whatever. Then he was featured in a video that was shared in the thread about "manbabies" hating the new Ghostbusters. Even though James didn't even bring up the gender aspect as a problem with the movie. Much like most of the other negative reviews. Compare this to the recent Star Wars. The Force Awakens was an amazing movie and great revival to a stagnant franchise that boosted the representation of women and minorities in lead roles. Abrams has always argued for diversity quotas when casting his projects - this goes all the way back to Lost (which I'm still an apologist for, ashamedly). I also have immense respect for Abrams because he admits when he's wrong - he apologized about overusing lens flares, he admitted that putting Alice Eve in her underwear in Star Trek: Into Darkness was sexist and unnecessary, and he's been very receptive to the criticisms of TFA. Paul Feig, on the other hand, routinely doubles down when faced with criticism, and clearly doesn't understand the process of filmmaking as much as Abrams (in spite of the latter's many faults and palpable Spielberg-envy). Diversity in film is a serious issue. Tokenism is a serious issue. People decrying films with diverse casts as "pandering" or "bowing to the PC police" is an issue. There's no reason Ghostbusters can't have four female leads. The first one had four male leads. It's great that these talented women can find work and exposure in an industry dominated by men. And yet the still deserve better than this. And y'all are fooling yourselves if you don't think a ruthless corporation like Sony can co-opt feminist criticism to use as a bludgeoning cudgel to market a mediocre movie. It's the same shit as "Escape From Tomorrow" claiming that it's the "movie Disney doesn't want you to see!" They were feeding imaginary controversy for publicity. Did they end up attracting the ire of a bunch of shithead MRAs like Aurini and such? Sure. Fuck those guys. Fuck their misogyny. At the end of the day, what you're left with is a shitty movie and a bunch of manufactured drama that captivated two extreme sides for free publicity.
Brexit was also a massive disaster that has tanked segments of the British economy and could splinter the UK within a few years, so it's not exactly something one is *irrationally* upset by.
Comments
Imagine a nightmare world in which everyone you know, and you, has a strong opinion on the ending of 1993 anime Neon Genesis Evangeliom. Imagine living this horror, every day, for the rest of your life. Imagine... being Tzetze.
This fall, in the kidneyless void.
this is fucking me up fam (what is fam) (unclear)
the bubbles are in exactly the wrong order. the bird/raven/thing should should say "I know" above "And for that I'm sincerely sorry" but does not. the words are in the wrong order. the "And for that" or rather the "I know" does not make sense except after the "And for that". I am so confused by this bubbling. It's seriously fucking me up. The comic is competent. It has lines which correspond to imaginary projections into two dimensions of imaginal three dimensional objects. The lines so correspond well. But the bubbles do not corresspond to the temporal order of speech. Aha hah ha h ha. The light and darkness above and I stare at the street light and see a halo although there is no nonlinear effect in this luminiferous decay. Source: Witch (checks) (Witchy Comic) (Witchy Comic Dot Com)
wait. no, if you replace "fam" by "y'all" in my use it works. holy shit. i can use words.
listen: here is my thought process: "If I use enough words, and backspace and replace errors when I misspell so that the words that appear on their screens aren't misspelled, they won't know I'm drunk enough to refer to myself masturbating to cameras recording in situ squid rape"
i think i'm sobering up. pretty sad, if you think about it. I still have this written on my arm.
Here is an actual digital photograph of my real, pasty bloodless arm, so that you can see both a piece of my overall appearance and to what I refer.
y
c
l
u
m
s
y
g
i
r
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
g
o
t
n
t
r
e
d
!
!
Compare this to the recent Star Wars. The Force Awakens was an amazing movie and great revival to a stagnant franchise that boosted the representation of women and minorities in lead roles. Abrams has always argued for diversity quotas when casting his projects - this goes all the way back to Lost (which I'm still an apologist for, ashamedly). I also have immense respect for Abrams because he admits when he's wrong - he apologized about overusing lens flares, he admitted that putting Alice Eve in her underwear in Star Trek: Into Darkness was sexist and unnecessary, and he's been very receptive to the criticisms of TFA. Paul Feig, on the other hand, routinely doubles down when faced with criticism, and clearly doesn't understand the process of filmmaking as much as Abrams (in spite of the latter's many faults and palpable Spielberg-envy).
Diversity in film is a serious issue. Tokenism is a serious issue. People decrying films with diverse casts as "pandering" or "bowing to the PC police" is an issue. There's no reason Ghostbusters can't have four female leads. The first one had four male leads. It's great that these talented women can find work and exposure in an industry dominated by men. And yet the still deserve better than this. And y'all are fooling yourselves if you don't think a ruthless corporation like Sony can co-opt feminist criticism to use as a bludgeoning cudgel to market a mediocre movie. It's the same shit as "Escape From Tomorrow" claiming that it's the "movie Disney doesn't want you to see!" They were feeding imaginary controversy for publicity. Did they end up attracting the ire of a bunch of shithead MRAs like Aurini and such? Sure. Fuck those guys. Fuck their misogyny. At the end of the day, what you're left with is a shitty movie and a bunch of manufactured drama that captivated two extreme sides for free publicity.
I log onto the Heapers' Hangout
I see this
I log the fuck out
sorry fam I'm going to have fun irl today y'all can do this without me
If a thing bothers one person and not another, who is to say what is acceptable to complain about.
Is it a numbers thing, where if many people are bothered but not the one, it is okay to complain, but if one is bothered and not the many, it is not?
Who arbitrates what wrongs are worth being upset about and incessantly talking all the dang time about?
it bothered me a lot and i am still worried
idk, did we really go on about it that much?
They also call attention to how shitty the logos for major consumer brands tend to look outside of packaging