19 posts • joined 11 Oct 2007
For me, tarted-up social networking is not something that equates to an enjoyable consumer experience.
Quite a lengthy one this, but it raises some important points (sort of):
Before I get started I don't have a problem with hunting for the pot - everyone has to eat - and regardless of what many have told me I still think most animals are mighty tasty...Especially some of the cute ones, like lambs and rabbits and ducks.
What's more if the animal comes wrapped in cheese and a sesame seed bun, or better yet, breadcrumbs - brilliant.
The closest I've ever come to hunting is fishing, and although I've never caught a fish in my life, I did use a priest (a kosh basically) on a trout that had been caught, and the results were delicious.
I also think that trekking through beautiful countryside, and tracking these animals sounds like lots of fun.
Yet, I couldn't help but chuckle at some of Rob's, or should I say Predator's, comments about the mighty deer: who is faster, smarter, more handsome, articulate, whose diary is full of influential and wealthy connections, not to mention the phone numbers of catwalk models.
All that stands between the deer and world domination is a species that evolved opposable thumbs, and invented so much crap that it only has to deal with the challenge of actually hunting something for funzies.
If, Predator, you had said: "All this outdoor pursuing stuff is great fun and makes my willy move in my pants a bit," it would have added far more weight to your point.
The only challenge involved with hunting is the one you create for yourself by choosing to go hunting in the first place. Like any sport really, and just as prone to gratuitous levels of hyperbole.
Some people could probably detail the skillset required to successfully put a ship in a bottle, for instance.
When it comes to killing animals, don't be so quick to talk down to people with interests that don't centre on blood sports, because that's all hunting is: a hobby, not survival, not some elemental struggle between man and beast, because man has already won that one.
Just say you enjoy it - you're entitled to your opinion.
Now to undo it all with a little personal message from yours truly to those that hunt but don't take any meat: The size of the head on your wall above your mantlepiece doesn't correspond to the size of the head on the end of your penis: You were born at the top of the food chain, and you're very clever.
"Now Mr. cow, would you prefer to be a burger or a sausage?"
"Excellent. Smythe, make with the electrodes."
Holy crap - why does every story have to be taken to its most extreme conclusion?! Whoops, there now follows flame after flame about the need to get to the crux of the issue, even if it means cobbling together the last hundred years of human history - on an IT Website. It's alright, below follows some excellent hypocrisy on my part:
The most reasonable argument I have seen here so far was from someone who reminded us that people have responsibilities as well as rights.
If you want me to go into it a bit further (which I know you all love), that logic applies to anything, and I do mean anything.
If it swings too far one way, you would have morbidly obese people (another favourite Reg comments subject) suing McDonald's because they're so hideously fat, which I realise has happened before.
If it swings too far the other way, you have morbidly obese people being refused medical treatment for their fatness because they allowed themselves to get hideously fat.
What is needed is balance, people. And the million dollar/euro/pound/yen (sorry, didn't want to offend anyone) question is: Who decides where the balance lies?
And if by some miracle the masses end up deciding (apologies for being so idealistic), then they've got no grounds to complain if it all goes tits up!
In the case of the original Nazis (and here's where my 'C' in A-level history comes into its own), despite the ground swell of support the National Socialist Party had by the early thirties, the Nazis swept to power, with Hitler being appointed chancellor in 1933, without winning a majority vote.
Incidentally, the brown shirts first won the war on the streets by giving their commie opposition a proper kicking.
Now for my opinion (and this is just my opinion, of course): You can't ignore Nazis - because they certainly aren't ignoring you - so lets all get together and give them a right good shit kicking. It'll be fun.
What a quagmire
On the one hand you've got a bunch of nasty right-wing types who doubtless advocate a return to fascist politics complete with an obsession with anti-semitism that makes 'eff-all sense to any rational person.
On the other hand you've got a bunch of militant left-wing types willing to break the law and use violence in its bid to see these fascist groups wiped out, some of which would also like to see capitalism brought to an end through radical social change via class struggle.
So what you've got is two vastly opposed extreme political movements who rely on physical presence and intimidation to achieve their goals, and what's happened is one of them hacked the other one's forum and put the information online.
I think in this case it is in the public's interest to know who is a closet Nazi, so this time I'm going to give the points to the Antifas.
Also, because they acted outside the law, there's less pressure on the police to condone the actions of a bunch of commies.
So the goose-stepping morons are exposed without the state first having to impose the sort of draconian laws we're all afraid of - therefore I personally think Joe Everyman has come out on top this time.
RE: Roger Pearse - you are living in cloud freakin' cuckoo land if you think no-one believes in Naziism (sic) anymore. While it doesn't enjoy the mass support it did during the thirties, the movement is scarily alive and well, underground, and spread all across Europe and the U.S.
Now all I need is for Santa to bring me a Glock and the Easter Bunny to give me a bayonet and I'll have the whole set.
Mine's the one with the kevlar dog collar.
RE: Matt Bryant
Before you go accusing me of being prejudiced, note that I was referring to anywhere in the world, not just the USA - try doing the reading without moving your lips - to quote some witty chap you may know.
Oh, and you wanted some facts, didn't you? Ok, here you are:
Gun homicide rate per 100,000 people each year:
USA - 3.92
England and Wales - 0.10
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, from the most recent year available, via gun-control-network.org
Now there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, so I won't go relying too much on them, but I was pleased to find a source that was neither the UK Home Office nor the US Department of Justice.
Still, what these particular figures indicate is that statistically you are more likely to be killed by a gun in the US, than in England and/or Wales.
Is your travel insurance friend aware of this?
All this aside, I've been to the USA (albeit pre-9/11 by about a month, and I don't know how much life in the country has changed since then, if at all) and I can honestly say I didn't feel any less safe than I do in the U.K., although seeing hunting rifles for sale in WalMart creeped me out a bit.
Shock and outrage
Speaking as a Brit living in London, I am proud that we have a ban on handguns - it means that every shooting, whether it's a criminal or the police firing the guns, comes under the public scrutiny it deserves.
I'd hate myself if I was confronted with a news story of someone being shot at and I thought, "Everyone's carrying them, so what else is new?" Instead of, "Holy shit, that's terrible, how did this happen?!"
I despair at the thought of living in a society where it is generally accepted that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens can be tooled up - and I'm not just talking about the USA - I include any country where that can happen.
Weapons, whether they are guns, knives, billy clubs, or tasers are not the tools of a civilised society, and if your answer to that question (regardless of where you come from and that includes the UK) is, "our society isn't civilised," then congratulations on your self-damning indictment, now will you kindly piss off.
As much as I'm a fan of Mr. Bale's movies I can't help but think that if James Cameron's role ends up being anything short of director then this trilogy is already in serious jeopardy.
T1 & T2 - Incredibly good fun to watch, two of my favourite films.
T3 - Total sh*t.
Aliens - One of my favourite films.
Alien 3 - Why did they feature weird convict monks instead of Colonial Marines?
Alien: Resurrection - Mental cloned Ripley with mad basketball skillz and space pirates. F*ck off.
Titanic - Get to see Kate Winslet's norks, Leonardo DiCaprio's character dies, but film takes away three hours of your life so probably not worth it.
The bottom line is if you want to see a decent crack at homicidal robots and nuclear armageddon you need Cameron directing, a psychotic looking Arnie, and if you can find room for Michael Biehn (Kyle Reese/ Corporal Hicks), you're definitely onto a winner.
A couple of my favourites
Helmet: "I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former room-mate."
Lone Starr "What's that make us?"
Helmet: "Absolutely nothing!"
From Spaceballs: The Movie
"Violence is the ultimate authority, from which all other authorities are derived."
From Starship Troopers.
Is it wrong that I have that last quote memorised?
Paris because most of the time she's on another planet.
Me Grimlock King!
I thought the Transformers remake was excellent - it was exactly what it needed to be: Stupid. If they had tried to do the kind of shit they've been doing with other remakes, ie, tried to make it 'gritty' and 'real', then it would have fallen flat on its face.
If you just relax, and refrain from saying poncy phrases like, "Oh, Kurosawa wouldn't have done it like that", then you might have actually enjoyed the slap-stick, dumb gags, criminal puns, and giant robot shit-kicking action.
It's a pantomime, not an opera - deal with it.
One more thing: Why are people shocked there is product placement in this movie? It's a film based on a cartoon which was essentially a vehicle to sell toys to kids - It's just the cartoon's live action big brother, and all the kids have grown up and are now aspiring to own Camaros instead.
Bring on Unicron, Dinobots and Megatron resurrected as Galvatron for the sequel!
I believe it was Kipling who said...
If you can keep your head when that drunk bloke with the handgun is losing theirs and blaming it on booze...
To think he was a poet as well as a maker of exceedingly good cakes. Kipling, that is, not the Darwin award nominee.
Mine's the one made out of Kevlar, thanks.
Just kidding, although if the protoype from Robocop had been given a bit more screen time I'm sure it could have done some serious damage, instead of the impromptu 'executive board reshuffle' at the end.
Great to see the lightsabre taking top-spot!
I agree about the M41A, if only for the sound that sucker makes!
Someone mentioned him earlier, but I think he deserves another shout: Ash, by the end of Evil Dead 2, is a weapon.
Also, I'm very disappointed about the lack of any General Electric M134 7.62mm miniguns (I'm also a Robert Rankin fan). They are definitely more awesome than an M16 with an underslung M203 grenade launcher, even if one of them is being used liberally by Al Pacino.
Finally, all you Newton-afficionadoes need to remind yourself of the big fat disclaimer at the beginning of every Star Wars movie. It's: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." NOT: "In a few year's time, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology..." you plonkers.
If TV has taught me anything...
... it's that Aliens, no matter how advanced their technology, only know how to communicate by putting blunt metal instruments into your backside. So forget sending radio waves, lets just go straight for the intersteller nukes, yeah?
"F*ck off, you climb up the f*cking beanstalk if you love it so f*cking much." I like to think he was drunk.
Something fishy going on
I agree with Bob. It seems like a bit of a big risk to sabotage a ship conveying the Soviet premier in the middle of the fecking cold war.
Plus the politicians and diplomats in London might be a little peeved - they've convinced the leader of the enemy into travelling to your country to hold talks, then some annoying little bugger blows him up on his way home.
The fallout from such a move would probably be nuclear.
I should have been his lawyer
"But your honour, it's a mountin' bike.."
Smell the glove
Have you ever heard a sea shanty? All pirates care about is rum, scurvy and doubloons. Oh, and being notorious and infamous and whatnot. Do business with them at your own risk. Y'aarr!
Terminator: The Musical!
I get the feeling there's going to be a very large James Cameron-shaped hole in this production. Without him directing, this upcoming raft of titles featuring psychotic killing machines with rich, Germanic accents is likely to be an entirely limp affair, with none of the intensity and balls-out action of the first two.
I mean, the nutter also directed The Abyss and Aliens - the latter of which still has the capacity to scare the living piss out of me to this day.
Also, action movies like this aren't gory and violent enough these days. Hollywood chumps realised the age of people who could afford to go to the cinema was going down, so they started making movies that would at least scrape a 12 certificate (I'm from the UK, films are classified a bit differently) or be guaranteed a 15 so as to capture the largest possible audience.
So what we've ended up with are tame shit-flicks like T3 and AVP that reel in the kids, and piss off the grown-ups.
Think back to the '80s and early '90s, when going to the movies was something adults did more often, then think of the frankly awesome violent action movies we had:
First Blood, and all the Rambo stuff
Mad Max films
Anything featuring Chuck Norris
And those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.